Man shot to death in Roxbury

UPDATE: Arrests made.

The Globe reports the man was gunned down around 2:40 p.m. today at Centre Street Terrace, a complex on Centre Street in Fort Hill. Police thought they had a suspect cornered in one house and called in the SWAT unit, who sealed off the area, but it turned out to be a false alarm.

Neighborhoods: 

Topics: 

Free tagging: 

Comments

No Place In Boston

By on

There is no place for this in Boston. Roxbury, Dorchester, Mattapan, and other neighborhoods have been hit hard with crime and violence. It is only the beginning of the summer when crime gets crazy in these neighborhoods, and we are already coming under fire. This isn't a new problem either. I've lived in Dorchester for my entire life and the violence have just got worse. I don't care what the murder rates or crime rates say, on death is too many. The Mayor has failed these neighborhoods and someone needs to step in and take charge and end this terrifying crime and violence.

How many people have to die

By on

How many people have to die before Mayor Menino realizes his strategies to "protect" these neighborhoods are not working. He has let us down. I've Lived in Roxbury my entire life and all the Mayor has done in his last 16 years is allow the escalating violence to get worse. I want someone who is going to actively save lives rather than complain about the crime at their ridiculous coffee hours or ribbon cuttings. Wake up Mr. Mayor and do your job!

fight fire with fire.

By on

Maybe i am young and naive but I believe the appropriate response to the ineffectiveness of current executive powers as well as failed efforts by the BPD to keep the filth at bay is vigilantism. It's only a matter of time before someone decides they've had enough of their neighborhood's rape at the hands of scum, and takes swift action. I realize this type of action is never condoned and is often frowned upon, but, one must realize when it is necessary to fight fire with fire. Rest assured someone, somewhere, has their guns loaded.

Part of the problem...

By on

...is people taking law into their own hands. The 'vigilante' is indistinguishable from the 'scum'. Then you have cycles of retribution. Often they shoot people other than who they intend, besides.

Vigilantism belongs in Batman movies, not Boston.

One more street gang

That's what vigilantism means - one more street gang.

The only place vigilantism works is where there is no law enforcement otherwise - and then the impact is very limited because the population tends to be very limited.

vigilantism is the answer.

By on

There are a vast amount of differences between vigilantes and street gangs. The fundamental difference is the goal of the two. The gangbanger aims to get rich by any means necessary, disregarding the lives of others around them. This ultimately leads to terrorizing the lives of common folk. The vigilante, aims to do what the law can not, bring about swift justice and safety to their community. In my opinion, when a gangbanger engages in a criminal act such as robbery, there is a social contract that exists where they forfeit their own safety and death becomes an occupational hazard. The vigilante acts upon this. Vigilantism is and should always be a last resort but many places in Boston are approaching this option at an unsettling rate of speed.

Vigilantism doesn't belong in Batman movies, it belongs where the law has failed to protect a community.

Data please

Can you link to sources and data on this? It would be helpful for those who are interested in checking out the potential for "swift order, justice, etc.".

In other words, some evidence of the positive social effects of such groups would help your case - studies that also cover the downside and describe how to reduce the potential for summary judgment and abuse (undemocratic non-trial executions, for instance), of course.

Vigilantes

By on

Swirly is being patiently academic, so I will fill a different role. :)

If someone wants to write down license plate numbers, be willing to talk to police when they witnessed a shooting, etc. that's great.

If, on the other hand, someone goes around playing judge, jury, and executioner, then s/he is a criminal.

I think that you do not want to contribute to a breakdown of the social order that way. Because what I think would happen is that the ill-intentioned and the stupid would exploit that breakdown.

Look at the scatter-brained reasoning implicit in comments on some local online news forums. Then imagine that those people have guns and have been given a nudge to think it's time for them to rise up and play hero. Those are your vigilantes. They might not even understand why the police are against them. There would be tragedy, and I imagine that afterwards most of the ones who survived would realize that it was shameful and pathetic, but it'd be too late.

Location