Hey, there! Log in / Register

Cambridge man charged with pulling a knife on a jogger for not wearing a mask

Wicked Local Cambridge reports. That might explain why, in her announcement about free masks last night, Cambridge Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui urged residents to leave mask enforcement to police.

Neighborhoods: 

Ad:

Comments

But I still can't wipe the grin off my face.

Preppie/yuppie scum, just GO AWAY.

up
Voting closed 30

Who are you calling preppie/ yuppie scum!?? The jogger or the parent?

up
Voting closed 16

But if they're going to use the very gender-specific binary terms "man" and "father" for the alleged perpetrator, why blur that for the alleged victim?

up
Voting closed 12

From the article (maybe updated since you read it?), emphasis added:

The jogger, a 29-year-old Cambridge man,

The jogger said he had planned to run into the street

The jogger said he complied and then called police

- https://cambridge.wickedlocal.com/news/20200429/updated-cambridge-man-ch...

... Seems pretty gender (and age) specific regarding the jogger/alleged victim, now.

As to why an earlier draft may have been vaguer: Perhaps that info wasn't yet available to Cambridge Chronicle? Police (and journalists) tend to prioritize reporting info about alleged perpetrators over that of their alleged victims.

up
Voting closed 6

jogger = preppie/yuppie scum now? That's wild.

The story provides no info about the demographics of any one involved other than the two young kids.

Sometimes it seems like the people who really miss using blatant racist language like back in the day are just left grasping as straws to make sure people they don't like are other somehow, vs just being jerks or whatever. You're telling on yourself FBC.

up
Voting closed 96

Preppy because runners exercise and are in good shape
Yuppie because runners can afford rental prices in the city.

It's sad, people always fault runners because they are 'huffing and puffing'... when, unless sprinting...a good runner's heart rate is going to be around 160bpm.

And that heart rate is much lower than the average person when indoors and walking...

So they breathe much less hard...in places where the virus is more transmissible.

up
Voting closed 40

Wear a mask. I don't want to breathe whatever you're ejecting from your lungs.

up
Voting closed 5

I think you need to double check your numbers for that bpm—160 is going to be in the vigorous activity range for basically everyone, runners included. No one's touching 160 just by walking, unless they're incredibly out of shape (as in, not just "watched too many episodes on Netflix" but "something very medically wrong with this person").

up
Voting closed 6

Please call 911 if your heart rate is “much higher than 160” while walking in your house.

The reason people jog is that your metabolism is higher. Your heart rate goes up. You breath harder.

I’m not saying joggers deserve knives, but it is a higher risk of transmission than someone walking.

Whether exercising or not, it is selfish to not wear a mask to protect those around you.

up
Voting closed 12

"That heart rate is much lower than the average person when indoors and walking"

Can you provide a reference for the idea that average person indoors has a heart rate 160+ just walking? I'm 58, my resting heart rate is between 60 and 70. My heart would be pounding out of my chest if my heart rate were 160 just indoors and walking.

up
Voting closed 26

I think they meant to say the runner's HR is lower than a non-runner's indoors and walking, but not that either's is 160 in that circumstance.

I don't know if that's true, either. My resting. HR is also 60 - 70, and I'm way older than 58. It's always been on the low side, and I've never been a runner.

up
Voting closed 14

“indoors and walking” is above 160, you should go to the ER.

up
Voting closed 42

160 BPM is the high end of the safe heart rate spectrum. Your heart rate will only hit that if you’re doing very strenuous exercise (like jogging when you’re out of shape). In shape joggers heart rates hover around 110 - 120 or lower.

Regardless jogging outdoors doesn’t transmit much because you’re outdoors and coming into very little and brief contact with others, regardless of how heavy you’re breathing.

up
Voting closed 12

They want their preppies and yuppies back.

up
Voting closed 8

It's gonna be fascinating to see what society looks like after a year of this.

up
Voting closed 48

You pull the knife on the person who's demonstrated capable foot speed. Good bid. Let's say the jogger is armed with a knife as well. Of course, they would be wise to not try to pull it right away, so they comply, and distance themselves.

Then what? Maybe the jogger has jogged away in the other direction...but the assailant remains in the jogger's line of sight. If I'm the jogger, maybe I wait the assailant out, then chase them down and stab them in the back.

I've never been in a fight with a weapon, but what's the logic of merely displaying a weapon, especially one as easily obtainable as a knife, and then not following through with an attack? Even Jack Bauer said it once on 24: "The next time you pull a gun on me, you better be ready to use it."

And to do it in front of children is a whole other level of stupid. When I get elected Governor, I'll pay people like that to get vasectomies (the carrot, not the stick, you see) to prevent this whole awful incident from, at a bare-ass minimum, happening in front of the assailant's children.

up
Voting closed 18

this is a Wendy's

up
Voting closed 58

"Sir, teasing the order box is a felony."

up
Voting closed 16

Don't you mean the victim's children?

up
Voting closed 15

It goes you display your weapon and the person magically stops whatever they are doing. Lot's of people believe this theory but in reality it seldom works.

up
Voting closed 5

I hope this triggers a full child safety audit.

We had a couple of jackasses in my neighborhood who thought having kids was a great way to "justify" violent expression as a way of salving their deepest fears while retaining their man cards. I GETS TO BE VIOLENT 'cause I'm JUST PROTECTIN MAH KIDS!

At least one is doing time for DV now, because violent assholes seem to find lots of reasons that magically entitle them to be violent and not bother working on those pesky self control or risk assessment skills.

up
Voting closed 33

Magoo abides just like The Dude. And like The Dude, why can’t we all just get along and have a few White Russians while we are at it. Note: Magoo is not being racist. A White Russian is a beverage of the imbibing kind. Magoo.

up
Voting closed 17

That is beyond stupid level! That guy is an idiot and deserves to get railroaded. He is lucky the incident didn't escalate. DSS should be called as well.

up
Voting closed 25

Boston drivers do this all the time. Menacing pedestrians and anyone actually obeying rules of the road.

up
Voting closed 6

If you're scared or "courteously conscientious" wear a mask, if you're not scared, but "courteously" conscientious," don't give into peer pressure. Simple.

up
Voting closed 23

Wearing the mask, scared or not, courteous or not, does not mean a sacrifice of some precious liberty. You're not gonna "show the Man" by defiantly parading around with your mug out in public spaces. Just do it. Show some patriotism, some respect for health care workers and first responders, some solidarity with you community by doing the right thing and don't be an ass. Its not forever*, besides, if you're worried about your freedom to not wear a mask as part of a slippery slope, you've not been paying attention to a WHOLE bunch of other things that have happened in the last 50 years.

And for the tough guy, you know what they say, don't bring a knife to a 5k.

up
Voting closed 51

There is no evidence that the virus passively transmits easily or at all when outdoors. All the science of how the virus transmits indicates that the virus dissipates so rapidly that it is impossible or almost impossible to transmit outdoors unless possibly speaking to an infected person while violating social distancing guidelines. The CDC and the WHO recommend no such precautions. This is a policy implemented by someone that lacks the intellectual, legal and moral capacity to impose such an order in a public space. What's next? Mandatory inner tubes when swimming? Wrapping our kids in bubble wrap at the playground? Close Cape Cod in summer until the sharks leave?

Why is it that all the progressives lambaste conservatives for not following the science regarding global warming but do the exact same thing with this charade, science be damned?

up
Voting closed 47

This virus spreads like a number of its cousins, and masks have proven to be somewhat effective at controlling the spread of things like flus, colds, etc. There's a reason why so many people in Asian megacities started wearing masks after SARS, and it's not because their governments ordered them to do so.

If long-term social proof doesn't do it for you, then how about the fact that when you're outside in a populated area, you can try all you want to social distance but you never really know if someone else is about to walk around that corner at the same time as you and you'll find yourselves face-to-face, each wondering if the other is infected?

It's a mask, dude. Just wear it. It's really not a big enough deal to justify all this righteous pontificating and thumbs-up-collecting. You're mad about it? Fine, noted. Wear it anyway.

up
Voting closed 14

just wear the goddamn mask

don’t be so friggin selfish

wowza

up
Voting closed 36

Much?

up
Voting closed 16

The reason for wearing a mask is right in your own text.

it is impossible or almost impossible to transmit outdoors unless possibly speaking to an infected person while violating social distancing guidelines.

Which is exactly the scenario that happens several times per block on any reasonably crowded street: people pass close to each other. Some of those people are speaking, or jogging and breathing hard, or, ffs, actually coughing or sneezing.

up
Voting closed 20

The whole point is you have to be in the conversation for enough time to get enough virus to get sick. Walking or running by someone while outdoors is not likely to meet that threshold. In fact, still TBD, but a small infection could lead to a mild case and antibodies possibly giving you some level of immunity. True for many other viruses, could be for this too, but not yet known.

Being in an enclosed space for a prolonged time (think train or restaurant) changes that equation dramatically.

Rules/guidelines that are clearly helpful (stay home, social distance, wash hands) should be followed. Pandering politicians that make crap up with no scientific basis should be ignored.

up
Voting closed 9

... in all probability lead to a severe infection and possibly death for several people you come into contact with when you are not wearing a mask.
I think you know that.

up
Voting closed 20

and educate yourself on the difference between viral load and infectious dose before acting all Dr. Chloroxy.

up
Voting closed 6

There is much we do not know about this virus, Stevil. What we know now about how the virus reacts and interacts can change tomorrow. And it has and will continue to do so.

The issue is, is that the virus can linger in the air. And for that reason, I feel more comfortable/safe wearing a mask outside when I walk and/or jog. But I do it mostly because I don't want to potentially infect others.

I'm not sure why you are so hostile to mask wearing in public. Perhaps you don't like being told to do something by those "pandering politicians?" Whatever. Just put a mask on when you go outside, ok?

up
Voting closed 12

No need. You want to, I could care less one way or the other.

up
Voting closed 6

this is such a weird fuckin thing to hulk out about. putting a mask on is right up there with putting the toilet seat down after you pee. you’re acting like someone is... well, asking you to put the seat down after you pee

up
Voting closed 19

You go be the glorified slum lord, and the public health community will continue to issue public health advisories based on science that include wearing your goddamn mask.

up
Voting closed 9

This came from the mayor of a couple of towns. Not a public health authority. Neither the federal government, the state government nor the largest city in the state have such guidelines.

You want to wear a mask, I don't care.

up
Voting closed 13

The mayor has the authority to make the decree, but the impetus came from the from the public health department.

I know you avoid contact with kids, but man do you argue like a child.

up
Voting closed 30

Can you cite the legal background on that? There are people questioning the constitutional authority of even the president and governors implementing mask rules in public spaces, much less Podunk progressive mayors.

While the public health department did have to sign off on this, where is the evidence they were the impetus for this rule, not the politicians and unelected city manager who control their employment status. If the Health Commission did this, they should be fired as the science would point to the opposite conclusion.

up
Voting closed 10

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190272/

in 2003 researchers found wearing a mask to be more effective than washing hands.

even if it doesn’t track 1:1, how is this worth fighting over?

up
Voting closed 10

Quoting "High viral load and high viral infectiousness probably drive virus pandemics" and based on what I read in your link, none of these tests were conducted outside and none involved "walk bys, run bys or bike bys".

Why fight over this - what's next? I'll tell you - I looked at the Cambridge rules and they also include hallways of multifamily units like where I live. Basically they are telling people on private property to mask up if they can't socially distance (definitions needed). This is the slippery slope. What if they start mandating contact software on your cell phone and track your whereabouts? What if they start spying on you to see if you are wearing a mask by taking over your camera? Extremes to be sure, but at some point we have to draw the line on government intrusiveness, especially where it does nothing to "flatten the curve" which is their stated goal.

Per my note on Gov. Baker's order today mandating masks, I don't have a problem where they a) the constitutional right b) the jurisdiction and c) scientific evidence. The state has health jurisdiction over businesses and of course government buildings (at least some). But there's a line and places like Somerville and Cambridge have crossed it.

(and some of this is literally already in place in other countries - Israel secretly put contact software originally used to track terrorists on citizen's phones and China is putting cameras on people's doors)

up
Voting closed 9

i think it’s pretty easy to tell what’s done in good faith vs. the actions of an oppressive government. like i said before, this study isn’t a 1:1 comparison, but you also have a ton of heavy lifting to do to demonstrate the leap from requiring masks to mandatory contact tracing.

speaking of government overreach, i’m sure you have similar thoughts about the federal government mandate via executive order to keep the meat industry open. just checking for consistency.

up
Voting closed 5

Well, the state AG just said they have the authority. Now you can argue with her.

up
Voting closed 4

"up to the municipality to do what is reasonable to protect their residents"

When the known science indicates that there is no evidence that their requirements work (and in fact the science points in the direction that there is in fact no benefit), it is not reasonable to make rules for the sake of making rules.

Note - I am perfectly fine with Governor Baker's indoor orders in stores, government buildings etc. because there is evidence that this could be effective. My issue is with outdoor mandates and mandates on private residential property (yes the Cambridge rules include that). By itself, small thing indeed. But government incrementalism is guaranteed until it become overbearing.

up
Voting closed 7

Well, the state AG just said they have the authority. Now you can argue with her.

up
Voting closed 19

The Commonwealth has the legal authority to load you up in a railcar in order to transport you to a virus protection camp, you'll automatically agree with her, too?

up
Voting closed 10

Do you have a high fever? Feeling dizzy? Maybe you should lie down for a while.

up
Voting closed 7

In crowded parts of Somerville and Cambridge (two cities that are requiring masks), the number of people who pass within six feet of me, and the amount of time they spend within six feet of me, is pretty much the same on the sidewalk as it is inside the supermarket. The only conceivably significant epidemiological difference is wind and sun. It's not always windy and not always sunny.

The virus doesn't know whether it's inside or outside. If you're going to wear a mask in a crowded supermarket, then wear one on a crowded sidewalk. This is not a particularly complex concept.

up
Voting closed 9

Humidity, wind sun and more are different inside and outside. Plus you and others are touching things in the market. One study I read showed the number one (by far) means of spread was within the household ( are you wearing masks and distancing at home?). Number 2 was in transit systems, bus train, subway etc. Still anecdotal, but recirculation of infected air by ventilation like an AC unit without a hepa filter should be a suspect.

up
Voting closed 9

You're right. There's absolutely no proof that the disease spreads outdoors.

We obviously don't know how contagion works. Were kind of feeling our way as we go, as evidenced by the consensus scientific belief having moved from "person-to-person spread unlikely," to "requires sustained contact with an infected person," to "community spread is happening, looks like it's large droplets on touchable surfaces," to "oooh, looks like fine aerosols may be implicated too."

We. dont. know.

There is a nonzero chance that widespread mask-wearing, by people outdoors in crowded places, will slow the spread of the disease. Maybe the effect is tiny at the margins. Maybe everyone in Massachusetts wearing a mask 100% of the time they are outdoors in a crowded city for the next three months would only eliminate, I dunno, 200 total cases and 5 deaths.

Wearing a mask imposes almost zero cost on the wearer. Yeah, it's hot and slightly uncomfortable. To save 5 lives you wouldn't wear one? Even if there's no incontrovertible proof that it works?

up
Voting closed 8

There are things all of us do that create additional risk of death. Driving over the speed limit or even at the speed limit. Crossing against the light. Causing pollution that harms the environment and ultimately perhaps a developing child. We'd all be hiding under a rock clothed in bubble wrap if we did that. One of the things I hate about all of this is it has stolen our humanity. We can't just be people. From a public policy standpoint we are doing this to flatten the curve. Not prevent every last infection. Life is for the living and time is short. We need to get back to living, even if it kills us. I'm at elevated risk of that, but if you don't want to wear a mask, I'm fine with that too. I'm still going for my walk on the esplanade. If you don't want to take that risk, just go walk somewhere less crowded. Plenty of space that's wide open in the rest of the city.

(Bob-i find you about the most reasonable poster out here and appreciate the discourse. I just truly disagree with these policies).

up
Voting closed 9

My mother and MIL, who live in different states, have both mentioned having trouble with runners not wearing masks and/or not being respectful of social distancing. My mom now doesn't go out for walks very often because of rude joggers. She's in her 70's, has COPD and is doing her best to stay active. Sad that people are so self-centered and heartless.

up
Voting closed 8

It was so wrong but it must have felt so right.

up
Voting closed 16

Why would maskless joggers run toward little kids porentially infecting them with a deadly disease? Selfish. Pulling a knife on the arrogant jogger was also senseless.

up
Voting closed 8

Cambridge is now requiring face coverings at all times in public spaces, so the jogger shouldn't have been without one, but he claims that he was going to go around these people to begin with:

The jogger said he had planned to run into the street, around the three, to allow for proper social distancing, but before he moved off the sidewalk, Nichols allegedly pulled out a knife and told the guy to "get the f*** on the other side of the street."

The jogger said he complied and then called police, telling them he had been approximately 30-40 feet away from Nichols and the two children when the knife was pulled.

- https://cambridge.wickedlocal.com/news/20200429/updated-cambridge-man-ch...

up
Voting closed 14

Mike Pence was jogging through Cambridge?

up
Voting closed 6

Any more Cambridge than this

up
Voting closed 10