Another obstruction-of-justice arrest in Marathon bombing case

Mass Live reports a Quincy man who allegedly ate dinner with the Tsarnaev brothers the night of the bombing is now under arrest.



Free tagging: 


The Religion of Peace

By on

It strikes me that he 'tempered' his views. I would wager this epiphany was probably due to a visit from law enforcement. He knew the hammer was coming down and he did all he could to evade and obstruct this investigation.
This open borders/sanctuary city stuff isn't working too well if this is what we're getting. For those of you out there that might disagree with me just consider what these people (just in case there is umbrage at the use of that phrase) did. Think of the deaths, dismemberment and terror they caused.
Consider the fact, that save one, the conspirators are Muslim. I guess some will continue to turn a blind eye to this. I know I will catch hell for it too. But I believe the facts speak for themselves.
I am interested to hear what viable solution anyone might have. I just think that our country needs to be more vigilant and selective about who we allow in.

hahaha this is great

By on

hahaha this is great considering a kid born and raised in this country killed six people a week ago. Not to mention Adam Lanza, Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, and on and on and on

But yeah foreigners are the real problem I guess, thanks for the warning buddy

elliot rodgers was born in the UK

By on

of a British father and ethnic Chinese Malasian mother.

Besides your point is silly amd meaningless.

What do DOJ and FBI statistics say about murders and violent crime in the U.S.?

Silly and meaningless how?

By on

Silly and meaningless how? You need to back up your position, just saying something is silly and meaningless doesn't magically make it so.

All you anons look the same to me

By on

Okay, the anon before you was noting that the anon before that said that Eliot Rogers was born in the US, when he wasn't. Therefore, anon 2 back's statement was false.

Start of your problem

By on

Here's the start of your problem: How do you know this guy did any of the things they claim he did? You've already assumed him guilty. He's alleged to have done these things, but that's not proof. It's why he's headed to court now instead of straight to prison.

Think about why it might be that you have already assigned him guilt and you might find a start to why your conclusion that we need better filters is faulty.

To Paraphrase Ari Gold

By on

"I come from a place where if you've been accused of doing something, there's a pretty good chance you've done something wrong."

Yeah I'm sure the feds have

By on

Yeah I'm sure the feds have been putting this case together for a year for no reason.

Doesn't follow

By on

I didn't say they don't have a case or any reason to be mad at this guy. Although, it seems to me that what they're mad about is the bit of a goose chase he's put them through and when they came out the other side, they had no evidence he'd been part of the conspiracy to bomb the they threw tampering with evidence and false statements at him to get *something* out of their time and effort.

be more vigilant and selective about who we allow in

By on

I agree, I don't think we should allow ignorant a-holes like you in. Worse shit happens around the world daily, including in the US. There was just a mass killing in California, guess what, non-muslim. Sandy hook? Oklahoma City?

As I said when this happened, you can't fight a war on terror for 10 years and not expect a little kick back every once in a while. If there's anyone you should be mad at and trying to kick out of the country it's George Bush, Dick Cheney.

You're right, it's no ones

By on

You're right, it's no ones fault, certainly not the guys who have made billions off of a wild goose chase. It's definitely not the fault of the two guys who still get accused of war crimes regularly, including by their own counter terrorism leader Richard Clarke just this week.


By on

Would your solution to Sandy Hook and CA be to ban guns?

It's obviously to round up

By on

It's obviously to round up all the white people. I mean, if the solution to terrorism is to round up all the Muslims, isn't that the logical conclusion?


By on

Mine would be guns can't be stored in the home, especially handguns. You can have all the guns you want in a licensed facility for target shooting/storage. You want to take out a gun for target shooting elsewhere or hunting - sign it out with a record of where you are taking it. Won't prevent all suicides, accidents or murders, but will probably dramatically cut down on the American bloodbath. Four times as many Americans are killed by guns EVERY year as have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. It's almost the equivalent of a 9/11 every month.

Yeah, yeah, second amendment. But the government also has an obligation to secure our welfare. There's a need for balance and I think external storage is a step in that direction. Very un-libertarian of me so quite out of character, but I'm kind of tired of seeing distraught parents on TV every other night.

An opposing view

By on

There is a guy in my neighborhood who has spent the past few years in jail after horribly stalking one of my neighbors and trying to hit her with his car. At his trial, he got mad at the judge and tried to jump over the table to get to the bench.

He's back in the neighborhood and he's already had several run-ins with residents. He only goes after single women and I happen to be single. Before he went away, he didn't do anything to me so I could get a restraining order but I found out later that I should have gotten an anti-harassment order because of the way he acted towards me.

When I went to apply for my mace permit and explained why I wanted one, the police department got agitated because they know this guy and know that he is still dangerous.

I am generally anti-gun. But if he starts threatening me again, I'll consider changing my views on the subject.

Molen Labe

By on

As far as regulating the guns of law obeying free Americans I'll quote a Greek Saying used throughout history when government tried to confiscate the weapons of free people: "Molen Labe". Translation: 'Come and take them/Try and take them".

The real question

By on

The odds your gun will be used in a murder/suicide/accident to kill someone outnumber the odds you will kill someone in self defense literally over 100:1.

The real question is "Why would you want one? Why?"

And nobody's taking them. We are just putting them in a safe place.

More phony data

By on

You lose all credibility when you put forth phony, made up data like this. And you will not be putting my gun anyplace pal. On that you can be absolutely sure.

Face facts scooby doo

By on

Some 30,000 people a year die at the business end of a gun (suicides, murders, accidents).

About 250 of those are "justifiable homicide" by gun - self defense - and I believe a good number of those are police in the line of duty.

You are right - my stat is wrong. It's not 100:1. It's 120:1. I rounded.

they cause that carnage because they are in your home which the numbers above prove is obviously not a safe place.

Making up more phony data

By on

Check FBI Stats: Far more people defend their lives with guns each year than commit crimes, suicides and accidents. If you are doing the research you either know this to be true and you are lying or you are just too dumb to see the truth. From the sound of your posts, it actually could be both..


Where are these stats? Stevil provided his. Your turn to provide actual citations.

I did check the FBI

By on

The FBI have 2010 as having 210 justifiable homicides using a gun by a citizen versus 8,275 criminal gun homicides. About 40:1. That's not counting suicides or accidents.

If we're just talking protective behavior (defending property/person), the annual average is around 68,000 acts per year from 2007 to 2011. However, there's no numbers provided for how many times a criminal acted with a gun to threaten property/person. I'd have to guess if there were 8,000 homicides with a gun then the number of offensive actions is much higher than that.

In other words, Scoob, you've got it backwards.


OK, ow I see the problem

By on

Ok Kaz, I finally realized why we're not on the same page here with these 'stats'. I now know the degree of cluelessness I'm dealing with when conversing with you. The benefit of a gun for protection is first and foremost a deterrent. Now, go back and look up the statistics, only this time check what they say about the literally hundreds of thousands of times -every year, a firearm is used to stop an attack and save a life from an attacker. You'll find that just the sight of an armed citizen brandishing his legal firearm to ward of an attacker stops that attacker more than 90% of the time. These stats are also kept on file; at least the ones that are reported. There are possibly many more that go unreported. The goal of one's firearm is to save lives as it is used to defend one's self and family from assault. The actual shooting of an attacker is the ;last resort. Hopefully, even you can understand this. I realize that most liberal/lefty/progressives are weak in the common sense department and are often blinded by their fantasyland type ideology. But do your best to learn more about the real world and you'll be much safer as you go through life. Andyet again; Molen Labe

Prove it.

The benefit of a gun for protection is first and foremost a deterrent.

Just. Effing. Prove. It.

Data. Facts. Evidence. Analysis. or STFU.


By on

Now, go back and look up the statistics, only this time check what they say about the literally hundreds of thousands of times -every year, a firearm is used to stop an attack and save a life from an attacker.

68,000. Per year. I did look it up. I even typed it here for you, twice now. Click the link and read it for yourself.

You are always on thin ice

By on

When Kaz, Swirly and Stevil are on the same page against you -because we disagree out here on almost everything (and more politely recently which is a good thing-and I'm not sure Swirly is agreeing as much as saying prove your case better because I know she shoots and owns guns - as did I many years ago).

Hey - my argument would start with where you are. This is not a conclusion I came to lightly and one thing Kaz, Swirly and I will definitely agree on is that I am no screaming liberal by anyone's definition.

I believe you are referring to the Kleck study which is about 20 years old and shown to be pretty much a joke. I believe there are about 500,000 total assaults with firearms. According to the Kleck report it takes 2.5 million gun defenses to fend off those 500,000 attacks. The number is ridiculous. If that were the case basically every family in America would have a personal example of thwarting a criminal with a gun when in fact the number is quite small.

Kaz' numbers are closer to the reliable figures I've seen estimating 68,000 defenses a year. Maybe up to 100k. But those are still very "liberal" figures. for example someone responded to me that he had a personal example of needing a gun in a road rage incident. Turns out apparently he may have provoked the whole thing, I'm sure emboldened by the fact that he was carrying (legally in another state). I believe that may also include law enforcement.

In many of the cases Nancy's solution above is quite reasonable - Mace or pepper spray.

I would love to agree with you. You can make the argument on second amendment or what simply feels good. But don't use safety stats because the research is overwhelming - if you own a gun you are significantly more likely to be harmed by one than those who don't own or carry a gun. You may not get shot, but you may end up shooting yourself on purpose or by mistake. That is indisputable.

30,000, eh?

By on

Sure, let's play your game. Out of that 30,000, how many are gangbangers shooting other gangbangers, who don't give a rat's about about all those scary gun laws you're suggesting? How many are suicides that would have happened anyway? There's about a million ways one can off him/herself without a gun - grabbing a box of pills at a pharmacy is much easier than going through the process of buying a firearm. Lastly, accidents (small percentage of that 30,000, by the way) - how many die in car accident? Bike accidents? Knife accidents? Slipping and falling on a sidewalk accidents? Choking on food accidents? Should we ban all of the above and put everyone in plastic bubbles with feeding tubes to keep them safe?

PS: I'm all for banning guns outright as long as all legally-owned firearms are bought back at fair market value and we get draconian illegal gun laws that are actually enforced. Caught with a gun? No need to go through any bullshit since all guns are illegal. Ten years on the spot, no bail, no appeals, no parole, and no pony-tailed bleeding heart lawyer whining about racism and illegal arrest. Used a gun while committing a crime? Life in prison, period. How does that sound?

That isn't how it happens

There's about a million ways one can off him/herself without a gun - grabbing a box of pills at a pharmacy is much easier than going through the process of buying a firearm.

If there is a gun in the home, suicide is more likely to be attempted and completed because it is very easy to just reach for that gun in a low moment.

Look up why Switzerland now has its citizen soldiers keep their weapons in community arsenals for more information.

Gun in the house?

By on

What about a knife? A window? A car in the garage? An electrical outlet? A plastic bag? Pills in the medicine cabinet? Need I go on?

No, no need at all

By on

Since you're not able to comprehend what she said in the first place, there's really no need for you to continue that thought.


By on

I don't think YOU are able to comprehend what I said. Reaching for a gun is no easier than stepping out of a 10th story window. Or steering into oncoming traffic. Or jumping in front of a speeding train. As I have said before, there's millions of ways out there to off yourself in that "low" moment, and many of them are just as sure and "encouraging" as a gun.

You know what?

More homes have guns than have 10th story windows.

But I digress. The reality is that your theories have been investigated by far more competent researchers and statisticians. It is simply a fact that IF a home has an available gun, THEN suicide is much more likely. Period.

Here is a simple lay-language report on a statistically powerful meta-study for you to read

FWIW. I take it objective, verifiable reality is not your strong suit.

Pull your head

By on

Out of your ass please, then take all those articles of yours and stick them where your head was.

Let's take Boston - no one has guns, yet somehow there's more than enough suicides. Plenty of people leaping off Tobin and jumping under red/orange line - if you feel the need, you will find the means. Anyone determined enough to pull the trigger would find another way if there's no gun available.

Also, has it ever occurred to you that states with highest suicide rates, while having many guns in private hands, also have high poverty, drug abuse and unemployment rates (i.e. Issues that drive people to suicide) compared to more affluent states like MA or NY with lower suicide rates, where people simply have less reasons to off themselves? Or do you think it's all about that inanimate chunk of metal, sitting in a closet, slowly poisoning its owner's mind until one day he grabs it and blows his brains out? Did you and your paper rat buddies develop a way to communicate with the dead? Did you have them fill out a survey asking them whether they would have killed themselves if there was no gun available? If not, how did you clowns come up with all those pretty graphs? If you loudmouth populist monkeys really care about dem peoples and want to ban something "that has no purpose other than killing," why don't you try to get cigarettes banned instead? Half a million deaths a year is pretty damn bad, if you ask me.

PS: as grim and cynical as it sounds, everyone's better off having somebody blow their brains out in the privacy of their home instead of having them jump under a train or something along those lines, traumatizing a whole bunch of people in the process and maybe even driving some of them to suicide further down the road.

I'm Sorry

Your not wanting to consider the facts and get a grip on reality, and your violent reaction to people using facts and reality to rebut your wild flights of theorizing, do not change the facts, or the reality.


By on

As in gun-free Japan and South Korea having sky-high suicide rates compared to US, and majority of gun-free Europe having rates comparable to or higher than US? How are they offing themselves in record numbers even though they have to do all that hard work, since they don't have a one way ticket to paradise in their closet like their American counterparts? That's the reality anti-gun populist cherry-picking clowns are trying to hide. They have excellent research and reading comprehension skills when it fits their agenda, but when something doesn't go along with their narrative they turn deaf, mute and dumb as a rock.

You're using your perception

By on

You're using your perception of some anecdotal (or plain made up) local events to counter massive amounts of collected data.

Riiiiight. Cognitive bias in action.

One more thing

By on

Ever bothered looking at suicide rates across the world, not just United States? As you no doubt already know, there's plenty of first-world nations with no (legal) guns in civilian hands at all that are way ahead of US in that department. But that doesn't matter to cherry-picking demagogues - guns bad! Ooga booga! Gun suicide rate in US higher than other civilized countries! Guns bad, very bad! They make you want to kill yourself! Well no shit it's higher when other countries use other means of suicide because there's no guns available, never mind the fact that the overall suicide rate is much higher that US. You clowns make it sound like Americans are blowing their own brains out on every street corner while the rest of the world happily rides pink unicorns, but in reality overall suicide rates in Europe are around the same level, sometimes a good deal higher. Now, once again, take all those papers of yours and stick them up your ass. Thank you, and have a wonderful day.

no subject

but in reality overall suicide rates in Europe are around the same level, sometimes a good deal higher


Not to mention small children getting at guns in the home, too.

By on

Equally important, there've been rather catastrophic cases where small children have gotten access to unlocked and loaded guns, thanks to irresponsible parents who didn't bother to unload and lock up their firearms in a safe place where young chiildren and unstable teens and adults couldn't get to them.

Did you read/hear about the 4 year old kid in Indiana who shot himself in the head because his parents, who were busy taking care of their two other small children at the time, hadn't bothered to unload and lock up their gun, but had kept in "on a high shelf in our bedroom closet"? My god! Don't people realize that young children get into things and climb around like nobody's business, and a determined child is far more resourceful that many, if not most people are willing and able to give them credit for.

Imho, these parents were totally irresponsible, and responsible for the death of their child. Imho, if someone is going to be stupid enough to keep something like that around the house, PLEASE keep the damned thing locked up and unloaded, especially when there are small children around.

Learn your Greek history

By on

The guy who supposedly said that died along with everyone who stood beside him. The other side literally took him up on the offer and followed through with a victory at Thermopylae.

It was a total wipe at the Alamo too, just in case you were equally misinformed.

Their weapons kept them free.

By on

You must know that the Greeks took down tens of thousands of Persians in that battle. But you hope others do not. Later, as you also know, the Greeks ultimately won. Oh, and it was because the Greeks did not give up their weapons that they were able to remain free. Sorry Lefty, but that's just the way it happened. And as far as anyone 'putting our weapons in a safe place', such an attempt would not go well. But again, Molen Labe

it was because the Greeks did

By on

it was because the Greeks did not give up their weapons that they were able to remain free.

Wow, he's a historian too! Is there LITERALLY nothing this know it all doesn't know?!

Weapons are the only way to

By on

Weapons are the only way to be free. That's the take home point of Ghandi overthrowing the British Empire, right? Sorry, I forget my history. Ghandi was basically Rambo, right?

Ghandi only succeeded because

By on

Ghandi only succeeded because the empire was already falling apart at that point and had no stomach for fighting another insurrection. His advice to the Jews during WWII was essentially to surrender. Somehow I doubt Ghandi's pacifism would work against an oppressive regime with no qualms about liquidating any resistance be it peaceful or not.


By on

Yes, about 2,000 Greeks and supporters killed about 20,000 in the Persian army. The Greeks were better trained and better positioned. They were out-manned and out-armed however and they opposition was fighting because they'd be killed by Xerxes otherwise, not because they gave half-a-rat's-ass about taking over Greece. The Greeks were defending their homes. Also, they weren't telling them to come take their weapons, as you are, they were saying come and take IT, their lives, their families, their homes.

White mass murderers....

... are never terrorists, no matter what methods they use and regardless of the fact that at least some have rather definite political agendas. And when far-right groups preparing for mass action (stockpiling not only arms but explosive and poisons) ARE squelched, the FBI doesn't hardly mention it. On the other hand, when a few hapless Muslims tentatively agree to a plan suggested to them by an agent provocateur, it's time for a barrage of press releases.

Hapless Muslims?

By on


Did you miss the part where the local "hapless Muslims" murdered four people here in Boston a year ago, and mutilated hundreds more? Or in NYC in 2001, where they killed three thousand people? Or were those attacks just tentative agreement to a plans suggested by an agent provocateur?

Pal, you've moved directly from white guilt to white idiocy.

Not what I said at all, Adam

By on

Hey. this guy is the one who's generalizing here. Hapless Muslims was his phrase--not mine. They were Muslims, and they attacked us, for political and presumably religious reasons. Those two facts can't be unlinked. And using a phrase like "Hapless Muslims" gives them way too much cover. It's like calling Bernie Law a "good Catholic."

You might want to reread

By on

You might want to reread where he said "a few hapless." Not sure how you could generalize about a population when you've said "a few."

Reading comprehension problem, maybe?

"On the other hand, when a few hapless Muslims tentatively agree to a plan suggested to them by an agent provocateur, it's time for a barrage of press releases."

Does this even remotely describe the Marathon bombers -- or the 9-11 plane highjackers? No agent provocateurs -- and both involved FBI failures to pursue rather significant leads. Such as, with the 9-11 crew, flight instructors reporting suspicious characters who only wanted to learn how to steer aircraft and showed surprising disinterest in learning how to land.

No, the FBI highly publicized "success stories" are almost always shabby little set-ups involving Muslims, not prevention of actual Muslim plots coming to fruition. On the other hand, when they do smash an actual white Christianist plot, it's basically a low-key press conference announcement. How many heard about this actual, genuinely important FBI success story:

My recollection is that it got about a twentieth the coverage of some of the silly little FBI set-up stories.

Newton Children's Soccer rules from now on

By on

It's an inconvenient fact, from a PC perspective, that the guys who pulled this off were Muslim. And it's bound to hurt some one's feelings, somewhere, to even mention that. So it would be nicer for everyone, in a Hallmark Card PC kind of world, to just leave that aggravating fact out of the discussion. And since we're going there, why even discuss it at all?.

I know, let's just call it a "failure of Human Understanding" and leave it at that. That way, everyone wins and nobody's tender sensitivities are affected.

Well, you know, from a PC perspective

Bush and Cheney would be considered mass murderers. Does that mean that all mass murderers are Methodists? And why does no one ever mention how two Methodists were responsible for the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent Muslims?

Care to share you're

By on

Care to share you're background so we can assume things about everyone else with that background?

Yes, Adam Lanza and Tim

By on

Yes, Adam Lanza and Tim McVeigh both killed because they believed that a Christian Caliphate could take over the entire world and govern based on Christian law. This guy is an idiot and a racist but this analogy is just as dumb. Islamic terrorism is a real thing, it's not random violence committed by people who happen to be Muslim.

All Muslims are terrorists

By on

All Muslims are terrorists now? The more logical assumption from your post is that all "moxies" are idiots.

Have you not read...

... about the various "sting" operations where FBI informants convinced small groups of Muslim 20-somethings to become more militant and order some (fake) weapons?

Try reading this:

Why on earth would you think I was talking about the Marathon bombers? That was an FBI failure, not a triumph. (Not aware that anyone sane has suggested that there was any FBI informant involved with the bombers).

People with different

By on

People with different backgrounds commit heinous acts; part of the issue here is leaders of a religion encouraging the heinous act. For instance, the Catholic Church has a child sex abuse scandal however as bad as it is the hierarchy is not are encouraging the clergy to continue the abuse However, some ( not all, but a lot) of Muslim clerics are silent or encourage more heinous acts of terrorism.

Just a darn minute there....

By on

By (correctly) identifying some child molesters as Catholic priests, aren't you implying that all Catholics are child molesters? Isn't that what we're learning here today, that you can't actually use painful descriptive facts in a discussion, because somewhere, someone's feelings may he hurt? My grandmother is very upset every time this topic comes up, you know.

Aren't you tarring all Catholics, by pointing out that there was a criminal conspiracy by some Catholics?

Oh, wait. That group isn't a protected class in the PC Orthodoxy. So the regular rules of logic apply. Carry on.

Not a Catholic thing - a Gay thing

By on

If you use logic regarding the Church controversy it follows that since a small percentage of Catholic priests; all males, molested young alter boys, also males, that this is not really a Catholic thing, it's a Gay thing. The issue is that most people who post here are too frightened and PC to state the obvious.

Oh wow. Not sure what "logic"

By on

Oh wow. Not sure what "logic" got you to it being a gay thing. Seems like that jump in thinking says more about you than about the subject at hand.

Not all were molesters

Given how these priests were protected from prosecution and other consequences, however, most of the Church's clergy were certainly child molester enablers.

The majority of people on the

By on

The majority of people on the planet are Muslim. The majority of the people on the planet are not terrorists. In fact, only a statistically insignificant number of people are terrorists. How do you therefor rationally conclude there's something about the Muslim faith that makes people terrorists? Oh right, you heard it on talk radio.

One correction

By on

Islam may have more adherents than any other religion (does it?), but 51% of the world is not Muslim.

Not even the most

By on


Islam is the fastest growing religion over the past few years however.

As an aside, the #1 mover and shaker over the past 100 years: Unaffiliated.

In that case, "23.2% of the

By on

In that case, "23.2% of the world as of 2010 is not comprised of Terrorists." Point stands; there's nothing about being Muslim that turns people into terrorists, and it should be plain on the face of it.

All this death and drama

By on

In the name of a magic man in the sky. Muslim, Christian, Jewish....who cares. Be good to each other on Earth for the sake of being good, not for a reward when you die.


By on

Majority of the planet is not Muslim. Christianity is the largest religion, for one. Muslims are not even 25% of the world's population.

Certainly not all Muslims are

By on

Certainly not all Muslims are terrorism; but the Taliban ,Boko Haram and Al-Qaeda are not motivated by their Episcopalian beliefs.

You didn't deserve either.

By on

You didn't deserve either. Your premise was flawed from the start. If you want to be taken seriously you should examine your own argument for fallacies before you present it to others.

Spot on plt3012. The religion of peace, my ass.

By on

If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything. -- Malcolm X

I couldn't agree more, plt3012. Good for you for taking a stance guaranteed to prove unpopular but accurate here. It's not just the marathon bombings, look no further than the ruins of Lawrence, Brockton, Holyoke, Springfield etc. and Ted Kennedy's 1965 Immigration "Reform" law that opened the floodgates to immigrants from every third-world hellhole while slowing to a trickle immigration from the European countries whose sons and daughters made this country strong. At the time, Kennedy promised "our cities won't be flooded with a million immigrants a year." Please.

As for Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols being domestic terrorists acting without Muslim help, hogwash! Ironically, the so-called third terrorist, who credible witnesses saw with McVeigh in Oklahoma city just before the bombing, was most recently in the news smashing a bottle over someone's head in, of all places, Quincy. Of course, despite initial FBI radio broadcasts of a Muslim suspect leaving the scene in Oklahoma, the Iraqi connection didn't fit Bill Clinton's foreign policy narrative and the case was suddenly dropped. Thank God reporter Jayna Davis risked her career to pursue the Muslim connection.


By on

Muslims are to blame for the death of the textile industry in the US and the demise of Lawrence, etc?

1. Islamaphobia

By on

1. Islamaphobia
2. Xenophobia
3. Insane Conspiracy Theory


I am certain I was

By on

I am certain I was aggressively tailgated many months ago in Quincy by an older Nissan car driven by younger bomber. Some Older guy was in passenger seat and they pulled up beside me and cussed me out. I followed them and called 911 and they ran red lights to get away. This was in Quincy. Any way to find out if anyone connected to these guys had older model Nissan Altima? Could not get license place. Car was white

Common Street in Quincy was a

By on

Common Street in Quincy was a mess today with all of the news trucks camped out in front of his apartment building.