Man already awaiting trial on a firearms charge arrested for Egleston murder, three other shootings

Anthony Howard, 27, who already has one gun conviction and is in custody on another gun charge, was arraigned yesterday on charges he shot a woman to death last June in Egleston Square, shot another man in the same incident and shot two other men earlier the same day, Boston Police and the Suffolk County District Attorney's office report.

Brianna Bigby and a male companion were walking on Walnut Avenue around 3:15 p.m. on June 1, 2013, when Howard opened fire, killing her and sending the man to the hospital with non-fatal injuries, police and the DA's office say.

In the days, weeks, and months that followed, investigators interviewed witnesses, obtained phone records, and executed search warrants leading to Howard’s identification as a suspect and linked him to a double-shooting earlier that same day in which the victims, ages 21 and 26, did not cooperate with police. That incident took place at about 5:40 a.m. on Humboldt Avenue.

In addition to murder, Howard was arraigned on charges of aggravated assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, three counts of armed assault with intent to murder and unlawful possession of a firearm as a second offense.

Howard served two years in jail after a 2006 conviction for illegal possession of a gun. He is scheduled for a July 8 hearing in Suffolk Superior Court to answer an indictment for an illegal gun allegedly found during a police search.

Innocent, etc.

Neighborhoods: 

Topics: 

Free tagging: 

Comments

>> Howard served two years in

By on

>> Howard served two years in jail after a 2006 conviction for illegal possession of a gun. <<

This state likes to talk big about being tough on guns, and yet, here this guy serves only 2 years for illegal possession.

Should be more like 10.

up
23

Seriously.

I agree and I don't. I'm frustrated by the amount of trouble legal gun owners go through. In the end most get a neutered class-a firearms LTC. If someone is able to pass a background check, prove proficiency (such as the Moon Island Boston police test, many gun owners don't like this, I think it's a good idea), attends safety training (why would anyone turn down education of any type?), and safe stores their firearms, then why cause them so much grief?

On the other hand, how will locking this person up for 10 years solve the problem? I think Swirly has noted, elsewhere on this site, something about criminals becoming more problematic after incarceration. I'd like to see people who commit crimes dealt with somehow, but how? What can honestly be done to make a troubled person into someone who is a productive member of society?

up
15

10 years

By on

For illegal firearms possession, 25+ years for any crime committed while in possession of illegal firearm, no "illegal search" bullcrap, no parole, and suddenly (mostly) everyone will stop caring about second amendment and will gladly get rid of their legally purchased guns. Gun control is great, but we need goon control first.

Absolutely

no "illegal search" bullcrap,

Absolutely, Police should be allowed to search anyone, anywhere, at any time. They should be allowed to go into your house and look through all your stuff. There should be no consequences for police who abuse this authority.

up
13

Not quite, mr strawman

By on

9 times out of 10, gun charges get tossed even though cops had a pretty damn good reason to conduct a search. They don't "go into your house and look at your stuff" - they pull over a known gangbanger driving erratically, with weed smoke pouring out all windows, and find a loaded gun in the car, but dougan & co happens to think there was no reason to search the car and charges get tossed. Needless to say, the said gangbanger gets another gun and shoots someone a couple weeks later, but who cares - FREEDOM! JUSTICE! ALL HAIL FOURTH! FAP FAP FAP!!!

up
14

Tyranny is da bomb!

By on

That whole constitution and limited power of government thing with protected rights and due process is sooo overrated.

up
12

Tyranny?

By on

You leftie fourth wankers are just as comical as the rightie second wankers who think they can fight off the big bad government with their AR15s. No need to be so megalomaniac - you're not that important, big bad government does not give a rat's ass about you (as long as you pay your taxes on time and don't commit any major crimes.) No one's going to show up in the middle of the night, drag you out of bed and ship you off to Gitmo. Both of those need to be changed so we don't have nutjobs stockpiling arsenals large enough to arm a small country, and we don't have criminals who have no fear of the justice system because they know the chances of them getting locked up are very slim.

Japan's justice system is utterly draconian compared to what we have here but they seem to be doing just fine - crime is incredibly low, and no one is screaming about their rights being violated. This isn't the late 1700s - there's no more threat of angry redcoats showing up and chopping you to pieces because you betrayed his (her) majesty - no need for guns, and no need for laws that completely castrate the prosecution and give criminals a carte blanche.

up
12

So, work on getting the Constitution amended

By on

Geez, I swear this is "beat up the Bill of Rights Week" in town, but thanks for skipping over the First and Second and straight to the Fourth.

Sorry guy, but we have this right, and the right is there for a reason. Perhaps if police officers are trained better, less evidence would be tossed, but in the end, the cops can't search "just because."

up
11

Not "just because"

By on

What we have now is essentially cops saying suspect was looking around nervously and clutching his waistband as if he had a gun, which is why they searched him and found a gun, but the charges get tossed after some pony-tailed lawyer from Weston argues that his client might have been behaving that way because he had crabs and his balls were itching, meaning cops had no right to search him.

up
10

Again, the problem is with the prosecution

By on

Back to the cops. If a base of knowledge of what constitutes probable cause can be established, and though I am not a lawyer I am willing to bet enough Supreme Court and SJC decisions have established it, that should be what is used to get illegal guns off the street. The police can learn these things, or they can do whatever they want and lose cases.

Maybe you don't like civil rights and the rule of law. There are several places you can move to where our oppressive rights are not followed. Heck, in Egypt they just sent some journalists to jail for reporting they did, and the prosecutors didn't bother to introduce evidence. Sounds like a solid society.

No need for guns.

There is also no need for alcohol, chemical "enhancing" products, 2,000 calorie cheeseburgers, 200+ MPH cars, and a whole wide range of other products. Know what though? I like shooting my guns just as much as other people like getting drunk, getting high, eating heart attack inducing foods, and pulling a Paul Walker on public roadways.

Unfortunately

In Japan at this time, there is not much public interest when people's rights ARE violated -- even in a massive way.

And once you are accused of a crime, you're pretty much done for. The right to assert "innocence" is pretty much on paper only. Denying guilt is viewed as an insult to the police and the prosecution, and is punished severely (sentences are massively more harsh if you don't simply admit guilt). No one has started an "innocence project" for Japan, but one is badly needed.

Productive member of society

By on

Start handing out real sentences, and get rid of all that "rehabilitation" bullcrap - you can't rehabilitate hardened criminals, you can only break them. Allowing them to socialize with their gangbanger buddies and pump iron all day long is not going to rehabilitate them. Make them fear prison, so they would not want to go back once they finally get out.

up
11

At least he served time for

By on

At least he served time for it. Usually if the judge doesn't toss the mandatory minimum they are allowed to plead or deal their way out of it

up
15