Hey, there! Log in / Register

Driver of white pickup sought for fatal Charlestown hit and run

Wanted white pickup

Boston Police have released photos of a white pickup wanted in connection with a hit-and-run crash on Alford Street, just over the bridge from the main part of Charlestown, that killed a pedestrian last night.

The vehicle is described as a white colored Ford F150 pickup with plywood fencing on the truck bed. The motor vehicle may possible have damage to the front driver’s side bumper, grill, and headlight assembly.

The vehicle was last observed entering the rotary in the area of Broadway and Main Street in Everett.

Anyone with info about the truck or its driver can contact homicide detectives at 617-343-4470 or the anonymous tip line by calling 800-494-TIPS or by texting TIP’to CRIME (27463).

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 
Free tagging: 
Ad:

Comments

Here is how you solve this problem: Cameras at every intersection and crosswalk, paid for by an increase in the gas tax. 20 year mandatory sentence for anyone who hits a pedestrian and leaves the scene of their crime. Any intersection where such a crime occurs is closed to car traffic permanently and returned back to the people so that such an attack never occurs there again. Does that sound harsh? More harsh than being hit in a crosswalk by a speeding driver?

up
Voting closed 42

Yeah we tried that with drugs and guns. How many 5x time felons are featured on UHub each week still strutting around like peacocks without a care in the world still dealing drugs and shooting each other?

up
Voting closed 25

People deal drugs despite it being illegal because there's an economic incentive behind it. Guns are usually, or can be part of doing business.

What, exactly, is the economic incentive of drunk driving?

up
Voting closed 28

All the harsh laws in the world mean nothing if judges in MA keep negating those laws by letting obviously unrepentant criminals off with less harsh judgement than a Sister Superior at a Sunday School would dish out to an out of line pupil.

up
Voting closed 14

Admittedly, the majority of his comments devolve into insane nonsense which aren't worth wasting time or brain activity on, but at the end, he is advocating permanently shutting down roads if there is a single hit-and-run incident. Ban cars from enough roads and drivers will just ignore the bans. Criminalizing what is now allowed and almost all the time safe will just create criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens. I would say the proper phrase would be that he is seeking a "prohibition on driving," and we know how prohibitions go. Heck, if we want to stay on topic, just think about the time the federal government mandated a maximum speed limit of 55 MPH.

up
Voting closed 11

I take Kinopio's posts for what they are: going to 11.

I have no idea where he suggests that we are criminalizing anything that's currently legal, unless you mean to say that DUI, striking pedestrians, and/or hit and run are all legal.

On the other hand, Kinopio has a point: we dedicate and prioritize way too much space for motorists/cars.

up
Voting closed 22

If this happened-

Any intersection where such a crime occurs is closed to car traffic permanently and returned back to the people so that such an attack never occurs there again.

People wouldn't be breaking more laws in order to, you know, get from A to B?

Same as any other prohibition, really. Let's take the bad behavior of the minority and pushing the majority of law abiding citizens, making them more likely to violate the punitive law. There's a book my a Michelle Alexander you might want to read about the rush to harsh enforcement.

up
Voting closed 13

There's not only one route to go anywhere. And, why do they need a car to get to where they're going?

Also, I don't care to debate you.

up
Voting closed 13

Until Kinopio closes the new way to get from A to B.

Also, your response gives an indication that you do care to debate me.

up
Voting closed 9

It doesn't.

up
Voting closed 10

You are trying to get the last word on this.

up
Voting closed 8

and ironic that it looks like you were

up
Voting closed 16

But then it's a question of two kids squabbling.

But hey, I wasn't the one that butted into a debate, then said that I didn't want to debate the issues I just brought up. So who's the 5 year old and who's the 45 year old who doesn't know how a 5 year old thinks?

up
Voting closed 10

...of any driver who blows through a red light, speeds up at a yellow light, or fails to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk. And make the fines hurt. Funny how they can do this at toll booths but can't seem to grasp the concept as a way to protect pedestrians.

up
Voting closed 50

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49090755

We have the technology, the EU is going full steam ahead with it.

In fact, the EU has set out a much wider range of compulsory safety measures that will have to be fitted to all cars from that date, including emergency automatic braking, lane-keeping assistance and systems to prevent drivers from becoming drowsy or distracted.

Oh but we can't because reasons or liberty or whatever.

the very idea of compulsory speed limiters is something many drivers object to.

up
Voting closed 26

Freedom means having the right to impose your religion on a woman's body while simultaneously claiming a right to drive whatever speed you want (even though there is no right to drive).

up
Voting closed 25

But if this pedestrian death is casino related, then it can alter Encore traffic mitigation. Instead of pushing pedestrians onto busy state routes. Instead of ped bridges where intoxicated patrons can fall into the Mystic. Encore can build an on-site train station with attendees. With an enclosed secure train station: $30 mil, about the same cost as the proposed Mystic ped only bridge: it can monitor not only drunk patrons but other issues that arise when casinos open.

up
Voting closed 16

Much like the Somerville guy, there's a 95% chance the driver was drunk or high and it isn't their first time driving that way. If Mass had better laws and enforcement of drunk driving, many lives would be saved.

up
Voting closed 37

I feel like fleeing the scene should create the automatic legal assumption that it's a DUI. I know it can't happen that way (the fleeing party would have to prove they're innocent, and that's not how our system works), but in moments like this, I wish it could

up
Voting closed 20

The penalties (if someone is killed or seriously injured) in a hit and run are much worse than if you kill someone while driving drunk.

up
Voting closed 14

I have a friend who was hit by a drunk college kid just west of the city and the kid fled. My friend lived, although required extensive surgery and months off work.

Later that night, the kid turned himself in to the police and admitted he'd be drinking. The officer at the station even smelled booze on him hours later according to his report.

Yet when it came to trial the assistant DA was pessimistic about the case. (The kid's parents are rich.) She explained that the drunk driving charge would be very hard. Assault and battery was the only felony and even then a conviction wasn't a sure thing. In the end the kid pleaded to a lesser charge and got off without jail.

This is Massachusetts. You can hit someone with your car, drive off, and later admit to being drunk and they STILL can't get a conviction requiring jail. The best the victim can hope for is a large settlement in a civil suit.

So this is the state we live in. My theory is that lawmakers (and their rich friends) drink and drive with such frequency that they won't risk passing a law that could put them in jail.

up
Voting closed 38

You have to prove someone is drunk and the only way to really do that is with a breath or blood test, and even the breath test isn't admissible in court!!!.

up
Voting closed 12

And raise the penalties to 10 years in jail.

Then you also get around the drug use, the too impaired to drive problems with elders, the didn't take care of type 2 diabetes issues problems, etc.

up
Voting closed 14

Are the cameras really that bad, or did they intentionally blur out the number? Cameras are good enough and cheap enough to be able to capture not just the license plate but the driver's face.

up
Voting closed 12

Some are but they are rare.

up
Voting closed 11

Digital cameras are so good and so cheap there's no excuse for not installing them. The upgrades would pay for themselves with the added income from the tickets.

up
Voting closed 14

And they have had cameras on for a while and the systems are just older. A lot of the residential doorbell cams are very clear, but aren't at the right angle to get a license plate.

up
Voting closed 11

Digital cameras are good. But you would need both high resolution and wide frame or you're going to need one for every lane. Then you don't want a still, you want video. That's more expensive. Then you need to capture hours of footage at a time to be able to have enough loop for an accident to occur and still have it on a drive to review. That's more expense for either fast transmission to a data center or storage everywhere the cameras are.

It adds up quick when you consider all the requirements and not just "cameras should be able to see license plates these days".

up
Voting closed 13

It's usually the image capture product that is ruining the quality. The cameras lead the tech and the capture follows along. (I'd say videotape, but that's not right)

up
Voting closed 9

up
Voting closed 17

Local plates? I was cut off by a truck like that near the Belmont / Arlington border about a month ago. It had Florida plates though and a washer/dryer in the back.

up
Voting closed 7