Police: Officer fatally shoots man they say lunged at him with knives

Boston Police report an officer shot the man to death around 3:10 p.m. at 77 Lenox St. in Roxbury as they investigated a domestic-violence complaint:

While en route, officers were informed that the male suspect had assaulted his girlfriend. Upon arrival, officers observed visible facial injuries to the female victim, and she directed officers to the suspect at 77 Lenox Street. Once inside, the officers attempted to place the suspect under arrest, at which point the suspect armed himself with multiple knives and lunged at the officers. As a result, one officer discharged his firearm, and the suspect was struck.

Both police and the Suffolk County District Attorney's office are investigating.



Free tagging: 



By on



o rly?

By on

Because, as we all know, someone who lunges with knives at cops is totally likely to have complete use of their mental facilities.

Heaven forbid they be mentally ill. Nah. They deserve to die! And someone who injures another person? Death penalty, eh?

Ya rly

By on

That evil trigger happy cop should have called the hospital for the perp's medical records, while the perp was peacefully slicing him open.


that's not the point of my comment

By on

First off, nice strawman argument.

Second, the point is: it's not "justice" when someone who may have been mentally ill, ends up dead. It's not "justice" when someone who assaults another person, ends up dead. Our penalty for assault is not death.

Among other things, in order to be guilty in the eyes of a court, you have to be capable of recognizing what you're doing is morally wrong.

Whether they could have used non-lethal force is a separate issue. Either way it doesn't change the fact that this isn't "justice."


Not "justice"

By on

But good riddance nonetheless. If you disagree, perhaps you should sell your house in that safe lily-white suburb, move to Roxbury and see if you still feel the same in a month or so.

I don't want to come off as

I don't want to come off as biased, but the official report is the male shot by police had beaten his girlfriend and given her visible injuries. He'd already lost any possible sympathy from me regardless of what happened when police responded.


Not sympathy but healthy skepticism

By on

Official reports issued hours after police shootings or other actions have not always stood up to scrutiny and independent review.

I'm not saying that's necessarily the case here, but I'm also not ready to just rubber-stamp official reports of fatal police shootings.

I'll at least wait for the BPD review.

I thumbs upped your comment.

I'm also a bit biased and thinking the guy desserved it. The other part of me wonders what the hell they were fighting about though. Could it have been something as sad as them fighting over finances, was it just a jealous boyfriend, were there kids involved? My questions on this are endless.

Yes the part about him

By on

Yes the part about him assaulting his gf doesn't help his case. I suppose I don't know details behind that either? No more excuses for women abusers, truck drivers who run over and kill people and flee the scene, or defending some punk ass kids who beat up a 40 year old man 4 vs 1. Enough

Police have a right to self

By on

Police have a right to self preservation. If a guy with a knife lunged at me I would shoot him too. The punishment for the knife wielder might be affected by his mental status in court but his mental status doesn't affect the damage he could have done to the policeman if he wasn't stopped.


nobody's disputing that

By on

Again, nice strawman / reading comprehension fail.

I'm disputing the claim that this is "justice". It's not. It's a tragedy that she was attacked, and that officers had no alternative but to fatally shoot him.

No, because

Somebody who lunges with knives at cops is TRYING TO KILL THEM. Who gives a fuck if they're mentally ill? They have a right and, indeed, an obligation to protect themselves as best they can.

Call it suicide by cop if it makes you feel better.


If the story happened as it's

By on

If the story happened as it's being reported then the cop did the right thing. Doesn't matter if the guy doesn't have all of his marbles or not. You're in a confined space with a volatile person that has a weapon. Do you want to cop to perform a mental health evaluation before he protects himself or prevents the victim from any further harm?



By on

...you are wrong on this one. It's called "reactionary gap". The person wielding the knives, whether they were mentally disturbed or not, was most likely close enough to cause serious harm to the officers, and therefore deadly force was necessary. However, I won't go so far as to say something asinine like "Justice". That's just plain ignorant.

There have been an awful lot of these lately

We might want to think about giving Boston cops tazers in addition to the guns. Not sure why the number of officer-involved fatal shootings seems to be dramatically on the rise- an increasingly suicidal population?

I'd say it's not just one

By on

I'd say it's not just one factor to consider, but many. Some can be attributed to more brazen criminals and others are cases of untreated mental illness. But regardless of what the scenario is, use of force policies and laws allow for police to use force that is equal to or greater than the threat presented. A knife can be considered a lethal weapon, the taser wouldn't be the best choice in that situation.

Sure it might work to stop the individual, but it might not work. If it didn't work you wasted valuable time stopping a threat and now you have even less time to react than you did before.

And to be clear, that doesn't mean a firearm is the appropriate response to every threat. There is a use of force continuum that I'm sure all department have when it comes to determining the level of force to use.



By on

Are for subduing unruly drunks and crazies, not for stopping armed criminals. As for an increased number of shooting, it's most likely due to the fact that there haven't been enough lately - plenty of reports of cops trying to subdue gun-wielding perps instead of dropping them on the spot, which has emboldened the criminals to a point where they think they can walk away after they stabbed or shot a cop instead of being carried away in a bag. The rules are pretty damn simple - you point a gun at a cop, you die. As long as those rules are being enforced, there won't be any police shootings because no one's going to be dumb enough to attack a cop in the first place.

Just out of curiosity, what were some of these incidents

where police tried to subdue gun-wielding suspects, rather than shooting them? I didn't notice that trend. What I have noticed is an apparent increase (nationally) in cases where those shot were either unarmed or armed with something like a pen or a broom handle. Here, of course, it was allegedly a knife- not sure why a taser would not have accomplished what was necessary.

Unfortunately, those

Unfortunately, those incidents don't regularly make the news. If you follow @bostonpolice on Twitter or read the BPDnews.com blog regularly, you'll frequently see incidents where officers struggled with armed suspects before taking them into custody. With that said, when deadly force is imminently threatened, they don't have much choice other than using deadly force themselves or subjecting themselves to serious injury or death.

Must be something wrong with

By on

Must be something wrong with my browser. I was redirected to a site where the commenters have reason and common sense.

To the skeptics...

By on

What is your experience with this? How any of you are trained in identifying when the use of deadly fore is necessary? I'd say very few. Before you all start Monday morning quarterbacking this, do some research. Is the assailant wielding the knives was close enough to do serious harm to the officers or anyone else in the room, then deadly force was most likely a valid option. Or would you rather see a story about dead or seriously injured cops?



By on

Is that supposed to be an insult? Try again.

Settle down, MatthewC

By on

I'm the skeptic. It's nothing undo. BPD does a fine job and I'm optimistic this shooting will pass scrutiny.
The skepticism is necessary to keep everyone honest.

I lived in California and saw the corrupt cesspool that was the LAPD. And I've seen cops and DA's lie in open court in Mass.

I don't take anything at face value from any government body.

This is is not Monday morning QB'ing. It's establishing the facts of what transpired before rubber-stamping an OK on a fatal shooting.

You question my experience? What facts do you have that we don't?

I'm glad the officer is safe and look forward to a full accounting. How could you possibly have an issue with that?