Hey, there! Log in / Register

Police: Charlestown teen didn't give up loaded gun without a fight

Boston Police report that when officers from the Youth Violence Strike Force went to speak to a group of teens standing in front of 49 Walford Way around noon on Monday, one of the teens:

Turned from officers holding his waistband and ran into the building locking the door behind him. A quick thinking officer went to the rear door, entered the common area and observed the individual standing in the hallway. As the officer approached, the individual took off running up the stairs. While on the stairs, the officer grabbed the individual and immediately felt a firearm in the waistband of the individual. At the top of the landing the individual continued to resist the officer's commands and a violent struggle ensued. During the struggle, the individual attempted to pull the firearm from his waist area several times. The gang unit officer was able to gain control of the individual and secure the loaded gun, that was taken from the individual's waist area.

Leroy Gales, 18, was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition, possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number.

Police say the officers were on patrol due to recent gunfire in the area.

Innocent, etc.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 
Free tagging: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

Evict his family.

up
Voting closed 0

that angry at 7:55 in the morning?! What, did you get up on the wrong side of the bed or something?

up
Voting closed 0

If you want to house the scum bring them to your house. I work too hard to pay for this thug's housing. I've got my own bills to worry about.

up
Voting closed 0

You work, so they don't have too

up
Voting closed 0

Is unemployment/disability a requirement?

Otherwise, how do you know that you aren't just subsidizing McDonalds, Wendy's, Target, etc.?

up
Voting closed 0

I agree with ya Swirl. We all know that.. for example.. we, the tax payers, subsidize WalMart employees due to their low pay. (i.e. Housing, EBT, Welfare, etc)

I think its income and/or disability.

up
Voting closed 0

And, we're going to be paying even MORE to subsidize Walmart's employees since they are taking away their employees' health care options if they work under 30 hours per week. Greedy cheapskates. Any right wingers out there who think they are true conservatives are NOT if they are still shopping at Walmart. Personally, I neither shop at Walmart nor am I a right winger.

up
Voting closed 0

Color me shocked that you decided to play devil's advocate. Even more shocked that you didn't follow it up with "I actually saw this kid working at the supermarket this weekend, pretty sure he only sells crack on his off days to support his ill grandmother who I used to play bingo with."

up
Voting closed 0

You do know you just committed swirlicide, don't you?

up
Voting closed 0

You've made that clear all through this site.

Sorry to mention her name here again. I know how deeply Reality disturbs you.

up
Voting closed 0

Oh my god you're sooooo funny!

up
Voting closed 0

That s.g. kind of scares me too.

up
Voting closed 0

When he sees reality coming, he crosses the street!

up
Voting closed 0

That was funny anon.

up
Voting closed 0

Some of these guys are "visitors". BHA and the police need to start investigating whose apartments they "visit" as well.

up
Voting closed 0

Keep up the good work BPD. Please don't let the Bunker Hill Development turn into Old Colony or Bromley Heath! Not only does it affect the people living there, its also the surrounding areas.

Notice how the home address of many people arrested isn't even in Charlestown? That's the hood rats letting their hood rat friends visit. They act tough because "its the projects". The dealers see a new area to set up shop, they probably can't claim turf in their own neighborhood. Why not cozy up to a desperate female with her own apartment and $50 rent? Throw them out.

It needs to be clear from the moment they sign a lease that there will be no tolerance. Unfortunately BHA doesn't bother doing such things. Has there ever been a manager that walks around and takes notes of locks to be fixed or lights that are out? Or god forbid look around at night or the weekends? Unless HUD gives the heads up that they will be there, nobody does visual inspections.

up
Voting closed 0

the Housing authority would throw families out for the sport of it. Now everyone is a victim. You want to live there then no felonies, no drugs, no weapons, speak english and get a job.

up
Voting closed 0

In theory, you can't live in subsidized housing projects if you are a convicted felon. In practice, it doesn't work that way because someone else's name is on the lease. My Little Sister lives in a housing project in Cambridge, and this is pretty much how it works. In her own apartment, her mother hasn't had a job of any kind in over two years, uses her child support payments to pay the bills and has her other grown up son living with her. He works and does not pay rent at all. It's kind of awful how much you see people get away with, but there's not much the CHA/BHA can do about it. They can't police everyone who lives in public housing.

up
Voting closed 0

Isn't there already a rule about anyone in the household being found guilty of certain crimes, that the family would have to leave?

I remember the story of a woman who had lived in a housing project (I forget which) and she was a trusted and active member of that housing community, but was threatened with eviction due to a grandson living with her arrested selling drugs and gang ties?

Maybe these rules just aren't enforced, or hard to enforce since someone actually living at a household may not be "legally" living there.

up
Voting closed 0

Many people live in places there aren't allowed to off lease. The people allowing them to live there illegally often face no punishment or get a deal to keep their housing in exchange for testimony.

up
Voting closed 0

This guy, being 18, will not likely be allowed to live there any longer once certain legal requirements are met. Due process and all that.

If he's already been kicked out or is otherwise not supposed to be living there, the family may have a problem.

up
Voting closed 0

I used to work for a company the did affordable housing and I believe that we were required to evict the household if a member or even invitee was selling drugs (I forget if conviction was required). The idea being that there were wait lists up to 8 years long of people who needed that slot. And that as landlord, we could be held liable for not getting rid of the problem.

Different states have different eviction processes and it can take a very long time to evict a household in MA.

up
Voting closed 0

Or BHA?

up
Voting closed 0

a little different when you talking about a tax funded housing project versus subsidized housing.

up
Voting closed 0

Ineligibility Because of Criminal Activity (24 CFR § 960.204)

Public Housing Authorities are required to prohibit admission of families with members:

  • Who were evicted from federally assisted housing for drug related criminal activity for three years following the date of eviction (unless the family can demonstrate that the person who engaged in the drug related activity has been rehabilitated or is no longer a member of the household); or
  • Who are currently engaging in illegal use of a drug; or
  • Who have shown a pattern of use of illegal drugs that may interfere with the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other residents; or
  • ·Who are subject to a lifetime registration requirement under a State sex offender registration program; or
  • Whose abuse of alcohol or pattern of abuse of alcohol would interfere with the health, safety or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other residents; or
  • Who have ever been convicted of drug-related criminal activity for manufacture of methamphetamine on the premises of federally assisted housing.

~Part 2 – Chapter 2 Eligibility for Admission: Page 28~

Public Housing Occupancy Guidebook
Involvement in Criminal Activity on the Part of Any Applicant Family Member that Would Adversely Affect the Health, Safety or Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of the Premises by Other Tenants (24 CFR § 960.203(c)(3) and 960.204)

PHAs are required to check an applicant’s history of criminal activity for a history of crimes that would be lease violations if they were committed by a public housing resident. Before the screening steps are examined, consider that certain actions and behaviors require a rejection of an applicant:

  • Persons evicted from federally assisted housing for drug-related criminal activities may not be admitted for three years from the date of eviction. In cases where the statute prohibits admission for a certain period of time, PHAs may now set a longer period of time for the prohibition (24 CFR § 960.203 (c) (3) (ii)).
  • Where the regulations specify a prohibition period for certain behavior, PHAs can consider the mandatory period and any extension of the discretionary period. The discretionary time period for prohibition of admission can vary based on the type of activity.
  • For example, a PHA may have a policy that an eviction where the applicant was manufacturing or dealing drugs results in a 5-year prohibition. In the case of life-time sex offender registrants, a PHA may establish long periods or a lifetime ban.
  • Persons engaging in the illegal use of a drug.
  • “Currently engaged in” means the person has engaged in the activity recently enough to believe the activity is current. In drafting screening language to guide staff, PHAs should spell out what they consider to be “recent”, e.g. past month, past six months, etc.
  • In determining what constitutes “a reasonable belief” PHAs should consider that the use or pattern of use might threaten health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other residents.
  • • Persons convicted of methamphetamine production in assisted housing are permanently prohibited from public housing.
  • • Persons subject to a lifetime sex offender registration under a State sex offender registration program are barred from public housing although such prohibition may not be permanent.
  • • PHA must establish standards that prohibit admission to Public Housing if the PHA determines it has reasonable cause to believe that a household person’s abuse or show pattern of abuse of alcohol that threatens health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other residents.xlv This prohibition of admission for alcohol abuse differs from that for persons using illegal drugs. Alcohol is a legal drug and simple abuse of alcohol is not a reason to deny admission (or evict a resident). The alcohol-related behavior must threaten the health, safety or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other residents before it becomes a screening or lease enforcement issue.

~Part 2 – Chapter 4 Qualification for Admission: Page 53~

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=DOC_10760.pdf

up
Voting closed 0

Seeing how I think I'm the only poster here who has actually lived in the BH projects (and at 49 Walford Way once), do any of you have any idea how many men came to live with their significant others in their project apartments when they got out of the can? And no one ever said a word? All of them.

up
Voting closed 0

for some and "special consideration" given to others.

up
Voting closed 0

Not about the family. And you are referencing Bromley-Heath TMC leader Mildred Hailey, whose two grandsons were. Excerpts from the article I linked below:

But crisis came in 1998, when two of Hailey’s grandsons were arrested in a massive drug raid at the development. Amid allegations that the TMC failed to evict people convicted of drug-dealing, the BHA deposed Hailey and took over management for a year.

In 1999, one of Hailey’s sons was arrested in her apartment on a homicide charge, and the following year, another of her sons was charged with dealing drugs there. There was no sign that Hailey was aware of any of those alleged crimes, but public scrutiny of TMC increased.

http://jamaicaplaingazette.com/2012/02/17/bromley-heath-leader-retires-b...

up
Voting closed 0

Nobody black could live there either.

That's why the Feds "invaded".

up
Voting closed 0

Pat yourself on the back everyone. You have been paying this nice young gentlman's rent within the Bunker Hill Projects and you will get to support him further while he resides at The Other Nashua Street Residences and then at The South Bay Terraces.

Good work BPD on the bust.

up
Voting closed 0

Wanna bet how many teachers and students he has prevented from providing or receiving a quality public school education by being disruptive?

up
Voting closed 0

Friend of yours?

up
Voting closed 0

reaching for the waistband its surprising he is still around for the trip to south bay

up
Voting closed 0

I disagree. This shouldn't be surprising. There was no need for anyone to get shot. This officer acted in a brave manner and saved two lives. The young man's and his own. This officer has shown that you don't need to shoot first and ask questions later. That we can address crime and dangerous activity without killing people. I hope the officer receives recognition for this work.

up
Voting closed 0

So basically there's no need for a cop to shoot a suspect, until of course that cop is being shot at?

-He evaded police. While evading he was seen holding his waistband.
-When the cop caught up to him, he confirmed actually feeling a gun in his waistband.
-A violent struggle ensues, and the suspect reportedly reaches for his waistband.

I dunno, that seems justifiable to me.

up
Voting closed 0

I don't side with cops much these days, but good work here. Shame he didn't blow the little criminal's head off once he reached for the waistband.

up
Voting closed 0

You'll love North Carolina. Reaching for an ID that the cop just asked for is a summary execution offense there.

up
Voting closed 0

"You'll love North Carolina. Reaching for an ID that the cop just asked for is a summary execution offense there."

That was South Carolina, not NC.

up
Voting closed 0

Also NYC - Amadou Diallo

up
Voting closed 0

nice strawman

up
Voting closed 0

To any human being with a gun. Not always black and white playing the "let's see what I pull out if my pocket and how fast game"

I don't think the area of the country matters for that, that stuff can happen anywhere.

up
Voting closed 0

All the more reason we need non-police investigation of police - like Canada is putting into place.

up
Voting closed 0

And not people like you. Because people like you will get overulled by those judges, courts, lawyers and others who know the law. It saves everyone money in the long run.

No police officer will ever have a problem with non-police investigating the police. Studies have actually shown that Internal Affairs departments find officers guilty more than non-police investigations*

* (Americans foe Effective Law Enforcment "police civilian review Boards AELE defense manual, Brief 82-3 (San Fransisco: AELE, 1982. 1997.) and Douglas Perez, 'Common Sense about Police Review (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1994)

up
Voting closed 0

How does one compare A) someone handing over their license in a show of compliance and getting shot vs. B) having a suspect evade you while holding their waistband, then getting into a violent struggle with the suspect, then actually FEELING that handgun in their waistband, and then that suspect actually REACHING for that waistband?

up
Voting closed 0

Then people would all accuse the cop of using too much force and/or being too stupid for not knowing what a real threat is.

up
Voting closed 0

No 'resisting arrest' or 'assaulting an officer' charge?

up
Voting closed 0

Can we not refer to 18 year old people as 'teens'? Sure, they are technically, but it smells of PC and 'tolerance'.

up
Voting closed 0

is unclear?

up
Voting closed 0

Which is why I said technically.

Saying teen to describe an 18 year old thug is trying to paint a certain picture.
It's like calling them youths, completely correct but not accurate.

There is a world of different between thirteen and fourteen.

But hey, caps=right.

up
Voting closed 0

We need to remember that for every Ferguson, there is probably a story like this. Bravo to the officers who caught this kid, and let's hope the kid is put away, not simply released.

And by the way, I'm not just knee-jerk pro-cop. I think their actions are flat-out wrong, or deserving of serious investigation in a lot of situations. But this story is a good reminder of the perspective we need to keep.

up
Voting closed 0

If there were some statistics to back up what you said here.

The problem is, these are not systematically collected or aggregated in any meaningful way.

Sounds like BPD is doing a decent job of training (as we see here) and of collecting information (as we see on the other thread).

up
Voting closed 0

I believe, now the head of house holds should know what's going on In their apartments. There are some good hard working people that raise good children that reside in projects, but it is always shadowed by the bad. It's not fair when your spouse & yourself work 2 JOBS and your college children also work and your paying for school, rent $1800 and bills & food and its hard to make ends meet, and your neighbors are selling their food stamps to buy drugs, and paying $11.00 for rent for the same apartment you have, free medical insurance, when your paying, the system just doesn't seem fair to the working people.

up
Voting closed 0

Its NOT. Particularly when we have the same expenses, plus the cost to help off-set theirs.

up
Voting closed 0

There really is no excuse for a head of household to not know what is in their own apartment. Denial that your child/relative/partner is into drugs, gangs, and violence is not acceptable.

up
Voting closed 0

The management goes home at 5pm and could care less until someone makes a big enough stink in the office or goes above their heads.
If BHA had a stronger backbone they would make sure that new tenants knew ALL of the rules and that there would be consequences for breaking them before they were even allowed to sign a lease. But its all about paperwork, pushing them in and out. Why else would people feel so free as to move in, and a week later be having loud parties, smoking weed and cigarettes, (there is a no smoking policy by the way), and disrupting the neighborhood in many various ways. Because nobody in management cares and its obvious, thats why. BHA shuffles its managers around. Good luck if you DO get a good one, since they will probably remove them soon enough and the development will once again be at the mercy of the next person who may or may not feel like working.
Its a shame that the peaceful, nice, working families who don't have a lot of options have to worry about if the next empty apartment to be filled will turn the whole block dangerous.

up
Voting closed 0

I'm aware of people who rent out their BHA apartments while they travel back and forth to the DR. If you make things easy to get and do not have a nosey manager onsite who has a backbone your screwed. BHA is slipping backwards.

up
Voting closed 0