Hey, there! Log in / Register
The first rule of Red Line fight club is: Whip out your phone
By adamg on Sun, 08/23/2015 - 10:39am
WCVB has video taken by one Red Line rider of a second rider grabbing a third rider's phone and punching him in the face for videoing him being a drunken asshole to all the other riders in their car hurtling through Quincy Friday night.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
What's better?
Getting your face bashed in and leaving with an incomplete description of events and the perp OR getting it all down for the public and court to see?
This is even more true when the drunken perp is a cop - no sweeping under the rug!
Really, a cop?
Source? What department? Is that why T cops let him go instead of arresting him for public intoxication, A & B? The guy was so blatantly and stupidly racist I can't imagine he would be a cop and get caught saying those things. I was thinking it was just yet another unfortunate face of public transportation.
Not an arrestable offense unless the officer witnesses it.
nt
Protective custody overnight for being drunk?
OK. I hope they got the guy's identity for the detectives who proved themselves on jort guy getting zipper service case to get on this one Monday morning. Well, maybe after finishing the case of the T cop beating the woman last year who asked her not to abuse an elderly woman.
How are any Assault & Battery arrests made then?
Are cops present for all of them? Your assertion doesn't make sense.
You can't arrest for it.
In its own with out another Charge or unless you witness it. It really that simple. Protective custody arrests are frowned upon and rare in most departments.
Markk, this website explains it better than I can....
http://www.mymassachusettsdefenselawyer.com/misdemeanor-offense-may-not-...
OK, That helps
explain why T cops busting perps for smoking and find previous warrants for B&E, A&B, stealing bicycles etc. finally get to arrest them because they probably defaulted on one or more of them.
Seems a shame that they could not have at least gotten the identity of the thug.
A few things. What's it
A few things. What's it matter what happened before the phone started recording? He was clearly not using self defense and the racial slurs are not helping his "case". Second, "appropriate charges" entail what? Bail of 200.00 and a slap on the wrist? i am glad for the brave girl who kept filming. We all need to help out in any way we can against bad people like him. Imagine what damage could have been done to an empty train with only the drunken macho man and the victim
Bail exists as a surety
Not punishment.
Little known fact- if you make all your court appearances, you get your bail back. $50, $200, $50,000, it all gets returned in the end.
Little known fact
probably because the kind of people who get arrested are also the kind of people who are at high risk for missing court dates.
And you have statistics to back up your "fact"
Since I am typing this on what I am typing, I can't get my citation, but in Massachusetts the presumption at arraignment is "personal recognizance," unless the DA can make a case for bail (or held without bail).
Here it is
Rule 3.
I mean, the whole bail thing is fascinating. John Oliver did a show about bail. Since we operate under the rules we have, the experiences people in other states have seemed strange to me.
In any event, unless this guy is awaiting trial on something else (a good chance, to be sure) he will be released on personal recognizance, with perhaps one of the terms being keeping his ass off the T.
But how about bail bonds...
I would assume that if you do a bail bond instead of cash bail, the bail bond company would just keep what you pay them (or a big chunk of it).
Correct, but you pay a
Correct, but you pay a percentage of the bail with bail bonds. I.e., it's better to pay 500 on a $5000 than to fork over that full $5k.
To others commenting:
1) Bail assures that you are not locked up through arraignment and trial, but it's not your conviction sentencing. It's also not guaranteed, per judge's discretion.
Others, not related to this particular thread
2) I believe there were some underhanded comments towards Lebert, re: drunk cops abusing others.
You can't explain this fact
You can't explain this fact to Uhub. Mass has a very high threshold to impose bail and the only legitimate purpose for bail is to assure the defendant's return to court. Remember, bail is imposed BEFORE a verdict, all defendants are innocent until proven guilty, and you cannot punish the innocent.
Um, I think I did
"Surety" means a guarantee that something happens.
As Adam notes, "Innocent, etc.", so yeah, that is the assumption. If you look at the bail rules I linked to above, the theory is like what you said.
So, yeah, I did. The odd political history behind it probably goes back to a homogeneous Massachusetts where everyone knew everyone, and if you were a landowner you weren't going to flee, but that is just a guess. Southern views on bail probably come from a time when people were the property of others and the chance of fleeing, in general, was great. The western views most likely come from the transient nature of the population- arrested in Colorado? Move to Montana!
Drunken lout: "Move back to India!" Looks like another
proud Trump supporter. Expect to see more racist violence emboldened by the nativist bigotry of Trump and his GOP rivals. The "deport them all" crowd of wannabe Republican presidential nominees has gotten so rabid, you have flailing candidates Cruz, Jindal and Rubio lining up behind Trump on immigration, even though they themselves would be expelled from the US under Trump's proposed repeal of the 14th Amendment. It's at once idiotic and shameful. The GOP's 2016 slogan should be: "No more dog whistles: we're proud to be the party of hating brown people."
Other GOP candidates NOT backing Trump on immigration
Latinos are generally more socially conservative (at least Christian and generally against abortion! ;-) ) and the GOP wants their vote especially in coming decades when they outnumber non-Hispanic whites. There may not have been a Latino present to cause him to invoke the name of Trump.
So far, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, and Lindsey Graham
have all flat-out backed Trump on 14th Amendment repeal (though Walker is such a craven flip-flopper that you have to check his positions hourly). Trump is clearly driving the entire GOP discussion on immigration right now.
The irony, of course, is that the GOP has been thriving on a quieter brand of bigotry and xenophobia since at least the days of Nixon's Southern Strategy. The filter-free Trump is just airing it without any varnish. "Dude: you're supposed to be using code words like 'culture of work' and 'inner city' and 'welfare queen', not talking about rounding up all the brown people and putting them on trains to Mexico! Ixnay on the atant-blay acism-ray!"
You raised those chickens, Republicans. Stop whining about how they've come home to roost where everybody can see them.
And we are off on a trump
And we are off on a trump rant! Knew it would happen within first couple of posts. Maybe the tough guy suspect is just a bad person? Are you generalizing that all drunken violent people are trump supporters? For the record no I do not support trump but you gotta cut it out dude
poor messenger
I kind of agree with your point, but are you really the best one to be making it after so recently throwing out your own silly generality...?
Please refer to the very
Please refer to the very first comment on this posting.
Are you saying that you're cool having same rep level as 'anon'?
I usually don't bother pointing out anon's goofs to anon (barely even read hir posts a lot of the time), because s/he is clearly insane - comments multiple times in a single thread, never the same opinion twice and even disagrees with hirself!
Uh, what am I missing here...
Uh, what am I missing here....'anon' isn't a single person...it can be any person who makes a comment on the blog, no?
To Republican: you're not doing yourself defending Trump. Any decent person can see his rhetoric in this regard is pretty poor. Not to mention, two things; one, he's pretty liberal, actually, with the exception of a few things, and, two, there's a theory he's a mole for Hillary, which as conspiracy theory as it is, it's delightfully close. Maybe you should change your username accordingly?
You might make the leap from "That drunken racist
asshole is probably a Trump supporter" to "All drunken racist assholes are Trump supporters". I'm not making that generalization. But I hardly think it's a stretch to suggest that the leading contender for the GOP presidential nomination, whose extreme anti-immigration policy positions have been making huge headlines for the last week, is a factor in emboldening drunken racists assholes to do things like savagely assault a homeless Mexican man -- those human turds flat-out admitted to being inspired by Trump -- or bully and attack brown people on the T.
For Republicans, playing to right-wingers' hatred of immigrants (especially non-white ones) is not a bug: it's a feature. If you have a problem with the increasingly naked bigotry of the Republican Party, speak up to the politicians who are promoting and exploiting it, instead of the ordinary citizens who are pointing it out.
Right, because there were
Right, because there were never any incidents in Boston where race was a factor, before the Donald Trump business.
It's not just the racism that suggests he might be a
Trump supporter, but the rude drunken asshole factor. I think this is a big part of Trump's appeal: he's an unapologetic asshole, and other assholes relate to that, feel validated by it, cheer it.
Quoting an excellent analysis from some Gawker comment named Graby Sauce:
"Republicans love assholes. They want someone to put the liberals and minorities in their place. They want to kick ass and take names. If an asshole can do that using words with a minimum of syllables, he goes straight to the top of the polls. Think of the people they’ve supported in recent years:
Allan West (CRAZY asshole)
Sarah Palin (suburban soccer mom asshole)
Mitt Romney (they didn’t LOVE him until he made that asshole 47% comment)
Hermann Cain (dumb asshole)
Newt Gingrich (the asshole’s asshole)
Rick Santorum (Christian asshole)
Ben Carson (smart but somehow astoundingly dumb Christian asshole)
Ted Cruz (diabolical asshole)
Paul Ryan (screw-the-poor asshole)
Mike Huckabee (Christian, bigoted, pedophile-loving asshole)
Chris Christie (ASSHOLE)
Think of the people they’ve been lukewarm toward in recent years— Jeb Bush, John McCain (a pretty big asshole, but occasionally has evinced human compassion, therefore, not a contender), John Kasich, Tim Pawlenty, George Pataki, Jim Gilmore— these people are able to string a sentence together using multisyllabic words, and at least pretend that they don’t hate the poor and minorities. They get no traction."
I'm willing to bet the leader
I'm willing to bet the leader brothers are not registered voters. They are dirt bags who tried to use current events to justify their despicable behavior.
One can't help but wonder if
One can't help but wonder if the T cops would have let this guy walk away freely if his skin had a higher melanin content...
If it turns out that it is a cop
And that's why they let him walk, then we should all be writing our state reps for everyone's head who is involved. Adam, keep us apprised of this. If TPD isn't doing their jobs (or any police force for that matter) they need a lot of pressure. Plus, they have cameras everywhere: if there's a video of T cops not arresting him, that ought to be public. And I wonder if this will make their (usually great) blog.
For the second time......
Police officers cannot arrest anyone for an assault and battery that they didn't see.
Police officers cannot arrest
This makes no sense. Are you telling me that every single person arrested for assault and/or battery in the last 12 months in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts did it in front of a cop?
No. Way.
Witnesses, videotape, and other evidence can certainly lead to an arrest when there was no officer present. Hell, it can even lead to a conviction!
The dude should have spent the night in the can on drunkenness alone. I don't want cops rounding up drunk folks who are just drunk -- but if you're drunk getting involved in scraps, you should be made to spend a night drying out, for everyone's safety.
Yes that is what it means.
There was no one arrested in Massachusetts over the past year (or 30 years for that matter) for Assault and Battery (excluding domestics) where the A+B was the sole charge and the police officer did not witness the assault. In fact, police officers can only arrest for felonies or very few misdemeanors (domestic violence, OUIL, restraining orders, carrying a firearm in certain places, etc) for crimes they do not witness.
As for spending the night in jail for being a PC, sure that may have been the case but as I point out above, the courts frown upon putting people in protective custody and then charging them with crimes they didn't have the right of arrest for. I agree with you that this case may have been an exception, but remember that the person has to be drunk and unable to care for himself and he also has the right to take a breath test.
http://www.mymassachusettsdefenselawyer.com/misdemeanor-offense-may-not-...
Place your bets
Nice haircut...COP.
I'm betting he's a cop and that's why the MBTA cops let him go and how they "know his identity" (MBTA cop?).
The cops who let him go should be busted for dereliction of duty.
A cop; wearing a button down
A cop; wearing a button down shirt with a pocket (pen in pocket), and white (what looks like) Air Max's. I just can't see it happening.