Cops say Fields Corner shooting victim went ballistic on them

The Dorchester Reporter posts excerpts of a police report on yesterday's shooting at Arcadia and Montello streets - which says the victim started screaming at a crowd he was no snitch and took off his bloody shirt and threw it at a cop.

However, a woman who says she saw the whole thing paints a different picture.



    Free tagging: 



      By on

      the commenter seems to think that the police should let people go batshit at the scene of a shooting without restraint as long as they are shot (when has a shot person ever harmed anyone else? never, probably!!), but other than that the stories seem to line up to me?

      Guys that get shot.....

      Often have guns, and are often put in jail for a long time after they get shot (after recovering obviously) because they are already wanted for other serious crimes, and know that there is no more escape for them. They may attempt suicide, they may attempt to flee, or they may attempt to assault/shoot/stab someon else. So yes, sometimes gunshot victims do need to be restrained. What if they got away and weren't shot that bad and went after those that shot him? What if that gunshot victim hurt an innocent person?

      The cops are responding to a call where people are shooting at each other, so their mindset is in a different place altogether as well. They don't know who was shot, how many people were shot, who was shooting, etc, etc.

      Handcuffing someone doesn't always mean they can't get medical attention either. Paramedics can give them drugs right away to calm them down as well. Once it's clear that the person isn't a threat anymore, the handcuffs can be taken off.

      I've also seen plenty of people shot with small caliber rounds that don't seem to do much damage. The victims are sometimes released the next day.

      Edit, recently I've seen a few 38 special slug rounds that don't really penetrate when shot from any distance. The guns and ammo these gangbangers use are often crude and unreliable. (I've also always been strangely amazed that many guns taken from gangbangers are only loaded from 25% to 50% capacity. Why nit spend an extra 10 bucks and load up?)


      Thanks for making my point.....

      Because without X-Ray vision, you would not be able to see how bad someone was shot, whether or not they had a gun, whether or not they planned to escape or use that gun, etc, etc.

      That's why I explained how there are multiple possible scenarios of what could potentially happen when police respond to a shooting.


      Seems to me that certain witnesses

      have an inherent bias against the police. This is an everyday occurrence in some Boston neighborhoods. A violent crime occurs. The police come. The police are vilified and blamed for the actions of criminals.


      The racist myth of 'stop snitching"

      By on

      This seems wildly over-the-top and yet another effort to blame gun violence on the victims. Beyond the fact that "inner city folks don't snitch" is a myth only believed by people who don't live in those neighborhoods, it's really just a racist excuse to exonerate the cops from their total apathy.

      And if DuchessofDot did relay the events accurately, why would anyone be compelled to go the the cops in the first place? Occasionally it's worth a shot, maybe.

      Somewhat relatedly, I take the MBTA #21 from Dorchester to Forest Hills and back, almost every workday. I'm getting really tired of not having a single camera on a bus that goes along Morton Street late at night, while when I visit friends in Allston or Medford or Watertown I see several cameras and a video screen. That's some serious Jim Crow police work, if you ask me.

      "See? Powerful gangs are

      "See? Powerful gangs are engaging in an intimidation campaign which is catching on, making overt threats of violence against would-be snitchers, thus proving that the entire culture is philosophically opposed to snitching!"

      Banned T-shirts?

      By on

      Um, no. Mumbles has absolutely no power to do that.

      Something to do with that dreaded first amendment thingy there ...


      My comment has nothing to do

      By on

      My comment has nothing to do with this story, your post just reminded me of something. Once on the red line I saw someone wearing a stop snitching shirt. She was an elderly white woman walking with a cane and had a tattoo of flowers around one eye. I hadn't been in the city that long and it was fascinating to me.

      awareness, empathy - useful things to have

      Look, if you saw Whitey Bulger kill a stranger in a Charlestown project in the 1970's, would you have gone to the cops? I sure wouldn't have, as awful as that sounds.

      When you see dynamics like this in play in isolated incidents, along with Boston's less than stellar record at protecting witnesses:

      you begin to see why people don't jump at the chance to testify against murderers in gang slayings.

      And not to mention this:

      [forgot to sign in on my work laptop earlier]


      "Racist myth"...huh?

      By on

      I honestly have no idea what you're trying to get at in this post. I'm assuming--and I may be wildly wrong or jumping to conclusions--that these guys are all black. Just going on the neighborhood and the fact that interracial violence is actually very rare. So where does race enter in at all here, unless we're actually talking about police pursuing an injured black victim who was shot by white perps?

      Re "inner city folks" and snitching, anyone in Boston can tell you that refusal and/or fear of cooperating with police has been an issue in both black and white neighborhoods--Charlestown is the first that comes to mind for me. But to call it a myth...again--I don't get it.

      And "Jim Crow police work..." Because there aren't enough cameras on your bus? Yet again...???


      Because there are literally

      Because there are literally no cameras on a bus which serves a 90% minority community and travels along one of the most gang-ridden streets in Boston? Even though there are always cameras on buses that serve white communities with little problems of gang violence? Yeah, that strikes me as Jim Crow. "I'm sorry that you were offended."

      And it is a myth, because you're comparing perceptions with reality. It's a problem for the same reason that battered spouses don't come forward - they know the police can't protect them. And it's also a myth because roughly 10% of black people in US cities are confidential informants.

      I am aware that not talking to the police is a problem. Unlike you, I'm also aware whose fault it is - the gangs and the police, not the citizens who are in fear of both of them.

      See also:


      Gang ridden? What streets are

      By on

      Gang ridden? What streets are gang ridden? "Police can't protect me" and F the police are two totally different things. The "gang ridden" streets are more diverse than "black people" there are people of many different cultures in Boston neighborhoods.

      Individuals have their reasons why they don't come forward. I wouldn't generalize and blame gang and cops. It's 2014, if you cared enough to report crime, you could report anonymously in quite a few ways.

      10% of the entire urban black

      By on

      10% of the entire urban black population are confidential informants? Do you seriously believe that?

      Higher percentage

      By on

      That number seems to be very low. I would think i\ts very higher due to the fact that only a fraction of the"urban black population are"players".


      By on

      Either you're a "player" or an informant?

      First of all...

      By on

      How many screen names do you really need in a single thread? Second of all, where on earth are you basing your claim that buses through white neighborhoods have cameras while buses traveling through white neighborhoods have cameras? Anyone who reads this site regularly let alone studies this stuff has seen plenty of criminal activity captured perpetrated by and against black people on these cameras that you claim don't exist. Are you seriously trying to claim that the MBTA is somehow more invested in protecting its drivers and passengers on the 55 than on, say, the 28? Or that this has something to do with Jim Crow?

      Your point re snitching is likewise muddled. Honestly, you're not offending me--you're just failing to make a coherent point.


      Actually you should check all the busses before you talk....

      You will find that the majority of busses and trains whose cameras are broken (or mbta property cameras in general) are evenly spread around the State. Just because you ride one bus every day that has a broken camera doesn't mean every bus that goes through white neigborhoods have working cameras.


      I take the 16 & 23

      By on

      Almost every day and almost all of them have cameras (I've been on only 1 without cameras in the last 2 weeks) so, I don't think it's as wholly race based as you think.


      The police don't dictate

      By on

      The police don't dictate which bus is allowed to be used for which route. That falls solely on the T, another failed attempt to blame the police for EVERYTHING. Stop snitching is also a very real thing.



      and blame the police. Two successful solutions to the bloodbath claiming the lives of inner city youth. You don't see this in Weston because it's not accepted there.

      ShotSpotter vs Busd Cameras

      By on

      The MBTA is not a city agency. Boston police have no control over which buses have cameras.

      The ShotSpotter system is a city project. It feeds straight to Boston police. It's set up in Mattapan and not Beacon Hill.

      Please give us your race-based analysis of this phenomenon.