Hey, there! Log in / Register

Police: Guy being chased in Egleston Square was also hit by the car that hit the officer

Boston Police report a man trying to evade getting arrested on several warrants in Egleston Square around 10:30 this morning was hit by the same car that hit the officer as the two ran across Washington Street.

According to police, the officer spotted Wilfredo Burgos, 39, of Roxbury, whom he knew had a warrant out for his arrest:

The officer approached the male and notified him of the active warrant and stated that he was under arrest. At this time, the suspect violently pulled away from the officer in an attempt to evade arrest and continued to flee away from the officer. The officer gave chase across Washington Street and passed behind a large truck. At this time, both the officer and the suspect were struck by a motor vehicle traveling from Columbus Avenue towards School Street. The officer suffered serious, but non-life-threatening injuries and was transported to a local hospital. The suspect, who suffered minor injuries, was also transported to a local hospital where he will remain until he is able to be booked. The operator of the motor vehicle remained on scene and no citations have been issued at this time.

Once he is well enough, Burgos will be arraigned in West Roxbury Municipal Court on charges of assault and battery on a police officer and resisting arrest - as well as on warrants for operating with a suspended license out of both East Brookfield and Worcester and out of Roxbury for receiving stolen property under $1,200, and several charges related to unauthorized use of a credit card, police say.

Innocent, etc.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 
Ad:

Comments

used to it. this is what lays under the thin skein of civilization

"the suspect violently pulled away from the officer in an attempt to evade arrest"

This loser must have read DA Rollins' SJW manifesto letting criminals know that resisting arrest won't be prosecuted anymore in Suffolk county.

Why would he stop?

And here we have an example of why resisting arrest is a serious f*$&king thing - because an office almost lost their life.

Keep up the great work BPD. I for one am thankful, and I am sure residents (and business owners) of Egleston Sq. are thankful too.

First, Rollins didn't absolutely ban prosecutions for "resisting arrest" - it's just that now an assistant DA needs to seek permission from a supervisor first.

Second, and more important, her policy refers to "resisting arrest" when it's the only charge (how can you be charged with resisting arrest when you're not charged with anything else? Good question, but it's something that's been done elsewhere). That's obviously not the case here, the guy faces multiple other charges. But don't believe me, let's go right to her campaign Web site, where she conveniently listed the charges she is talking about:

  • A stand alone resisting arrest charge, i.e. cases where a person is charged with resisting arrest and that is the only charge
  • A resisting arrest charge combined with only charges that all fall under the list of charges to decline to prosecute, e.g. resisting arrest charge combined only with a trespassing charge

Again, that's not the case in this instance. I realize nuance is a forgotten art these days, but if you're going to criticize the DA for something, at least first check to make sure you're criticizing something she's actually done or said.

up
12

ah nuance - do me a favor - explain to me what a "stand alone" resisting arrest charge would be then? if there is no other crime being committed, what would the reason be for the arrest in the first place?

I'll wait...

and thanks for posting her nonsense for everyone who may have missed it.

for those in the back - if some loser is shoplifting, then decides to "hang out" in your house or building without permission, then resists arrest when you call the police, they won't be prosecuted. Get it?

And neither am I, but I can use Google and stuff.

And, yes, people in other states have been arrested on the sole charge of "resisting arrest." It became sort of a big deal after Eric Garner's death, which is why it became a big issue in the black community. That is what Rollins is after, not people charged with resisting arrest on other, more serious crimes, like assault and battery on a police officer.

so by your logic, a person of color could NEVER disagree with Rollins' new mission to find ways to not prosecute for what she considers "low level" crimes? (ie shoplifting, drug possession, trespassing, motor vehicle violations, resisting arrest).

racist much? good lord. thanks for SJW-splaining it to me.

And I am sure the shop owners from Roslindale to East Boston are thrilled that shoplifting will no longer be prosecuted - because why even call the police if nothing will happen? But just wait until shop owners start profiling people who they think are shoplifters to deter increased shoplifting - the ACLU lawyers are salivating.

So as long as my upstanding neighbor is shoplifting, while on drugs, and resisting arrest (but doesn't assault anyone) then they are totally cool.

gotcha.

Wow, first time I've ever been accused of being a single Jewish woman, snort (oh, don't worry, you don't have to explain what it really means to those of us old enough to remember the Phoenix classifieds).

Yes, a black person could disagree with Rollins. But based on your earlier comments, you seem unable to understand that there are reasons that black people might have reason to be wary around a largely white police force for reasons that have nothing to do with being criminals, and that Rollins is attempting to do something about that.