Police: Officers grab suspect's loaded gun before he can get it out of his pants in Codman Square struggle

Boston Police report arresting a Dorchester man on gun charges yesterday afternoon on a struggle they say sent one officer to the hospital.

Police report officers had pulled a car over at 503 Washington St. for an expired license plate around 5:30 p.m. yesterday. After learning the driver's license had also expired, they ordered him and his passenger out of the rental car. The driver went peacefully, police say, but:

[T]he passenger, identified as 26-year-old Darnell R. Pierre of Dorchester, began moving his hands toward an object in his waistband. An officer attempted to frisk Pierre for officer safety, but when the officer felt a hard metal object in his waistband, Pierre used one hand to push the officers hand away and reached for the object with his other hand. A violent struggle ensued, during which the officer held onto the barrel of a firearm as Pierre attempted to pull the firearm out. Officers were eventually able to subdue Pierre and place him in handcuffs, only after one of the officers suffered non-life-threatening injuries during the arrest. Officers recovered the loaded Taurus Millennium G2 .40 caliber handgun from inside Pierre’s pants.

The gun, police say, had been stolen in Newnan, GA, on June 16.

Pierre was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition, receiving stolen property and resisting arrest. The driver, Tyrone C. Hicks, 41, of Dorchester, was charged with use of a motor vehicle without authority, driving without a license and operating an uninsured and unregistered motor vehicle.

Innocent, etc.



Free tagging: 


Once again,

BPD officers make an arrest without shooting, in a situation that in other jurisdictions would have seen the perp shot dead. Are other police departments coming to Boston to discover what BPD is doing right? They should be.

We benefit from this

We here in Boston benefit by having a classy, professional, well-trained police department. It's a mystery to me why people living in many other places don't insist upon the same.

Because training costs money

By on

There was an article on this in the Globe a while ago. Even when training is free, quality training takes a few days and you need to have replacements on the street during the time, and that gets expensive.

I'm proud that Boston has made this a priority and is seriously committed to it.

So you're saying...

By on

Instead of training on how to use the latest anti-mine half-track vehicle from the Army they should spend that training budget on how to apprehend suspects without killing them first?

What are you? A commie?


By on

haha you make me laugh. The BPD does such a wonderul job exacerbating situations and fabricating their numbers to make the city seem safe, which it is not. They also lump the whole city into crime statistics unlike other places such as florida to make it appear the whole city is reasonably safe. If you took the stats from dorchester, roxbury, mattapan Boston would look like a terrible place to reside. But instead they group it with other parts such as Hyde Park, Roslindale, West Roxbury, Brighton just makes no sense.

Also lets give props to a department that knowingly hires racist cops because they are related to former and active cops! If you look at amy licture from crime scenes in sometimes neighbborhoods that are primarily african american all of the police officers on scene are white, another point that makes no sense. Boston cops continually get told it is okay to break the law and get away with it just like being racist and slandering african americans!

ya i have lived in boston ny

By on

ya i have lived in boston ny whole life hyde park barely has crime i dont think even a murder this year. So your wuestion was?

The fact that the Boston

By on

The fact that the Boston police don't kill you to make TOUGH arrests is applauded. Cops here definitely are racist they will DEFINITELY lie on reports in Dor, Rox,Matt to get promotions and accolades. Could never happen in Brookline.

you make ME laugh

By on

Let's see you put YOUR life on the line as a police officer. Why can't you be a decent enough person to acknowledge that the officers here did a great job and diffused a situation that could have ended very badly for the suspect. The officers deserve praise for this.

Your Friend,

While I wholeheartedly agree

By on

While I wholeheartedly agree that BPD does a PHENOMINAL job ending tense situations peacefully, I can't help but feel it puts both the officers' and communities safety in danger.

Not the case

By on

De-escalation methods can prevent injuries or deaths to innocent bystanders, as well as to police who can be hit by "friendly" fire.

How was this "de-escalation"?

By on

How was this "de-escalation"?

The guy tried to pull the gun out.

How would you have "de-escalated" it once that firearm was pointed at your face, and you were milliseconds from death?

Can't help but feel

Being human, that's something that happens.

However, when it comes to rational decisionmaking, it helps to take that "can't help but feel" and channel it into a working hypothesis for doing some research on the subject.

It happens

An in-town rental agency tried to give my boss a car with an expired plate the last time we went to Amherst, but she caught it and refused the vehicle.

The vehicle had an Illinois plate. It isn't uncommon for these vehicles to roam to the point that they don't make it back to base in time for a sticker.

Our national gun epidemic

By on

We can make all the state laws we want, but until there is a push for a national gun law reform that would reduce the likelihood of a gun stolen in GA from ending up in MA, what the hell is the point?

Why the Hell are you talking

By on

Why the Hell are you talking about? Gun trafficking is already a BIG TIME FEDERAL FELONY it's just that prosecutors NEVER push for those charges.

The state legislature included creating a Massachusetts State Police anti-gun trafficking unit as part of 2014 revisions to the state gun laws. Guess what? THEY NEVER BOTHERED FUNDING IT. The legislature is fine with kicking people already obeying the law in the teeth to pretend they are "doing something". When it comes to putting funding where their mouths are and going after criminals NOT SO MUCH!


By on

You're talking like you think this bozo drove to GA just to steal a gun from someone and drive back to Boston.

Ever watch some of the "life of a gun" documentaries? Which of the resellers, distributors, etc. should be busted for trafficking? Specifically. For this exact gun? You have no idea whose hands and how many hands touched this gun before it ended up in this dipshit's hands.

National gun control would make it less likely anyone would bring that gun to MA because any of the even semi-legal processes wouldn't be profitable any more. You would have to go all the way to GA and steal the gun and drive back to MA with more tracking and regulations on gun sales/ownership. In fact, the person who had it stolen in GA might even consider it a more important purchase and have kept it in a way that wasn't as easy to have stolen, etc.

I'm not talking about making a single law that says "don't steal guns and drive to another state".

Careful what you wish for

By on

Making "gun control" a solely federal issue would mean that Massachusetts could end up with regulations that make a lot of sense for people in Texas and Montana but not so much for people in Massachusetts and New Jersey, since that is how this whole federal thing works.

Didn't say that either

By on

I simply said that the state laws are pointless until there's federal reform in place first.

It's the same problem with a situation on a smaller scale like Chicago. You can't sell guns in Chicago. That fact gets used by gun control opponents who then create this canard: "well, I guess nobody should be dying of gun violence in Chicago then...whhhhaaat, they are...see laws are pointless to criminals". You can't argue with logic like that, because it's not logic.

If you can buy a gun outside of Chicago and bring it into Chicago completely unnoticed, then the gun law in Chicago is barely having an impact. If someone bought the gun stolen in GA (and it didn't have to be purchased directly from the thief) and brought it to MA unnoticed, then it doesn't matter if we make it harder to buy/sell guns in MA. We'll have more of an impact than the Chicago laws because MA state laws will cover a larger area, but it's not like it's hard to get outside of MA to a gun-friendly state and come back in with a gun. Hell, it's only 6 miles from the end of the Haverhill Commuter Rail line to the closest NH gun shop. You don't even need a car.


Georgia and Florida bring a huge number of the illegal guns to the northeast. MA laws aren't going to stop that.

Now, once those federal reforms to how guns are bought, sold, transferred, and reported stolen are in place, *then* we can have meaningful state laws against what makes us different than Texas or Arizona (you don't need a handgun for protection to go hiking in the Berkshires). Then you put in place your state laws to compensate for those differences. It's a many layered problem, but the little layers are basically meaningless if the national issue remains completely unabated.

I don't disagree with you

By on

It's just that if your answer to Chicago being terrorized in no small part due to lax Indiana gun laws is to have federal laws, the odds are that the final federal solution would be basically to have Indiana's gun laws for 50 states. I wouldn't agree with the ultimate final outcome, but the politics of the matter would lead to that being the solution.

Not at all

By on

Why would it have to be a least common denominator problem? Also, at a federal level, why would we look at state laws to determine what's best for a national system? You can implement layers of controls and reporting that the state would need to comply with for interstate commerce reasons. If the state doesn't have the mechanism in place, it would have to put it in place.

The rest of us shouldn't be held hostage just because Indiana or Montana or Georgia or Florida like to give guns away like candy. Even something as simple as mandatory reporting of gun transfers...making the entire transaction auditable would go far and has broad support across the nation. The politics of this are almost entirely gun lobby intransigence and not specific to any state getting in the way at all.

It's already a big time

By on

It's already a big time federal offense to traffic guns across state lines. Why aren't prosecutors asking the feds to step in and file charges?

Trying to figure out how that would work

All it takes is for guns to be purchased legally and then loaded in a vehicle. Unless that vehicle is stopped and searched for some reason, nothing will keep those guns from reaching their destination.

Moving them isn't something that is easy to detect, unless the driver is a total idiot. Pretty much the only way to stop such things is making it harder to buy guns everywhere.

Perhaps some Canadian style restrictions are in order - everyplace between Winnipeg and Ottawa sells guns guns and more guns, and yet they don't seem to be making it over the border in large numbers. Then again, most of those guns are rifles for hunting.

How come Vermont, New

By on

How come Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine have fewer laws than us and have Canadian or less levels of crime? Why are guns smuggled from Georgia and not our northern neighbors?

Hint: follow the drugs

For starters

By on

An improved and/or mandated gun registry would do wonders to blunt the illegal gun trafficking. If every transfer of ownership regardless of where required a title transfer logged with the state authorities similar to a car, there'd be fewer gun laundering operations. Fewer pawnshops willing/able to buy stolen guns and then sell them to unsuspecting (or even suspecting) middle-men who would bring them to a completely new location. Fewer straw purchases or friends loaning out guns if they thought it would come back to bite them more easily. You force owners to perform mandatory reporting of stolen/missing weapons to clear the title. Buyers would have a Gunfax equivalent to Carfax to see the history of a gun better. Sellers would be unable to fence guns reported as stolen/missing as easily.

Then you revoke dealer licenses if they have too many guns go "stolen/missing" in a certain time period. If they can't be responsible enough to store/manage them properly, then can't be allowed to sell them at all. This prevents the illegal loophole some FFLs take when selling to buyers they know are likely to be purchasing for a crime but don't want the responsibility of having furnished the criminal the weapon (choosing to sell the gun off the books and report it missing/stolen later from their inventory with the registries already in place).

Then you revoke dealer licenses when that dealer displays a pattern for title transfers to people who then use the guns in crimes. A bartender must use judgement to prevent alcohol abuse in the name of public safety. A gun dealer should be forced to use judgement to prevent gun abuse in the name of public safety.

There are lots of methods that would close the free and easy transfer of guns around the country. These are methods we currently use in other places to good effect, like car registration and alcohol sales. Black market gun costs would soar making it less likely that every criminal would have one. Fewer guns would disappear from the system just to show up in a street crime because legitimate sellers would have more concern for their clientele. Straw purchasers would be more easily held liable for the actions of the gun they bought and gave away without retitling it.

it's already illegal

By on

We just have weak prosecutors and political leaders who grandstand by imposing laws on the people who actually intend to follow them. Possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number is a federal offense. When's the last time you heard of someone in Boston doing the mandatory for that one?