Hey, there! Log in / Register

'Miraculous' nobody killed when man opened fire on police during rioting, judge says, ordering suspect held without bail through his trial

A federal judge today ordered John Boampang held without bail at least until the end of his trial on charges he opened fire on police as rioting was winding down following a May 31 protest march and vigil on the Common.

Boampang, 37, of Dorchester, already faced 21 charges in state court related to the way he allegedly fired 11 rounds in the direction of police early on June 1 from an alley off Arlington Street in the Back Bay, supposedly out of anger that police had smashed his windshield after he had helped himself to goods from local stores. The US Attorney's office charged him in federal court on related charges, including being a felon in possession of a firearm and assaulting a federal officer - a Boston Police detective doubling as a member of an FBI anti-gang task force.

In her order, US District Court Magistrate Judge Page Kelly said that even if police did break one of Boampong's windows, that's hardly justification for opening fire on them, and that federal prosecutors more than adequately proved Boampang would prove a menace to society should he be released on bail while he awaits trial on the federal charges:

Mr. Boampong, with others, was driving around Boston at 3:00 a.m. in an area which, from the exhibits entered into evidence at the hearing, looked like it was in a state of chaos. There was a heavy police presence, as the police tried to maintain order and stop widespread looting and other violent acts. After the incident, merchandise from several looted stores was found in Mr. Boampong's car, along with the illegally-possessed handgun. Assuming it is true that the police broke a window in his car, that in no way justifies his emptying a handgun over the heads of the police and into an occupied residential building. The fact that no one was injured or killed in the course of this senseless incident is miraculous. The court cannot find that someone who committed such a potentially lethal act is not a danger to the community.

Innocent, etc.

Free tagging: 
PDF icon Complete order of detention72.07 KB


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


People were foaming mad when a Trumper said bad words but here we have a REAL terrorist: convicted felon with a handgun firing at police during a riot.

No bail fund bonus for that guy! The feds are gonna stuff him in a cell for a long, long time.

Voting closed 0

And while we're at it, find out where and from whom he got the gun, lock them up for a long time too! Amazing the Boston cops didn't shoot this guy full of holes like the KPD did to Jacob Blake. Of course when KPD was confronted with a white kid with an assault rifle who had just shot THREE people, crickets. We live in confusing times.

Voting closed 0

It's a six-letter word beginning with ra and ending with ism.

Voting closed 0

One was acting violently defying police orders and the other peacefully surrendered to authorities.

Voting closed 0

Grow Up

Voting closed 5

Blake was a convicted felon whose family called the police to have him removed because he was violating a restraining order by visiting their home. He refused to follow police orders, fought with police, and had a knife. Police then used deadly force to stop him.

The young man that used a rifle to defend himself posed no threat to the police and the police were not initially aware he had just shot people when they saw him moments after the gunfight (people were shooting at him too). When the police learned he had shot someone they issued a warrant for his arrest and he surrendered himself to police without resisting and thus was not harmed by police.

So while it's not always so simple, in these examples we find that resisting police can result in police using deadly force but the person that peacefully surrendered to police was not harmed.

Voting closed 0

Blake was black.
Kid was white.
Blake's knife, unbeknownst to the police, was on the floor in the car.
Kid's AR was in plain view.
Blake was violating RO according to his family at the scene.
Kid had just shot 3 people as the the crowd following him was screaming to the police as they rolled up, ignoring said (white) kid.
Blake's knife had an effective range of a few yards at best
Kid's rifle shoots for miles
Blake's car full of kids when fusillade fired into him from behind
Kid standing in the open with a rifle, facing the cops
Blake goes to the hospital
Kid goes home

You're right, contextualism is important
Blake was a black man
Kid was white

Voting closed 0

You make one good point: the rifleman is a kid acting like a man and Blake is a man acting like a kid.

And while I don't disagree that black and white people are often treated differently, I think you're ignoring more pertinent circumstances, which is Blake was resisting arrest (fighting the police) and the "kid" was neither threatening police or even subject to investigation at the time local police drove by him.

Also, carrying a rifle in Wisconsin is not illegal and there were both black and white men carrying long arms without interference by police.

Apologies to Claude Brown.

Voting closed 0

Clanup on Aisle 14

It was absolutely illegal for that psychotic child to be carrying that rifle - he was 17.

And I see you are sucking from the "smear campaign" sewer to justify an attempted extrajudicial street execution by people lacking the authority to do so. The man was walking away. There was no justification for their actions. None.


Voting closed 0

Police didn't know he was 17 at the time they saw him with a rifle. So, not relevant here sweety.

Voting closed 0

...my point, that is. KPD assumed he was a "good guy with a gun" whereas, were he black, seriously doubt they wouldn't have at least secured him and his AR.

Voting closed 0

In response I wrote, "there were both black and white men carrying long arms without interference by police."

In most parts of the US, law enforcement will not interfere with you openly carrying a firearm because it's perfectly legal. I know it's hard for Bostonians to comprehend that because we are so use to stop-and-frisk tactics and elitist gun licensing requirements but in most parts of the US they respect Second Amendment Civil Rights.

See https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/9118e45201c8905a2faab33a75247aa50411f34c/...


Voting closed 7

As they say, facts are curious things.

Voting closed 4

If you don't think it's safe for someone to be out on bail, don't give bail as an option.

Voting closed 2