Hey, there! Log in / Register

Four say they were attacked by gay-bashing thugs in the South End

UPDATE: Fabio Brandao, 28, of Framingham, arrested.

The South End News reports on a group of friends attacked on Columbus Avenue while walking home from the Roxy early on Sunday:

... Two of them began beating Cain and another kicked John in the face repeatedly as he lay on the ground, shouting "Fuck you, faggots" throughout the attack. ...

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 

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

Comments

Too bad the victims, John, Cain and Jenna, didn't all have a license to carry and 40 cal Sig-Sauers with 15 round magazines.

up
Voting closed 0

Good thing they didn't have a 40 cal Sig-Sauer with a 15 round magazine since the 4 in the car had two Glock 17s and the driver keeps a sawed off 0.22 under his seat.

They got out of the car with the intention of just beating "some fags" to teach them a lesson, but if a gun had been drawn it would have escalated the encounter from a beating to a multiple homicide shootout.

Sure, that's all completely hypothetical but that's my point. You just don't know how much more the other guy is packing either. A gun wasn't an answer to their problems that night.

up
Voting closed 0

This could have been homicide, yes. It was more likely that the unprovoked, hate-motivated scum assailants could have caused a fatal brain injury to an innocent person. All it takes is a couple of kicks to the head, intracranial bleeding and you are dead or with permanent disability.

This was exactly the kind of situation in which firearms are useful.

If the clowns in the car were shown firearms when they stopped their car and started their threats, they wouldn't have had the chance to draw their own - the victims would have had the jump on them. They certainly wouldn't have got out of the car.

If they did have guns and were foolish enough to then try to draw on well-trained, legal firearm owners who actually knew how to aim - oh well, I don't think the world would miss those scum too much.

up
Voting closed 0

Massachusetts has all these tortuous legal stipulations about "blows of equal force" and the like that govern "self defense". Thus shooting someone who is attacking you would not be seen as self-defense around here.

This comes up most often in cases where some tortured partner blows away an abusive spouse, or a barfight ends badly. I think it is archaic and extremely ridiculous, as someone being beaten up has no idea if grabbing a convenient object with which to stop an attack constitutes "equal force" within the boundaries of self defense, and isn't likely to stop and think about it too much.

up
Voting closed 0

I'm a lawyer. In order to use deadly force, all you need is a "reasonable apprehension of great bodily harm or death" and a "reasonable belief that no other means would suffice to prevent such harm." You do not have to match weapon for weapon.

I'd say that being threatened without provocation other than hatred by four young males on a street at 2:45 am meets the standard.

In addition, all of the prior acts of violence of the dead assailant(s) could be admitted in your defense. It's likely that people out threatening people for no reason have criminal records.

And the state has to prove that your belief of "reasonable apprehension of great bodily harm" was not reasonable beyond a reasonable doubt.

I doubt this would be prosecuted at all. In any event, better to be prosecuted and have a good defense of self-defense than to be beaten to death.

up
Voting closed 0

Except that they weren't beat to death. They got enough information that the assailants are likely going to be readily found and prosecuted and nobody had to escalate the aggression.

Think drawing a gun would have gotten them out of the previous situation? What if they had. The car of idiots drives away without getting out. They circle the block, come back and just sling lead on the way by. They take out the 4 of them AND a kid on a bike.

You're the lawyer. Tell me how many people died in a fist fight last year and how many died by gun fights.

up
Voting closed 0

People are often killed or permanently disabled by beatings, especially kicks to the head or impromptu weapons like stones, clubs, etc. That's why a shod foot is classified as a "dangerous weapon." Not to mention knives, which are a common accessory of thugs.

These brutal attacks are a lot more common than shootings.

There are also the psychological consequences of being attacked.

I don't think it's an obligation for the law-abiding to take unprovoked beatings from thugs.

up
Voting closed 0

to the general public to carry conceled weapons and flash them when strangers apprach?

I'm not buying it.

up
Voting closed 0

I seriously doubt this person is a lawyer. Certainly doesn't write like a lawyer.

up
Voting closed 0

...you had best be in a situation where lethal force is justified. If lethal force is justified, use how ever much of it is necessary to neutralize the threat.

Concealed means concealed.

The WORST thing you can do is carry a gun thinking it is some kind of magical talisman that will protect you just by its being there. If you are not willing to take another life in defense of yourself or your loved ones, do not get a gun.

DO NOT BUY A GUN thinking you can bluff your way out of danger. If your bluff gets called, you'll learn a whole new defintion of "shit creek".

The second worse thing you can do is take legal advice form someone posting comments saying he's a lawyer.

Know the law. No excuses.

up
Voting closed 0

As an attorney, I advise you, if you choose to carry a firearm, to flash it anytime you are being approached by four young males who are aggressively shouting "fuck you, faggot" at you.

up
Voting closed 0

I hope you tell your "clients" that your off your rocker when you sit down for a "consultation." If you are in fact a lawyer I sure your "clients" would like to know in advance that you are all bluff and no substance (thats what a "gun flasher" is essentially) and that it may work on occasion more likely then not punks like that would have their own resources and are most likely more experienced then your clients in this sort of thing.

If we were tougher on guns there wouldnt be so many illegal guns on the streets. More laws not less.

up
Voting closed 0

If we were tougher on guns there wouldnt be so many illegal guns on the streets. More laws not less.

I was gonna stick up the local 7-11 with my buds the other day, and I reached for my sawed-off.

Little Joey stopped me and said "B, those ain't legal here!"

I was pissed, but I wasn't about to break a gun law, so we called the whole thing off. FOILED! Foiled by those pesky legislators. Now Big Sam is after me to get rid of the sawed-off. He says it's not appropriate for hoods like us to be breakin' the law when we're not breakin' the law.

up
Voting closed 0

The four young males retreat. Then, they call the police about "man with a gun" who flashed a gun at them for no reason. You then get arrested for brandishing a firearm, spend thousands in legal fees, and since it's Massachusetts, there's a good chance the licensing authority in your town will deem you "unsuitable to be licensed". That's when the police show up at your house with a warrant to seize all your guns and ammunition.

What's that? Your grandfather's WWI Colt? Into the Menino Melting Pot with it. You want due process? You want a chance to transfer the firearms to a licensed party? Sure that's what the law says, but since when has that mattered?

up
Voting closed 0

Isn't that assault with a deadly weapon?

And don't you have an obligation to try and flee?

up
Voting closed 0

Section 23F. In the trial of criminal cases charging the use of force against another where the issue of defense of self or another, defense of duress or coercion, or accidental harm is asserted, a defendant shall be permitted to introduce either or both of the following in establishing the reasonableness of the defendant’s apprehension that death or serious bodily injury was imminent, the reasonableness of the defendant’s belief that he had availed himself of all available means to avoid physical combat or the reasonableness of a defendant’s perception of the amount of force necessary to deal with the perceived threat:

This has some amendments added regarding abusive relationships, so no more people go to jail for dispatching an increasingly abusive spouse or partner, but this is the law in these parts. LINK

up
Voting closed 0

A couple snub-nosed .38s would do the job just fine in an up-close self-defense situation as this. Fewer moving parts to malfunction in a high-stress shooting scenario. Smith & Wesson, the original point n' click interface.

Unfortunately, this is Boston where the politicians have worked tirelessly to ensure that bigoted gay-bashers have a safe, non-hostile work environment in which to ply their trade.

Mumbles would rather see 100 gay men and women brutally assaulted and beaten in his city than to afford them the right to defend themselves.

Unless the gay person in question happens to be a wealthy, politically connected individual, it's the official policy of the City of Boston that that person does not have the right to protect himself or herself from violent gay-bashing thugs.

That's not my opinion. That's reality.

And, to the commenter who stated there would be massive bloodbaths and innocent kids being gunned down off their bikes if the city were to start letting responsible adults make their own choices about how best to defend themselves in situations like this, I say this:

Kindly show me ONE instance where such a scenario has come to fruition in a state that allows it's residents to lawfully carry concealed handguns.

Because, I can show you the exact opposite happening every day throughout this country, where law-abiding citizens use handguns to thwart violent crime in their communities, many times with NOT ONE SHOT FIRED.

Sorry for introducing reality into your emotion-based argument, but people's rights are not contingent on how you might feel about them.

Don't like abortion guns? Don't get one.

up
Voting closed 0

Kindly show me ONE instance where such a scenario has come to fruition in a state that allows it's residents to lawfully carry concealed handguns.

Ok, Clarksville, TN. Shall-issue concealed carry.

Trial begins over June 25, 2007 shooting death

A guy leers at a woman in a parking lot. The woman's male friend takes exception with the man. The ogler pulls out a gun and fires at the friend. The friend pulls out his own gun and returns fire. An innocent victim in the parking lot is hit in the face with a bullet from the defender's gun and is killed.

Sorry for introducing reality into your bullshit about everyone being better off for you having a gun. You are not everyone. I hope you never need to use your gun...and miss your target. I'd hate for *my* rights to be contingent on how you might feel about your ability and justifications.

up
Voting closed 0

Not even a Steak-Um sandwich (do they still make those nasty meatpaper things?).

From the linked article:

Jarvis, along with Jovan Preche Dixon, is charged with attempted first-degree murder, felony murder, first-degree murder, reckless endangerment and unlawful carrying and possession of a firearm.

The scenario referred to earlier was one involving a defensive shooting by an individual lawfully carrying a concealed weapon.

I can give you hundreds of examples where criminals open fire in public and kill innocent people.

Try again.

up
Voting closed 0

Bruce,

In your proposal, would the expansion of gun carry rights to responsible adults be supported by extensive background checks (to verify the applicants are, indeed, responsible adults) and matched with a greater crackdown on unlawful carrying?

I don't think I'm at much threat from guns in the hands of responsible adults, but guns in those other hands, as described below, are another story.

up
Voting closed 0

The story fits what you asked for (defender shoots innocent victim in a gun battle in a state where residents can conceal carry legally). Nothing about that asked for either of the participants to be legally carrying their firearm. I understand that you want to keep shifting the goalposts and why you're going to find it necessary to do so. You intimated that there's not one innocent death in a concealed carry state. You were wrong.

up
Voting closed 0

I think you missed the "responsible adults" clause, Kaz.

It's pretty obvious that neither gunslinger was a responsible adult. These guys were some variety of gangbanger thugs.

Please do try again. I enjoy being a spectator at this argument much more than being a participant.

up
Voting closed 0

Uh-huh. All those people who go clubbing at the Roxy with their guns . I've been there on Saturday nights a number of times; I have a feeling that security there would (rightly) deny anyone with a gun entry.

up
Voting closed 0

First off, and forgive me if this may sound a bit stereotypical, I wonder how many gay people are the heat packing types? I mean seriously, if we lift the rules we have on guns will the gay populace run out to the gun stores and start loading up???

Second the average person doesnt know how to use a gun properly and even thugs tend to be aweful shots. Guns have been proven to be very ineffient in the hands of noobies, and theres always a chance of collateral damage when you start shooting. Ive been involved in gun training programs, taking and teaching (In theory Im in the NRA, but seriously only because you have to be to be properly certified for this stuff) and can tell you it takes people a while to get used to guns. I stuck mostly with target shooting with shotguns and rifles, but had some exposure to pistols and what not. New shooters tend to be very bad shots and miss the targets at first. Unless the person is going to go practice on a regular basis they have a good chance of hitting someone other then the perp. I enjoy shooting but prefer it stays on a shooting range where you rent by the hour, Id never take one home with me and dont believe others should either (especially if you have kids, your chances of your kid shooting himself or a friend is higher then you protecting yourself.)

up
Voting closed 0

...if you can cite a credible source for this statistic.

...your chances of your kid shooting himself or a friend is higher then you protecting yourself.

The study that nonsense was based on (Kellerman, 1986) counted crackheads shooting other crackheads in crackhouses as "killing a person known to the gun owner in the gun owner's home".

It included illegally obtained handguns used by people prohibited by law from owning guns, failing to differentiate between those and lawfully owned firearms.

It also excluded defensive gun use in the home where no shots were fired, or where the perp survived the shooting.

In other words, it's complete and utter horseshit.

Either that, or all my guns are defective, as they've never injured, killed, or so much as been pointed at another person. I carry a handgun on a regular basis, and it has yet to jump out of its holster and slaughter the innocent.

There were no shootouts in the Walmart or the Lowes up the road from me today, despite the presence of my super-deadly, evil gun. Nor, was there a bloodbath at the local ice creak stand a couple days back. And, the trip to Storyland with the kids a while back? Tranquil and idyllic.

If guns were as inherently dangerous as your quote asserts, this country would have depopulated itself long ago.

269,970,000 guns killed no one in the United States of America last year.

I hope to God I never have to use it, much in the same way I hope I never have to use my home fire extinguisher, car airbags, or my wife's and children's life insurance policies.

I realize it's hard for some to deal with the concept of free and sovereign people who refuse to cower in the face of danger, but that's not my problem.

up
Voting closed 0

Yes, I am amazed at the people who would rather be passive victims than even think about defending themselves from thugs.

If you possess, secure and use guns responsibly, there is little chance of a problem.

I also agree that a revolver would be a reliable and adequate weapon for self-defense, and a high-capacity semiautomatic would not be necessary.

up
Voting closed 0

Pink Pistols - chapters in MA and NH. The NH chapter has frequent social get-togethers, whether for eating, drinking, or shooting. All are welcome.

up
Voting closed 0

I wish they wouldn't push the stereotype of 'pink' being gay. It just supports all the other stereotypes. Yay progress!

Plus, pink pistols makes me think of women. Not gays. But then again, I'm not gay.

up
Voting closed 0

How about "Velvet Revolver"s then?

up
Voting closed 0

Warm Gun Happyness?

up
Voting closed 0

You know, cuz guns don't have ramrods anymore.

Sorry folks, I couldn't keep it in.

up
Voting closed 0

Can we talk about the crime, not some side issue, please?

Actually, another side issue:

The South End News totally scooped the dailies on this one.

Bravo to them!

up
Voting closed 0

Yeah, seriously. I doubt that if these commenters were to visit these guys in the hospital, they'd be like "too bad you weren't packing heat."

There are a lot more constructive things we could do that would actually reduce homophobia. Let's concentrate on those.

http://1smootshort.blogspot.com

up
Voting closed 0

According to the article, "Cain...said that he could not remember the assault itself or the immediate aftermath."

And then it says "Neither man remembers any details of the assault."

But then it goes on to say that "Cain told South End News the attackers looked like "four frat boys.""

Huh? How did he know what they looked like if he didn't remember the assault itself, any details, or the aftermath?

up
Voting closed 0

Actually, it says this: 'The three victims and Jeffrey said they told police that the attackers were four Hispanic males, but they were not able to provide police with any further identifying information. Cain told South End News the attackers looked like "four frat boys."'

Someone evidently gave them a beating, but that paragraph certainly is curious.

up
Voting closed 0

Maybe they were Hispanic frat boys?

up
Voting closed 0

You don't sound convinced.

up
Voting closed 0

I was making a joke. It turns out that I know at least one of the victims (and live close to where it happened) as we have some mutual acquaintances. I heard about this on Tuesday from a friend in the neighborhood. There's more to the story than what's being reported in the paper. I won't be surprised if they have some suspects soon.

up
Voting closed 0

...my point was, given the wording of the article, as I read it, the two male victims, Cain especially, apparently had no recollection of the incident. So how could he identify them as "frat boys?"

It could be true that they did identify them as such, but if they have no memory of their crimes, as reported, that sounds like slander (or is it libel? I can never keep those two terms straight) to my uneducated arse. Either the reporter got the accounts wrong, or the victims chose to pick out an easy target to single out for hate crimes.

I feel very bad for the victims involved, but claiming the identity of the perpetrators while at the same time claiming not to have remembered any of the incident just cries foul to me.

up
Voting closed 0

Without knowing anything about the incident, but knowing quite a bit about neurology and having done therapy with many clients who've been assault victims...

It's actually really typical to remember the initial encounter with a perpetrator but then not remember details of the attack.

The reason this happens is because the brain is really, well, smart. When the brain is functioning normally, the areas are all working about equally, and we can easily shift from the brain in one way (say, spatial) to another way (say, motoric). When we're threatened, chemicals rapidly go shooting around in the brain to try and help us survive. So, when someone first sees someone, they have normal observational skills. They probably wouldn't be able to describe the person in detail, but they have a sense of how many people they were, more or less what they looked like. Now, once the people become threatening, the amygdala registers fear, and adrenaline and its friends start getting fired up. The brain is in overdrive, and the person might think a little more on their feet than usual. This is the point where people will suddenly take charge of a situation and know exactly what to do. People who don't ordinarily have a great sense of direction might bolt to the phone booth they vaguele remembering passing on the way. People who aren't normally observant will instantaneously memorize license plates. There's a lot of research showing that when people feel threatened, their memory and executive functioning are briefly quite heightened. Incidentally, this is related to why we might have flashbacks of a traumatic event. The memory is so ingrained.

This doesn't last forever, though. Once we proceed past "threatened" into "holy shit I'm gonna die" territory (this is the technical term), our brain really starts regrouping. Activity greatly decreases in areas like memory and language, because those really aren't important right now. All of the chemicals and electrical connections in our brain are working as hard as they can to stay alive. To fight, or to run, generally. (Hence "fight or flight" response). Add that to a concussion, and it makes perfect sense why someone isn't going to remember how many times they were hit, with what, by who, etc. There's also the factor of how the brain isn't great at processing stuff that comes completely unexpectedly. When you're in "holy fuck, I can't believe this is happening" mode (also the technical term), you're not focused on counting how many times you got hit or who hit you or what names they called one another or where they went afterward. You're focused on, um, that one second you were walking home, and the next minute you're getting the crap beat out of you.

http://1smootshort.blogspot.com

up
Voting closed 0

BrucemB, I understand your point of view re guns and I don't really wish to debate it--I am firmly on the other side of that argument. What I'm curious about, though is this: why would you feel the need to take your gun to the ice cream stand, to Wal Mart, to Lowes, or to Storyland? I can't understand the reasoning behind this.

up
Voting closed 0

up
Voting closed 0

To be prepared for a crisis situation? You can't predict when you will encounter violence and you would want to be prepared to intervene or take action, should the opportunity arise.

It's the same reason you carry tampons in your purse, or a credit card along with cash. If there's a problem yo I'll solve it, check out the lights while the DJ revolves it.

up
Voting closed 0

Where you saw violence and actually intervened with a gun?

up
Voting closed 0

Of course not, thankfully, but I believe that to be barely relevant, since we're talking hypothetical. Certainly, the probability is super low.

I've never been mugged either, but MANY of my friends have.

If some kid came up to you and pulled out a knife demanding your money, would you rather a) give up your property or b) draw your gun and stand your ground?

We have the right to decide which path to take, and should respect our individual decisions and the right to exercise them.

On the same note, if I saw someone in my community being victimized as such, I would consider intervening in the situation to stop the robbery. If I didn't have a gun, I'd probably just hide, since I was unprepared to help. Calling 911 is obvious, but that is not always the optimal solution. Cops aren't perfect (nobody is), crimes go unpunished.

up
Voting closed 0

If some kid came up to you and pulled out a knife demanding your money, would you rather a) give up your property or b) draw your gun and stand your ground?

Perhaps if I were well trained in firing a weapon in close quarters AND I had a gun, but I've found other ways to spend my time than at the shooting range, so I don't have a gun and I'd give up my wallet and concentrate on remembering the guy's face for reporting to police.

Amazingly, despite growing up in New York City (back when it was really bad) and living in Boston, I've never been mugged, so it's never been much of an issue for me (and yes, I've had family members mugged; a friend's father was murdered during the infamous Blackout of '77).

up
Voting closed 0