Dorchester resident with gun kills armed home invader

The Globe reports on an incident this morning in an Esmond Street apartment. A second home invader fled, was arrested by police.

UPDATE: Boston Police report charging the second alleged invader, Cedric Slayden, 18,, with illegal possession of a firearm.



Free tagging: 


"The resident at 85 Esmond St

"The resident at 85 Esmond St. is also in custody, but has not yet been charged with any crime because police are trying to determine if he was licensed to possess a firearm"

I take it the resident (victim) hasn't been forthcoming in identifying themselves? All licenses are an instant computer check.


God Bless the Second Amendment

Good for the homeowner. Hopefully this will send a loud and very clear message to the punks who think they can break into people's homes, assault the occupants and take what they want. The message: You just might get blown right back out the same door or window you came in if the resident has a gun. God Bless the Second Amendment!


Oh yes--God bless firearms!

Eye roll. Because yes--surely having more guns in homes will lead to fewer crimes and we definitely won't have more toddlers or 4th graders accidentally shooting themselves with dad's gun that he bought to "protect his family" or paranoid/drunk/fearful gun owners accidentally shooting friends/neighbors/ old guys with dementia who happened to wander into their porch--no way! Thank GOD!!


Oh Naive Swirlygirl

Roll your eyes all you want oh naïve and liberal Swirlygirl. Hopefully you never become the victim of a home invasion where the intruders want to kill you or your family. Its a mistake to think you're safe because 'when you need a cop in seconds, they are only minutes away'. A gun is the best deterrent. Don't want a gun? Don't get one. But those of us who live in the real world know that there may come a time when you'll be sorry for being so blinded by your childlike ideology.


Foolish jakester

I'm sorry if reality is too much to deal with.

Would it freak you out to know that I'm a gun owner and don't buy this bullshit? Probably - because the Rambo Fantasy is too strong in those who aren't trained with their weapons and don't bother to look at the accident risks being far higher than the home invasion risks because MIGHTY HOMEOWNER WITH GUN BLAH BLAH!

Sorry, but I grew up with both guns in the house and drug dealers in the neighborhood. I trained with automatics in the military. I ain't buying the 2nd Amendment Fantasy here.


Like I said ...

... sorry if reality is too much for you, jakester. Not every gun owner is an insane clown who vastly overestimates the crime rate while vastly underestimating the risks of having unsecured, loaded weapons around as a tableau mort for their paranoid fantasies.

I find ignorantly irrational gun phobia to be highly irritating, too - it just isn't dangerous and virulent like gun fetishism is.

Adam has access to my Facebook photos ... I have pictures of me with my gun in there (a .22 that my grandpa built by handcrafting the wood parts and using on of the many kits available in the 1930s). He can verify should he care to.

Just Curious

What level of MA firearms license do you possess?

A .22 rifle your grandfather built in the 1930's is basically a pellet gun and useless for self defense. The only reason you own that is because it's a family heirloom. Do us all a favor and don't piss on our leg and tell us it's raining with your "but I'm a gun owner" schtick.


My gun is not in MA

And, yes, that's where I register annoyance with the stupid side of MA gun laws written by extreme gun phobics who also lack a grounding in risk statistics.

However, I don't feel any particular need for "self defense" or "protecting my family" with a gun, regardless. That's because I'm an epidemiologist ... and professional expert in risk statistics ... and I know that any "protection" gun I could keep would be vastly more likely to harm my family in other ways than to protect my family.

Having a gun for family and household protection is like hiring a goalie with a 20 to 1 ratio of own goals to saves. That's the reality.

As someone who trained in the military and grew up hunting, I also know that the automatic weapons and extreme damage weapons have shit all to do with hunting or home protection. That's why I would love to see a deregulation of a weapon that I have used to kill medium sized mammals for food (BTW, a .22 is not a pellet gun. I'm laughing just reading that - you really worship your firepower, eh? It just takes some skill to bring down your target - you can't be lazy and sloppy, that's all.) but buyback and bans on weapons that I know damn well from military training are about killing other people efficiently and little or nothing else. Like Australia has successfully done in the last 20 years.

Where do you live?

Some wealthy crime-free suburb, I assume, where the worst crime witnessed in the past 20 years was a lawyer going 5 miles over speed limit trying to get his kid to soccer practice on time? If that is the case, a gun bought for home defense will probably end up shooting the owner or someone in his family, if it's ever fired. Now, if we're talking about a high-crime area where home invasions are common, having a gun at home isn't such a bad idea. Unfortunately places like that are normally in urban areas with extremely restrictive gun laws, meaning people who need those guns can't have them and are completely defenseless against armed thugs.


Just as I suspected

At least we agree that the licensing scheme in MA is onerous.

I'm glad you don't "feel a need" to keep a gun in your house, but do us a favor and don't project that onto everyone else. The elderly guy in a wheelchair living in a sketchy neighborhood may not "feel" the same way you do.

"Someone who trained in the military" and as well credentialed as you claim to be should be able to articulate what their talking about when discussing something they would like to ban. Somehow I doubt you meant to reference machine guns or select fire rifles, which are "automatic weapons".

If you meant to reference semi-automatic firearms, then you still manage to cover everything from your friendly .22 to the evil AR-15 to the pistol on the belt of every policeman, everywhere.

You see, people like me, actually take the time to learn about issues before we spout off about them. Most people know to keep their mouth shut about things they don't know anything about, but you don't seem to have that filter. An hour with wikipedia would do wonders for you.

nice try again Swirlygirl

Nothing you say will convince anyone who will do what ever it takes, use what ever means or weapons available to him or her in the defense of their homes and loved ones that you are not naïve to the point of being devoid of reality. Once again, whether you want to own a gun or not, and I believe you do not, it's your choice to make. But don't ever think that your views on the subject will be allowed to infringe on my rights or the rights of any other gun owners to possess a firearm and use it in self defense. It's not going to happen Swirlygirl. Like it or not, that's just the way it's going to be. The Second Amendment is sacred to most Americans and we will defend that right to end. Got it?


But why?

I come from a country where we have stronger gun control... but aside from the law, people are just less concerned with owning a gun. It is not a thing. Why do you hold it sacred?

Because GUNS

The whole "self defense" nonsense is pointless. Basically, they say they are protecting their family, but the ratio of horrible accidents and mistakes to self defense shootings is more than 20 to 1.

This has nothing at all to do with safety and health and everything to do with paranoid obsession and very poor grasp of risk and statistics.

More phoney stats Swirly?

Here again, you throw out phony made up statistics and numbers that you know to be false but hope that others aren't quite sure about. This doesn't work girl; not here. You don't hunt, you weren't in the military, you are not a gun owner and the gun confiscation in Australia led to a huge jump in violent crime. And there are REAL stats to prove it.


Share them please

I provided a reference. You provide one. NRA funded "studies" don't count. Let's see some of this "proof of violent crime" in Australia exploding once insane massacre weapons were banned. Bear in mind that you can get some pretty high caliber weapons in Australia to this day.

Also, kindly explain why it is that you are so very afraid of home invasion and violent criminal attack - are you a drug dealer or something? Member of a Cartel? The crime statistics don't even begin to bear out fear on a level that you are displaying.

you don't get to decide Swirly

You don't get to decide which surveys count and which don't. NRA stats have never been proven wrong. But the stats I speak of are from the Australian govt itself which show a 14% increase in violent crime the first year after their gun ban jumping to 18.5% the following year. There was an increase in crime in England after that country did the same. This from Scotland Yard. You on the other hand provided NO credible reference to your claims because there is no credible stats to be shown and you know it Swirly. Your entire arguments are bogus and fabricated. And as far as Me being in fear? No, I believe in the Second Amendment and it would be any potential home invader on my property that should be in fear. Why, are YOU a drug dealer? Or are you sympathetic to them and do not want them harmed? I'm beginning to wonder. And here again, you talk about imaginary crime stats that you make up as you go along. Not very credible Swirly - Looking pretty weak with every response...



Doesn't have a huge violent criminal underclass that happens to be armed to the teeth. Neither does Japan, Sweden, Norway or any other country you love to bring up. Apples to oranges.

Difficult to explain nm

If you don't know the answer to your own question nm, it would probably be difficult and take a lot of time to try to make you understand why so many Americans feel so passionately about our Second Amendment. This is not to criticize you; you sound like you are legitimately and honestly curious. But if you did not come from a country that cherishes individual freedoms and liberties; two important concepts that this nation was founded on, it is most likely not part of your heritage as it is ours. It fuels our fierce determination to defend ourselves our families and this country. Possessing the means to do so is absolutely imperative. I hopes this helps a bit.


Says the guy

Who apparently spends a lot of time dreamily imagining how he's going to defend his home from armed robbers with his awesome guns, like some kind of Chuck Norris fantasy scenario. Seriously--who's the one who sounds naive here?


There normally aren't that many armed criminals in those countries, whereas around here every 15 year old thug and their grandma are packing a glock, and those who get caught are usually let go with nothing but a slap on the wrist. I'm all for tough gun control or even outright gun ban, as long as most criminals are disarmed. Implement draconian illegal gun laws, allow stop and frisk, do away with illegal search defense when prosecuting unlicensed firearm cases, stop playing catch and release with armed thugs and give out mandatory minimum 10 year sentences for illegal gun possession, and most people would gladly give up their legally owned firearms.

Sorry 1 street

Sorry 1 street over...cops don't come in time in our neighboorhood to help in MANY situations like this....lived in this neighboorhood all my ppl..young kids move in and take over...robbing, killing, hurting nice ppl in family oriented low-med income nice neighborhoods....permit or not....that's WHAT happens when u come in our neighborhood. ..we WILL FIGHT BACK....#BYANYMEANSNECESSARY



Because the apartment occupant happened to be armed, shot one of the thugs and chased the other one out. If that wasn't the case the "nearby" cops would have been there to collect his body and fill out the reports, while the two thugs would have gotten away. Say what you want but the gun nut line of "when seconds count cops are only minutes away" makes perfect sense in this case. Swirly might not need a gun in her safe lily-white suburb, but those in low-income neighborhoods terrorized by thugs just might need it one day, as we all have read in this article.

There's a problem with your argument

Sure it worked in this case - an extremely rare instance of successful self defense. By a great multiple, guns kept in the home, particularly handguns, result in accidental shootings by the thousands, thefts of guns later used in crimes and suicides (the mere presence of a gun in a home magnifies the likelihood of suicide by a significant multiple).

Personally, I think you should be able to have all the guns you want - they just can't be stored in a home with the obvious exceptions of police and other appropriate situations. At the very least, handguns should not be permitted in the home. There is but anecdotal evidence that they are on rare occasion successful in fending off an armed intruder. I believe there are numerous statistics that show that even if you are lucky enough to get a shot off you will miss, be disarmed by the intruder and then shot either with the intruder's gun or your own.

Anecdotes are not a foundation for good policy. You can make your argument one way or the other but guns in this country are either a disease or a symptom of that disease.


It's not guns, violent thugs who terrorize law-abiding citizens and get away with a slap on the wrist in the rare occasion they're caught are the problem. It's easy for liberal starry-eyed dreamers to have their Utopian dreams while living in rich, 99.9% white towns where urban thugs are seen about as often as a wooly mammoth, but it's an entirely different story for those living in urban environments where crime is widespread and police response is slow. The idea of fighting off an armed thug outside after he stuck a gun in one's face, is nothing but a Chuck Norris dream, but being able to fend off a home invaded after hearing him break your door or window is definitely viable. Not the best, but still better than having to hide in the closet hoping you won't be found and killed.

Gimme a break

So let's see. You properly store your guns and ammunition, especially if you have a kid in the house. You hear a noise, you wake up in the dark, get your bearings, open your gun safe (which is located where-the room the person just broke into?) with a key or a combination (in the dark of course) and get your gun. Now of course, being a responsible gun owner, your gun isn't loaded, so you find your ammunition which should be locked somewhere else and load your gun. All most likely in the dark. Now you go and find the intruder and you aim and shoot at him - of course all in the dark. This is the city - if an intruder comes into your home in most cases she/he is probably no more than a few feet away from you.

For the record - the regulars out here know that I live in the middle of the city. fortunately for me, one of the better neighborhoods - but I still get the woollies (not the mammoth kind) when I walk down the alley after dark and see just one other person, a male in a hoody, about half my age and twice my size coming the other way down the alley. doesn't make me go out and get a gun (and I'm sure I wouldn't qualify for a license anyway because it's not a necessity of my job or anything).

Your argument practically and statistically is ludicrous. Let's arm everyone. Once a year somebody will successfully pull this miracle off while dozens if not hundreds of people shoot themselves or others for no good reason or their guns get stolen and used by the bad guys, or they need some quick cash and drop it on the street for $100. Again - you win politically and emotionally - not logically - which is why almost 30,000 Americans die in this country every year at the business end of a gun and over 2/3 of them are not even the victims of a crime.

Or not

This sounds a lot like one drug dealer tried to jack another one, and got shot. I'm sure some amount of gang violence really is self defense, but that doesn't make it exemplary gun ownership.



Because this happened in a black neighborhood, they are both drug dealers? Way to jump to conclusions. Black people don't have a right to defend themselves? If a black person has a gun, they must be a drug dealer?
I'm going to jump to the conclusion that you are a racist loser who lives in Weymouth.


Whoa there.

It happened in a neighborhood with a serious drug problem and apparently the parties were previously acquainted. You don't have to be a racist or a--God forbid--suburbanite to draw some logical conclusions about what might have gone down here.


just taking the facts into account

Armed home invasions are pretty rare in Boston. Armed home invasions where the resident is also armed and knows the intruders are pretty much unheard of.

If the same thing happened in Southie, I would have come to the same conclusion.

I would have to agree...first

I would have to agree...first of all, was the 'homeowner' the person that owns the property in question, or was he renting? The Globe article says this was an apartment. There was something in that place small valuable they were looking for, and I'll bet dollars to donuts it was cash, jewelry and/or drugs. Both parties were known to each other and the 'homeowner' doesn't look like he has a license to carry, which technically, would make him a law-breaker too.

So assuming all this is true, we have a case of a criminal shooting other criminals. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the NRA to post this one on their website.

Do the math

Two armed robbers enter an apartment. There must be knowledge of something of significant value worth the possibility of getting caught as an armed robbery vs. unarmed robbery. The valuables could be drugs, jewelry, cash etc. A flatscreen and an Xbox isn't worth that risk.


new gun laws

mass should be a free carry state while in your residence. its sad if this guy has to go thru any legal issues for standing his ground while in his home. now if it was some street gun battle i understand but this should clearly be a no brainer.