Hey, there! Log in / Register

Alleged hit-run driver leads Boston, state police on wild chase that ends with him shot, dead on the South Shore

Updated at 1:30 p.m.

A chase that began with a man backing into a woman trying to get out of his car in Roxbury ended at Exit 14 off Rte. 3 when a Boston Police officer fatally shot him as, authorities said, he was "aggressively" going after police.

The suspect, still not identified, was taken to South Shore Hospital, where he died, Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy said in a press conference at the scene. Several officers and a state trooper were injured, he said

.

The chase began around 10:30 a.m. on Woodcliff Street, when he hit a woman trying to get out of his car. Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis said police are still trying to determine their relationship.

Responding officers chased the red Hyundai with Connecticut plates up Blue Hill Avenue. The driver wound up on Southampton Street and in the South Bay mall area before getting onto 93 south, where State Police joined in the chase. At one point, officers were ordered to turn off their lights and sirens because other motorists got out of their way, giving the driver a clear path.

He hit several cars, but kept going. Officers and troopers followed him onto Rte. 3 south all the way into Hingham, where he got off the highway, then got back on. In a statement, State Police describe what happened at Exit 14 on the Rockland/Hingham line:

Several hundred feet from the highway, in the grass median strip on the exit ramp, State and Boston units moved to box the suspect vehicle. The suspect, while in his motor vehicle, continued to aggressively attempt to avoid capture and struck two State Police cruisers. In the moments that followed, as the suspect continued to refuse to surrender, an officer or officers discharged a weapon or weapons. The suspect was struck by gunfire. He was transported to South Shore Hospital, where he was pronounced deceased. A state trooper who was in an unmarked cruiser that was struck head-on by the suspect was also transported to South Shore Hospital, where he was treated for minor injuries and released. He is a 45-year-old, six-year veteran of the department who is currently assigned to the Bristol County State Police Detective Unit. At least two Boston officers were also transported to an area hospital for evaluation.

Photo of the scene.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 
Free tagging: 


Ad:


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

Comments

Huzzah, Huzzah, Huzzah.

up
Voting closed 0

after the police made the totally idiotic decision to shut off their lights and sirens while still engaged in a high speed pursuit can sue the City of Boston and the State Police for damages.

We're in a high speed pursuit here, so let's shut off our lights and sirens because we don't want drivers to know we're chasing a suspect, lest those drivers actually get out of the way.

Brillant thinking Holmes.

up
Voting closed 0

It's really difficult to figure out where a police car or ambulance is if they are only flicking on the siren "as needed." I cannot imagine what possessed them to turn them off during a high speed chase.

up
Voting closed 0

Yeah, it's definitely the cops fault the suspect drove his vehicle into other cars. It's not the suspect's responsibility at all.

up
Voting closed 0

is to protect the public.

Not chase down some criminal at all costs.

Everything about this reminds me of the high chase speed a few years back in Somerville that ended up with 3 citizens dead because of very, very poor police decisions.

up
Voting closed 0

While I think its foolish of you to start making judgements when you don't know anything at all about what happened, in your defense Adam's synopsis is incredibly poorly written.

up
Voting closed 0

Whether the lights were on or off doesn't make the city liable, Holmes. It didn't force the driver to hit those cars. Police can terminate and restart a pursuit at will, and have discretion on when it is, or isn't appropriate to use emergency lights and sirens.
I'm sure you realize that even if someone did manage to get money from the city or state for this, it's you that writes the check, right?

up
Voting closed 0

Maybe Pete can chime , but operating in excess of the speed limit is illegal by the letter of the law without the use of lights and siren

Doesn't matter if you're a cop.

But you also need someone to prosecute. Good luck with that.

up
Voting closed 0

Chapter 89 s.7B is the state law regarding emergency vehicles and their guidelines. Emergency vehicles can go in excess of the speed limit but it does not require them to use their lights or sirens.

The driver of a vehicle of a fire, police or recognized protective department and the driver of an ambulance shall be subject to the provisions of any statute, rule, regulation, ordinance or by-law relating to the operation or parking of vehicles, except that a driver of fire apparatus while going to a fire or responding to an alarm, or the driver of a vehicle of a police or recognized protective department or the driver of an ambulance, in an emergency and while in performance of a public duty or while transporting a sick or injured person to a hospital or other destination where professional medical services are available, may drive such vehicle at a speed in excess of the applicable speed limit if he exercises caution and due regard under the circumstances for the safety of persons and property, and may drive such vehicle through an intersection of ways contrary to any traffic signs or signals regulating traffic at such intersection if he first brings such vehicle to a full stop and then proceeds with caution and due regard for the safety of persons and property, unless otherwise directed by a police officer regulating traffic at such intersection. The driver of any such approaching emergency vehicle shall comply with the provisions of section fourteen of chapter ninety when approaching a school bus which has stopped to allow passengers to alight or board from the same, and whose red lamps are flashing.

But they would have to follow their policy, and every department has strict pursuit policies.

up
Voting closed 0

The More You Know

Thanks!

up
Voting closed 0

Pursuit policies are fairly standard, lights and siren always and a marked cruiser (instead of unmarked) whenever possible. The idea being to signal the suspect and the public both audibly and visually. Certainly, if the order came to terminate the pursuit, the officers would be required to shut off the lights and siren, but I've never heard an order to "continue pursuit but shut off the lights and siren because other cars are getting out of his way." Even if such an unusual order was given by BPD, I doubt MSP would repeat it and vice versa. Something seems to have gotten lost in translation here.

up
Voting closed 0

Lets say you call off the pursuit. You turn off you lights and sirens. Can the police then illegally go in the breakdown lane and go at or above the speed limit? Was this car in the breakdown lane? I'm thinking if I want to get away from the police on 93/3 South, there is a breakdown lane there that I would use. Was the suspect going in and out of traffic? Was he passing people on the left in the left lane?

up
Voting closed 0

The suspect was using all lanes on I-93, including the breakdown lane, per the officers involved in the pursuit.

The order to turn off the lights was actually given when the suspect was (temporarily) stopped in traffic on the expressway. Officers were out of their vehicles, attempting to get the suspect out of his car, when civilian vehicles saw the emergency lights and cleared a path. The suspect then attempted to hit officers that were on foot, and struck several cars, including cruisers, and continued fleeing.

up
Voting closed 0

Thanks ANE

up
Voting closed 0

That makes a lot more sense, thanks ANE. I think the others above can stand down on their suggested lawsuits.

up
Voting closed 0

My pleasure, gents.

up
Voting closed 0

Do any vehicle owners actually get their vehicles repaired in these situations? Who ends up paying for it? Obviously the dead guy in the case can't. Unless the money is taken from his estate, or insurance policy. Also, how do you prove your damage was caused by this incident? The owners of these vehicles aren't at fault. So it seems unreasonable for their own insurance to fix their vehicle, and cause their insurance rates to go up.

up
Voting closed 0

the at fault party and their insurance as far a I know. Being deceased after the incident doesn't matter.

up
Voting closed 0

Somehow, I don't think the $100 fine established by MGLC. 90 S. 25 is cutting it anymore. Especially in cases where the driver is fleeing a serious bodily injury accident, traveling through three counties at high speeds, using all lanes and not stopping for 20 miles.
-----

Section 25. "Any person who, while operating or in charge of a motor vehicle, shall refuse, when requested by a police officer, to give his name and address or the name and address of the owner of such motor vehicle, or who shall give a false name or address, or who shall refuse or neglect to stop when signalled to stop by any police officer who is in uniform or who displays his badge conspicuously on the outside of his outer coat or garment, or who refuses, on demand of such officer, to produce his license to operate such vehicle or his certificate of registration, or to permit such officer to take the license or certificate in hand for the purpose of examination, or who refuses, on demand of such officer, to sign his name in the presence of such officer, and any person who on the demand of an officer of the police or other officer mentioned in section twenty-nine or authorized by the registrar, without a reasonable excuse fails to deliver his license to operate motor vehicles or the certificate of registration of any motor vehicle operated or owned by him or the number plates furnished by the registrar for said motor vehicle, or who refuses or neglects to produce his license when requested by a court or trial justice, shall be punished by a fine of one hundred dollars."

up
Voting closed 0

If he's willing to try and run over cops (as per ANE's posting) then do you think he's concerned whether violating MGLC. 90 S. 25 is going to cost him $100 or $100,000? I would think attempted vehicular homicide, resisting arrest and whatever other of the multitude of charges this pin-head is going to get hit with will more than compensate.

up
Voting closed 0

I believe the attempt to run over cops came after the decision to lead them on a chase, which is an easy decision since most perps know there's little risk of punishment. I think the gamble the perps take is that due to liability/policy, the cops won't chase for long and then they're home free. Nobody knows if it would've been a deterrent in this case, but $100 fine (only if caught) is certainly not a deterrent in general.

up
Voting closed 0

Out of curiosity, does anyone ever get charged SOLELY with the "failure to stop" charge? If they do, then yeah, absolutely it should be updated, but my impression is that if you've done enough to rise to the level of attracting police interest, you've probably violated at least half a dozen traffic regulations, and you're going to be charged with resisting arrest and interfering with an officer. And that's before you try to run over the cops while you're stopped on 93.

up
Voting closed 0

Sometimes when you want to pull someone over they might make an evasive move and turn down a side street and then make a couple more turns in a clear move to avoid pulling over.

Or of an officer is directing traffic and they signal the vehicle to pull over and the person ignores the officer and tries to take their chances and just keeps going.

It happens, but in cases like the above, the $100 fine might be ok, but in a pursuit, it might not. But you have to remember in any pursuit, a vehicle is probably going to break 10-30 other laws in the process. I'm not sure if you could pile up each operating to endanger charge for each dangerous action, but that could add up the years/fines for the violator.

up
Voting closed 0

Per the headline, he isn't going to have to worry about his next offense.

But I agree; this guy wasn't going to stop for anything.

up
Voting closed 0

Having some sort of neutralizer for the fight or flight reaction in the brain would be a tremendous tool...yeah, I know, it's called a tazer.

up
Voting closed 0

where they had a good neutralizer of a sort: close air support. Now they just drone on and on. Either way, very effective, and generally well targeted. Probably a few years away from ROE that allow it on the Expressway for jamokes like this, but ... beats all hell out of a taser.

up
Voting closed 0

-When the chase entered 93 and state police joined in, why were Boston Police still involved? I understand they're allowed to pursue a suspect into a neighboring jurisdiction when a serious crime happens in theirs, but....Rockland!?

-Why is a police force not even in the same COUNTY, whose officers were responsible for the shooting, also responsible for the investigation?

-How exactly was a suspect who had destroyed his vehicle in a head-on collision such an imminent threat to public safety that he was then shot in the chest? There's no mention of him having any weapons or shooting at police, and the vehicle is pretty clearly destroyed.

up
Voting closed 0

-The law is pretty clear that if a person refuses to stop for Boston Police for any arrestable offense that occurred in Boston, BoPo can chase anywhere and everywhere in the state and their police powers remain with them throughout the fresh and continued pursuit. It needn't be a "serious crime" (although in this case it was felony leaving the scene after personal injury) The chase needn't terminate in a "neighboring jurisdiction" either. It could be shoplifting penny-candy, the chase could go from Dorchester to Great Barrington and BoPo would be in the clear legally. See Ch. 41 S. 98A below.

-I believe the Boston Police shooting investigation team is investigating along with the State Police and Plymouth D.A. That's SOP too.

-I'm not sure that the exact circumstances of the shooting have been released. Last I saw, D.A. Cruz declined comment as the investigation is just beginning, but even far-left Mass. courts have deemed a motor vehicle can be a dangerous, often deadly, weapon. Police shootings of non-compliant motorists are justified if the officer reasonably feared for his life.
----------
MGLC. 41 Section 98A. A police officer of a city or town who is empowered to make arrests within a city or town may, on fresh and continued pursuit, exercise such authority in any other city or town for any offence committed in his presence within his jurisdiction for which he would have the right to arrest within his jurisdiction without a warrant. Said officer may return any person so arrested to the jurisdiction wherein said offence was committed. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as limiting the powers of a police officer to make arrests and in so far as possible this section shall be deemed to be declaratory of the common law of the commonwealth.

up
Voting closed 0

"courts have deemed a motor vehicle can be a dangerous, often deadly, weapon. Police shootings of non-compliant motorists are justified if the officer reasonably feared for his life."

I find that argument hard to believe after the car has slammed head-on into a cruiser and sustained the damage we see in various photos.

Even if it was driveable, all they had to do was block the back of his car with another cruiser, maybe sandwich him with two others.

It's not like they didn't have enough cruisers on scene to do it - three different police forces.

What's with the Boston EMS ambulance? That's a long drive. Let me guess: the boston cop who shot the guy was taken to a Boston hospital in a Boston EMS ambulance, out of the reach of the Plymouth DA and state police for a bit so he could be coached on exactly what to say to investigators so the department and city wouldn't be liable for a wrongful death lawsuit.

up
Voting closed 0

A fleeing felon who has already endangered many lives and is trying to escape to endanger even more? That alone justifies deadly force, at least in the eyes of SCOTUS. The officer fearing for his life at the hands of a crazed motorist always justifies it. As for the ambulance, a patient has the right to request any hospital he wants and as a courtesy Boston EMS will transport a city employee injured at work if it's resonable, saving the employee and the city money that they'd have to pay another ambulance service. Bravo Zulu to all involved!

up
Voting closed 0

We haven't heard a single detail about the original incident, other than the passenger of a car was hit, and the guy drove off. He could have been mentally deranged, for example. We don't execute people in this country for being mentally deranged.

And no, "endangered lives" in the past isn't justification for lethal force after the fact, particularly since he didn't, in fact, "endanger" any lives no more than any other of that thousand boy-racers of our highways, until he went the wrong way down the ramp. Which put a pretty quick end to his exploits.

After he hit the cruiser, he ceased to be a lethal threat, unless he was armed. If officers jumped out of their cruisers without immobilizing his vehicle first, then they're a bunch of idiots. It's pretty hard to argue that his vehicle represented a lethal threat if police left the protection of their vehicles, now isn't it?

Watch any clip of a police chase. If it doesn't end with the perp completely destroying their vehicle and bailing+running, it ends with the cops boxing in the car. THEN the perp gets hauled out. Want to see how the UK cops do it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhwoUxeTWsA&feature...

up
Voting closed 0

All it comes down to, is whether or not the officer who fired reasonably feared for his life, or the life of another, at that moment.

Officers aren't obligated to hide in the "protection of their vehicles", and I'm sure that they were out of their cars, giving the suspect verbal commands on what he needed to do. While the officer is in the car, he is much more immobilized, and it's harder to see what the suspect is doing in his car. Also, the vehicle offers relatively little protection, and plenty of officers have been killed while in the driver's seat, both by being rammed and by gunfire.

It doesn't even necessarily matter if he was armed. Maybe he refused to follow commands and appeared to be reaching for a weapon, for instance. He had (allegedly) already shown a desire to kill cops by attempting to run them over with his car.

Cops in the UK have different policies. They are also generally dealing with a population that they assume to not be armed. Here, if you drive up and pin a guy's door with your cruiser bumper, you'll probably get a couple rounds fired through the windshield of your cruiser. Police in this country tend to do what's called a felony stop. I know you think you've seen a clip of EVERY police chase, but in reality, plenty of them end with the suspect finally pulling over, being ordered out of the car at gunpoint, and being taken into custody.

While you judge others for making up their minds without knowing all of the facts, you seem to have already made up your mind without knowing all of the facts. The officer that fired the shot didn't have the luxury of arguing about this on the internet, he had a split second to decide whether or not he needed to use deadly force in order to make sure that he got to go home that night.

up
Voting closed 0

"The officer that fired the shot didn't have the luxury of arguing about this on the internet, he had a split second to decide whether or not he needed to use deadly force in order to make sure that he got to go home that night."

Wooooooow. The guy he shot doesn't have the luxury of living. Or a trial. He was executed at point-blank range while still in his car, with no weapons in the car...for what amounts to a traffic collision with pedestrian injury, and fleeing from police.

Also: cut the "make sure he goes home that night" crap. Police CHOOSE their line of work, which isn't even close to being the most dangerous occupation in the US. Further, police officers have a murder rate that is ONE QUARTER THE GENERAL POPULATION. The vast majority of deaths and injuries are traffic collisions.

up
Voting closed 0

He was executed at point-blank range while still in his car, with no weapons in the car...for what amounts to a traffic collision with pedestrian injury, and fleeing from police.

Because I didn't read that anywhere.

This shooting may not have been justified. I don't think we have enough information here to make up things like you did though. He could have been suicidal and wanted did everything possible to make that cop shoot him. Or maybe he didn't do anything and the cop shot him by means of excessive force.

And yea, cops or anyone should want to go home alive when faced with a dangerous situation.

And the dangerous occupation arguement can go different ways. Everyone chooses what they want to do. Most occupational deaths in the US (including police and fire deaths) happen because of accidents. But there are people who attempt to hurt or kill police officers more than they do other professions. And when you have a chase like this, the possiblity of someone assaulting the police is even greater.

up
Voting closed 0

Like I said before, you've clearly already made up your mind, without having all of the facts.

up
Voting closed 0

And so have investigating authorities. The rest is just a formality. Am I right? Be honest.

up
Voting closed 0

I've made up my mind that IF the officer justifiably feared for his life, then it's a good shoot. I haven't pretended otherwise, and I'll happily admit having a bias towards police. I've only been trying to explain things to anon, who has made decisions not only without knowing the facts, but also without understanding how the policy works.

I can't speak for the people investigating, but I would guess that they will scrutinize every element of the officer's actions that day, as is always done after a police shooting.

up
Voting closed 0

How would one disprove that claim, I wonder? "I thought the suspect made a sudden move." Is that good enough for you? Fear is sort of a subjective thing, is it not? To me it seems as though 99.9% of these investigations conclude that everything police did was justified, and the other .1% are those cases where, coincidentally, their actions were captured by some bystander's camera phone. So I have a certain amount of skepticism about the process. Basically I feel that while in most cases the actions of police are probably appropriate, the "clearance rate" (close to 100%) strains credulity.

up
Voting closed 0

How many cops have been in fear of their lives this year and have shot unarmed people whom they either thought were dangerous or should not have thought were dangerous but shot anyway? In Massaschusetts lets say it has been 20 deaths in the last 10 years (2 per year).

How many cops have been in fear of their lives this year and have not used any force against the unarmed person? My educated estimate tells me that this happens thousands of times per year in Massachusetts.

That doesn't mean the 20 deaths were all justified or could have been avoided.

up
Voting closed 0

It'll get proven, or disproven, through a thorough and exhaustive investigation. It works the same as if you were to shoot someone and claim self defense. They'll examine all of the evidence from the scene, they'll speak to all of the other witnesses, etc. One key question, for instance, might be whether the other officers on scene feared for their lives. If they did, then why didn't they shoot (maybe they didn't have a clear shot?). If they didn't fear for their lives, then why was the situation different for the officer that shot (maybe he could see something they couldn't, or was in a better position to see what was happening). The officer who shot will have to be able to articulate his fear, and exactly what led to him shooting.
It's not as subjective as you might think, because the person who shoots is held to the standard of a reasonable person. So, even if I'm legitimately deathly afraid of rubber spatulas after a childhood incident, when I shoot someone holding a rubber spatula, it won't matter that I was legitimately afraid...it matters whether or not a reasonable person would have legitimately feared for his life.

up
Voting closed 0

Now tell me how it really works. Say it was unjustified. Either the other cops throw their comrade under the proverbial bus by telling the truth, or they fudge a little bit to make it look better. If I were in their shoes, I might fudge too. Brotherhood, trust, feeling like people have your back, all that. Everyone hates a rat. A guy who overeacts in an extremely stressful situation is hardly a murderer, but should he stay out there in the field? I guess the question then becomes, what's an investigator supposed to do if the other police on scene aren't being 100% honest? I don't really know.

up
Voting closed 0

The investigators then do the same thing they would do anytime they need to investigate something and people are lying to them.

Look, clearly it doesn't matter what I say, I'm not going to ever convince you. You (erroneously) believe that the investigations done after something like this are a formality, and you (also erroneously) believe that it's easy to cover up for a bad shoot by just having a couple of cops tell a few white lies. It just isn't that way, but obviously you aren't going to believe that just because I say it.

It's pretty awesome though that you think every single one of the other officers that were on scene are essentially corrupt, and willing to cover up a homicide.

up
Voting closed 0

this disingenuous PR stuff and to pretend you (the human being, not the PR bot) actually believe it. There are degrees of corruption- a little fudge, or an exaggeration, to protect a colleague from the Rats probably wouldn't be considered corruption by most cops. Especially where there's a lot of room to confabulate, misrember, or questions about subjective assessments of a situation.
I don't believe that you believe (at home, in your unofficial life- which is presumably where you were for the weekend) that police officers never tell white lies in situations like this, or that such lies are exceedingly rare. I think that this bridge you are trying to sell me is itself something of a white lie, a professional lie, but one which you can be forgiven for telling- it's your job!
Bur you're right- you won't convince me. Hopefully I'm wrong about all this.

up
Voting closed 0

Glad no innocent bystanders got killed or seriously injured. Sounds like such a thing could be a distinct possibility. Was this a case of stopping a deranged psycho at the start of a mass murdering spree, or was the situation actually made more dangerous to the public by the choice to engage in a prolonged high-speed chase? Surely this guy would have been caught eventually, high-speed chase or not.
And like Brett I'm curious as to whether the guy was still a threat when he was shot. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the guy was known to police- some kind of pimp or drug dealer or something.

up
Voting closed 0

I hope you read the post below so that your blood pressure can return to normal

up
Voting closed 0

Why is it so hush-hush now? Could it be because you cannot prove fear ! Fear is not supposed to be part of a police officer's persona. Now I finally realize that we choose the biggest cowards to carry guns. So they can bully people and shoot innocent people all the while upholding the law and taking our money. He didn't hurt anyone you fools. I hope the murderers at least get fired
This guy was innocent until proven guilty...oh wait I forgot that doesn't exist anymore. at least not here.

up
Voting closed 0