Blood runs in the streets
By adamg - Tue, 08/19/2008 - 6:59am.
The Herald sums it up: Bloody night in Hub: 6 shot, 2 stabbed in spate of violence (including the two kids shot in Roxbury and the two people stabbed in West Roxbury:
In a startling burst of bloodshed last night, six people were shot within two hours, and two women were stabbed, police said.
- Add new comment |
| 
| 
Central Square attack
I witnessed a pretty horrific assault last night around 8:30 p.m. in Central Square near the bus stop on Mass. Ave. There were three thugs who attacked a man and then proceeded to stomp on his lifeless body on the sidewalk until the victim's face was completely obliterated.
The police did come but didn't seem interested in apprehending the attackers (who casually walked across the street to the liquor store).
The crowd of onlookers were aghast and literally followed the guys around Central Square while trying to flag down the Cambridge police.
An ambulance did arrive and carted the victim away. The ringleader of the thugs, who was yelling as he ran to the liquor store to get a refill, said something like: "That's what you get when you sucker punch me."
Let me get this straight...
Are you serious? Did they really kill him? And the police came, knew the dudes had gone into the liquor store, knew where they were, and didn't apprehend them? Homicide?
Sheesh. And they detain me for drawing on the sidewalk for chalk.
You are correct
Yes, we were all pointing out the assailants and the two officers at the scene were waiting for back-up. While I understand how dangerous their job can be, I was not impressed with how the Cambridge police handled the situation.
In fact, if it wasn't for the action of the bystanders on the street, I don't think the police would have tried to apprehend the attackers (to be honest, I'm not 100 percent sure that they did get the guys).
The victim was lifeless. Was he dead? I'm not sure.
However, the main attacker (who had boots on) kept stomping on his face. I ran up to the victim and he looked like his face was completely broken. I saw blood and wounds to his head, face and eyes (there was severe ocular trauma).
I'm praying that the man is OK.
Oh, god..
While I, too hope that the victim of this horrific assault is OK, it sounds like he may or may not have a long time left on this earth, or, if he lives, may well be permanently crippled by this beating. Here's hoping the thugs get put away for a long, long time. They belong behind bars.
Two cops, three thugs
What did you want them to do? Let the third one go while they got the other two? Or worse: arrest two while the third one kicks *their* eye sockets in? I mean, it's not like the three of them had just shown the proclivity to potentially kill a man, right?
If they had gone in with their guns drawn to arrest those three among all of the people of Central Square and a gunfight erupted, then what?
Seriously, just *what* did you expect them to do as it was going down? They're working from second-hand information from different witnesses. They have a man bleeding with a crushed face on the sidewalk lifeless that they need to begin attending to since his situation is the most dire. And they're being told that they are out-numbered. So, you tell me the exact procedure and order-of-operations that you wanted these 2 cops to follow in order to satisfy your self-righteous attitude that they were not handling the situation to the best of their abilities. Please, enlighten us.
Also recall that if this is Central Square, Cambridge PD HQ is right around the corner so calling for backup doesn't mean they were necessarily going to wait 20 minutes for help to arrive.
Self-righteous? Come on
Maybe they could have questioned the handful of witnesses to fill them in on what happened and, perhaps, make an effort to apprehend the guys as they casually hung around the liquor store across the street.
I agree that pulling out guns in Central Square probably would not have been the best move. But, they had a pack of witnesses who were literally pointing at the attackers and, in one case, confronted the attackers outside of the liquor.
The only self-righteous attitude last night were the three men who were casually walking down the street after beating a man to a bloody pulp.
Wait a sec...
You "aren't 100% sure" that they apprehended the guys? You don't know? Didn't you even stick around to give an official statement since you directly witnessed the attack?
Again, you're using nebulous requests for action like "make an effort to apprehend". Are you saying that the cops drove up, scooped the dying man into an ambulance, and then drove off again? Did you leave before the cops did or did they leave before you did? You said they waited for backup; did it arrive? What did they do when it did?
You call for "action" but then don't describe what action actually did happen and continue to comment as if you weren't even there when it was all said and done and the cops left (with or without the suspects...who knows?). Then, I asked you to give what "action" you expected to see the cops do and you still only give vague notions of "apprehension". Specifics, please. Did you want 2 cops to walk over to 3 unknown suspects and start cracking heads? Spraying mace? Shooting? Arresting 3 guys with only 2 cops? I'm being serious. If you are writing the script, then what exact order of operations do you want to see the cops do? People bitch about cops all the time not "doing their jobs" but I'd love to hear what they'd like to have been done *specifically* that wasn't being done.
But that also requires that you witnessed everything the cops did while they were present. If you left before the cops did then you have NO IDEA whether they got the suspects or not...took official statements from witnesses or not...did backup arrive or not...etc. AND if you left before the cops did then you are somewhat hypocritical. As a witness to the brutal beating, you didn't stick around to make sure your evidence was logged with those whom you complain aren't doing their job. How do you expect them to arrest and convict the men if everyone who witnessed it leaves before they can take their testimony. The cops didn't see the crime. That leads to another issue of how fast the cops can act since they have to first discern truth from fiction and mistaken identity and so forth.
So, did you stick around? What happened from the time the cops arrived to the time they left? Did the guys get arrested? Did you give an official statement (one where they write what you describe, ask you questions, and then have you sign the bottom)? What *specifically* did the cops need to do differently to best perform their job?
My goodness
I expected them to detain the suspects, by force if necessary. Since when is a two-cop vs. three-suspect fight a problem, especially if they're in an enclosed space?
Umm...yeah, that's what witnesses do. Although I'm guessing it was first-hand information. Although the po-po have an obligation to help the victim, they also hold the responsibility to apprehend the subjects.
Here's some enlightenment: have one cop tend to the victim until the ambulance arrives, have one go to the liquor store to arrest the suspects, and call quickly for backup. You pointed out that the police station is a stone's throw away from the location, so theoretically, they could have been there in a heartbeat to help out.
We're talking about of three thugs beating a man's face, but the nature of your post suggests that you would rather let these guys get away with it. I'm not saying that a cop's job is easy, or that they shouldn't have been attentive to the victim, I just thought that they should have been more hardcore in getting the alledged perpetrators.
Do what??
Nothing about my post suggests they should get away with it. I believe that the cops probably did their job to the best of their abilities given their assessment of the situation and it wasn't the Bad Boys run'n'gun action sequence that "LoadedGun" was expecting. What I want to know is how LoadedGun thinks it should have gone down since he claims to have witnessed it going down incorrectly. Your post goes further to that than his have.
Now, good gravy let's look at your suggestions...
One cop arresting 3 guys? That's rich. Both cops trying to arrest 3 guys? Still not a smart move (and I'm pretty sure their training tells them not to do so). Have you seen 3 cops try and arrest 1 guy before? Remember, we're talking about 3 guys with NO regard for human life who have *just* allegedly stomped a man's head in. If the suspect struggles at all, you could easily end up needing 5 or more cops depending on the suspect's physical ability, mental state, etc. If 1 cops goes over to 3 guys and says "Stop, we need to talk" and they know exactly why...what do you think would happen? They'd all tear ass in 3 different directions and the cop would have to pick one and chase him. The other 2 would get away pretty easily and the third one stands a pretty good chance at escaping 1 cop on foot. Cops do their job easier by a display of numbers and drag-netting/canvassing. Worse, all three could then pull out a weapon and what's a single cop supposed to do then?
As for the witnesses, it's second-hand to the cops if it's first-hand accounts from direct witnesses. That means the truth behind the first-hand accounts have to be sorted through. Furthermore, if 12 people are trying to tell 2 cops what happened, the cops have no idea which of the 12 people actually *saw* it happen and which of the 12 people are telling the cops what they heard in discussion with the others before the cops arrived. I'm not even suggesting it's deliberate, but getting accurate witness statements to be used on scene to detain possible suspects is fraught with trouble for cops.
Finally, if the cops went all superhero on these three guys and didn't follow assigned procedures then the DA would have their heads for possibly screwing up any needed evidence related to the crime. You want them put away for a long time but defense attorneys *love* to attack the arrest as a means of getting their client free and juries *love* to require CSI:MIAMI details about the crime and how it all went down in order to get past "reasonable doubt" these days.
PS - Were you there? Do you know how it went down or are you just going on LoadedGun's comments on how the cops needed to make "more of an effort to apprehend" and vague statements of "I don't know if they got the guys in the end or not"?
Nope.
Wasn't there. And I also didn't read your following post, so I stand defeated.
But I still think that, if the original poster was telling the truth, there was a chance to get a couple cops down to that liquor store post-haste. If cops can't get to a location mere blocks from their headquarters, um, I'm sorry, that just re-enforces that old stereotype of lazy, donut-eating public servants.
When I mentioned one cop arresting three guys, I wasn't saying that was feasible, but barring their entry from the liquor store surely was until backup came.
As for first- vs. second-hand witnesses, what difference does it really make? If a so-called "first-hand" witness lies to the cops, and the cops deliver this "second-hand" evidence to a judge, how does this change things?
Cambridge Chronicle reports on the stomping
Here.
Some more details on the Dorchester shootings
BPDNews posts on three men shot on or near the Harvard Street bridge around 9:30 last night and a man found with multiple gunshot wounds shortly before 8 p.m. at 123 Hamilton St.