Two robbed by three alleged gang poseurs at Arboretum entrance; two arrested

Boston Police report arresting a pair of Dorchester residents - one just 14 - whom they say robbed two people leaving the Arboretum in Forest Hills last night after motioning as if they had guns and boasting they were in a gang, so their victims better not try anything, like going to police.

The three rode away on their bicycles and two of them were arrested soon after as they pedaled down Washington Street in Roslindale, police say:

The victims stated that one of the males demanded their valuables. The individuals further grabbed at their waistbands indicating that they were possibly armed. The victims handed over their valuables to the suspects who stated that they were in gang and that if the victims reported the incident to police, their families would be harmed. At this time, the suspects pushed the victims to the ground and fled the scene on bicycles.

Police add the two were found with all of the victims' stolen possessions - as well as a phone belonging to another robbery victim.

Cesar Lara-Aguasvivas, 20, and a 14-year-old too young to have his name released were charged with armed robbery and receving stolen goods.

Lara-Aguasvivas had bail set at $5,000 at his arraignment in West Roxbury District Court, the Suffolk County District Attorney's office reports. The kid's mom posted his $1,000 bail, but he was ordered to stay in his house pending the disposition of his case.

Innocent, etc.



    Free tagging: 


    Who's going to hand over

    By on

    Who's going to hand over their valuables to some kids riding bicycles? I'd be embarrassed to call the police.

    Normall I don't acknowledge

    By on

    Normall I don't acknowledge stupidity but what if the victim was your mother or grandmother? You sound like an idiot.


    By on

    More like armed animals who would gladly shoot you if you refuse to hand over your iPhone, mr internet tough guy. At least an older one might just pistol-whip you or even run off if you're lucky, but younger ones will not think twice before putting a slug right between your eyes. Just ask poor Kiwi who tried to keep his phone. Oh wait, you can't - he's dead, and the animal who killed him will be back on the streets in no time.

    That's why you don't refuse

    By on

    That's why you don't refuse to hand over your shit or try to be a hero. If you have an iphone you should be wealthy enough to replace it in a situation like this. If not then you should use a $15 prepaid phone that you can afford to lose. Same goes for the amount of cash you carry.

    It sucks but it's a fact of life and a downside of living in the city. There are people who are desperate enough to stick people up and when it happens you should do anything you need to in order to escape unscathed. You can complain about liberal judges (when really it's lawyers who know the DA and only care about money) or "kids these days" all you want but it doesn't change anything.

    Making it easy only

    By on

    Making it easy only encourages more good for nothing kids to try robbery. It's all about risk vs reward for them.

    These kids aren't desperate but lazy. They are looking for the easiest path through life without honest work.

    And DA's and lawyers aren't the problem. Judges all too often throw out charges and mandatory minimums on top of reducing sentences for career criminals. We have a revolving door because the robbed gate keepers are giving away the store.

    Also complain about an idiotic system

    By on

    whereby suspects of serious crimes get special treatment (like the "too young to have his name released" BS) and lienency in prosecution and sentencing because they're classified as "juveniles".

    Why is it idiotic, again?

    Please ground your answer in the copious factual evidence and research findings on cognitive development, not crotchety old man opinions and just so stories.

    If we were talking about

    By on

    about a six year old taking a candy bar from the corner store, I might agree with you. But this is a 14 year old who robbed somebody (and who should know better). Not the same by a long shot.

    Want to argue that a 14 year old had "poor congitive development" or "poor impulse control" to justify robbery or other serious crimes? Then let the suspect's attorney make those argument during trial, because that's the proper forum for such arguments, not in generalized assumptions about a suspect beforehand based on their age instead of the factual circumstances of the case in question.

    However, to use those arguments as blanket justification to shield any suspect's identity, to give all convicted suspects a sealed record and/or a lighter sentence should they be found guilty (all hallmarks of this questionable social experiment called the juvenile justice system) is indeed idiotic. Why? Because it constitutes nothing more than granting special privildge not based of the circumstances of the crime, but because of a totally arbitrary standard called age. It also presumes that everyone has the same level of cognitive deleopment, which you yourself have stated in the past is an unrealistic approach to the matter.

    Unfair you say. Well, guess what Swirly - In the real word actions have consequences. Perhaps if we took that approach when dealing with criminals instead of hiding behind a constant stream of excuses, we'd be reading far fewer stories like this one. And society would be far better off.

    No drinking age, voting age or driving age then

    Explain to me, using this same logic (and, yet again continuing to ignore well-established scientific understanding of cognitive development) why my 18 year old can't buy me a beer and my 16 year old can't vote or why I can't have my ten-year-old grandnephew drive my car?

    You can't have it both ways.

    How is age a "totally

    How is age a "totally arbitrary standard"? It's not hair color. Age correlates with maturity, and maturity correlates with the ability to make intelligent decisions.

    We all know the problem

    By on

    I don't want to bring it up, but seeing as no-one else has, I guess I will...

    It's the bike lanes painted on Washington St. Back before the lanes, would some punk kid be so bold as to rob someone and escape on a bike? Of course not because he'd get run over while riding away down Washington St. But now that the bleeding heart Liz Warren bike riding liberals who have ruined Rozzie have gotten their bike lanes, the chickens are coming home to roost.

    Just wait until someone leaves a 12 pack of empty Natural Light cans in the parklet by Fornax- then all hell's going to break loose on here.

    I, I, I,...

    By on

    I just don't know what to say.


    Although, if you threw something in about the Casey Overpass, it would have been a work of art.

    but, but, but

    By on

    The bike lanes, the parklet, the chickens roosting. I am home in Roslindale, always have been, even back when it was blue and white collars.

    Vaughn put it best. The chickens are coming home to roost. Chickens. Roost.

    Be afraid. Be very afraid.

    Rhode Island being

    By on

    a very blue collar state.

    Of course, the Roslindale chickens, although they have roosted, are apparently in hiding.

    yeah, but...

    By on

    back then, they would have been riding on the sidewalk and the cops would never have seen them...unless they ran over a few people, and even then...


    By on

    yeah - at first I was thinking this was sarcasm because it was so over-the-top ridiculous, but then you took a left turn with cans of natty light, as if some time-traveling midwestern rednecks from the 90s somehow ended up in Roslindale.

    Now I'm not sure what to think.

    Spoiler alert...

    By on

    It was sarcasm.

    The natty light was a call back to an earlier post about the God given right of local teens to drink the Arboretum.

    Also, to the repeated requests for people to 'go home', I have anchor babies who were born in Roslindale, so I can't leave and deprive them of the opportunity to lord it over yuppies who move here in 20 years.

    Not just sarcasm

    By on

    Brilliant sarcasm.

    I do believe you have just earned your Roslindale citizenship, if you haven't gotten it already.

    We live in a city

    By on

    this shit happens. And saying "you're making it easy by giving up your stuff" is one of the silliest things I have ever heard. Though if you think your phone, wallet or cash is THAT important then by all means fight for it. Materialistic crap isn't worth it people. My life is worth so much more than a phone.

    I also hate to break it to the "newbies" of JP, Rozzie, etc but we had crime in the 70's, 80's & 90's, etc (oh, that's right, it didn't concern you then b/c these areas were supposedly declasse) and we always will have crime b/c again we are in a city. You get crime in suburbia as well, it's just different.

    I'm not saying it's right or it doesn't suck it's just a fact of life.

    Refuse to accept

    By on

    that robbery is a fact of life in this city. I just will not, ever, accept this.

    Some punk kid should be

    By on

    Some punk kid should be thinking "it's not worth risking my life (prison or worse) trying to steal someone's phone" not the other way around.

    It would be GREAT if anyone

    By on

    It would be GREAT if anyone that was going ot victimize another person thought "Hey, I shouldn'tt do this" BUT it is a fact of life in the big city. If you don't think crime is going ot happen than you are an amazing optimist.

    If people are upset about crime start a watch group in the area. Do patrols every night. Work for better education, jobs, oppertunities and help for young people.

    You're digging a hole for yourself unnecessarily

    By on

    I was going to comment on an earlier post of yours earlier, but then I actually read the whole thing.

    To turn what you are saying upside down, crime in Roslindale, JP, or anywhere else is bad, but since this is a city, with its attendant social problems, crimes like these occasionally happen. It doesn't make it right, but it happens.

    Would that satisfy both you and those who have issue with what you wrote?

    Agree, but

    By on

    My point is that street crime like robbery should not be accepted as part of the fabric of city life, e.g. you live in Dorchester, what do you expect? As a crime victim who prefers cities to suburbs, I don't consider myself an optimist. But I still retain enough idealism to consider crime in my neighborhood to be unacceptable. If my friends in Brookline don't live in fear, well, I shouldn't have to, either.


    By on

    More people = more problems and more opportunity for crime.

    Malcolm X, back when he was Malcolm Little, used to rob houses in the suburbs. If I recall correctly, he got pinched in Dover. Linger on a sidewalk in a low density area and it will take too long to get a mark. And if you do get a victim, where do you go? Therefore, the property crimes you hear about in the burbs are housebreaks, car theft, and Dunkin Dounts getting knocked over.

    In an area with more people out and about, there is more opportunity to get a victim quicker, and escape (which in this case means blending in) easier. Why bother breaking into a house, especially if there is a chance that someone is home and might have something to defend themselves with (before the argument goes off on a tangent, think baseball bats, kitchen knives, lamps) when people with expensive electronic devices are just walking around.

    To keep assault short, same thing. The trouble spots in the burbs are parks, as people are walking or jogging around. In cities, it's the same, plus transit hubs.

    But at the end of the day, crime is bad, as are criminals.