Hey, there! Log in / Register

Police: Masshole flashes gun in Tremont Street traffic dispute; unfortunately for him, the other guy was a plainclothes cop

UPDATE: A Boston Municipal Court judge set bail at $10,000 - the amount requested by prosecutors, the Suffolk County District Attorney's office reports, adds Stoughton Police ordered him to turn over all of the 17 guns he's registered to own, while the case is pending.

Boston Police report a Canton man impatient with the motorist in front of him on Tremont Street near Avery yesterday evening started blaring his horn, then pulled up and unfurled his middle finger, and then:

When the officer advised the operator to pull over, the operator displayed a black colored firearm towards the officer and threatened, "You don’t want any of this." The operator then sped away in his car.

The officer, dressed in civilian clothes, radioed for assistance, and uniformed officers quickly found and stopped Aaron Jeskey, 35, and arrested him on charges of assault by means of a dangerous weapon - and got Stoughton Police - where he is licensed for the guns - to suspend his license to carry.

In addition to the loaded Glock 17 9-mm gun on the driver's seat, police also found "a loaded black Heckler & Koch P30 9mm firearm with additional magazines and ammunition," which was good for an additional charge of improper storage of a firearm.

Innocent, etc.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 

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

Comments

Park in a traffic lane while "monitoring drug activity," arrest dangerous lunatics who flip out behind you.

up
Voting closed 0

They'll get plenty of these cases of road rage, maybe with less gun waving though.

up
Voting closed 0

What kind of an asshole drives around with two loaded firearms and waves one, in traffic, as a threat at another driver?

Has anyone call him a thug or are we waiting to find out if he's black?

Is an armed society a polite society? Guns and road rage.

Weapons Effect

up
Voting closed 0

Director of Operations at Brightcove. https://www.linkedin.com/in/ajeskey

At least his weapons have been removed before one of his small children found a loaded one laying around.

(p.s. to Adam - looks like there is a second "e" in the guy's name)

up
Voting closed 0

BPD has him as a one-e kind of guy, but they get the spelling of last names wrong sometimes. Will check.

up
Voting closed 0

You'll want to take out my reply and these others.

However, it seems like he's in the right location, of the right age, and it isn't exactly a common name.

up
Voting closed 0

LinkedIn has him with work experience dating to 1994. If he's a 1994 college grad, that makes him about 42-43, not 35. If he started work as a systems engineer at the age of 14, more power to him, but it seems doubtful. So either BPD got the spelling and his age wrong, or this is a different person.

up
Voting closed 0

If he's the same AJ I know as a friend of my ex, he's definitely on the young side for where he is in his career. My ex is 36, and I think AJ is about the same age.

Also, he didn't go to college, which was still somewhat common in high tech in the '90s, especially at dot-com startups.

up
Voting closed 0

Or he exaggerated on his Linkedn.

People never do that! Especially upstanding citizens.
/s/

up
Voting closed 0

Let's not point the finger at people in the first place, if we are not certain we have the right person. Nothing can go wrong there, right?

up
Voting closed 0

Any comments "identifying" this individual by google sleuthery should be deleted asap.

up
Voting closed 0

It's annoyed me when people link try to "find" suspects online and post links to their social media accounts, jobs, etc. Lots of people have the same of similar names. It would sure suck of this guy got pulled into a bunch of emergency meetings when someone else at Brightcove read this thread and emailed the CEO with the story of what this person had "done". Why put someone innocent through that?

Links to people's social media might satisfy your curiosity or show your google skills but that's about it. The guy is in custody. The police and public don't need your help.

up
Voting closed 0

It is an uncommon name, however it is spelled, and there was some other referencing involved.

It isn't the same as when my husband's alma mater accidentally sent out the transcript of one of the other three people with his very common name in his graduating class.

up
Voting closed 0

But what benefit is there to posting this guy's info even if it is the correct person? I take it you weren't about to go into business with him regardless.

Assuming he's convicted on the charges his name will be in the public records and will be found by people who are researching him. But if you got it wrong his profile might always been associated with this gun toting moron for ever with no good reason. Your link might get you thumbs up but it only has the potential to hurt someone innocent and won't make a difference if he's guilty.

up
Voting closed 0

Then just ignore the comment...

up
Voting closed 0

No, YOU edit the comment to remove the information. If it turns out that you're correct, by all means put it back in. Right now it's inappropriate, anon (not verified). Remove it.

up
Voting closed 0

I don't think someone posting as "Anon" can edit comments.

Anons certainly can't edit comments by registered users.

Not sure what you are asking here.

up
Voting closed 0

But again, nobody needs your help or "other referencing." He's in custody and has been charged. At best, this accomplishes nothing useful. At worst, it could be the wrong guy. Your anecdote is irrelevant.

up
Voting closed 0

that this guy may be innocent or mistaken for another person, and that all sorts of evil and bad things will happen to him and/or people with the same name if we jump the gun on identifying his background and activities based on sleuthing throigh Google, LinkedIn, etc. etc., then how about we don't identify ANY suspects at all until after they've been convicted?

And if it's deemed so important and necessary to name suspects under the guise of "public record", "transparency", etc. etc., then perhaps we should accept that Google sleuthing is an inevitable consequence of that public policy.

up
Voting closed 0

Whether they're convicted or merely charged isn't so much the point being contested here, as whether the correct individual has been identified.

up
Voting closed 0

The real point is it's nobody on this post's responsibility to identify who this man is. He's in custody. Let it go.

up
Voting closed 0

Let's not point the finger at people in the first place, if we are not certain we have the right person. Nothing can go wrong there, right?

up
Voting closed 0

I'd be more worried about this abusive raging jerk being around his kids more than inanimate objects. If he rages at strangers imagine what he does to his family.

up
Voting closed 0

What do you think the odds are that (a) he will stop carrying firearms or (b) he will lose his job?

up
Voting closed 0

Odds of him losing his drivers license is 0% because here in America every dangerous lunatic gets access to a deadly weapon on 4 wheels.

up
Voting closed 0

Give it a rest. You're worse than Saklad and Markkkkkkkk.

up
Voting closed 0

I imagine assaulting a police officer with a loaded firearm is a felony.

Is it a felony that can cost you your firearm license?

Is it a felony that can cost you your driver's licence?

up
Voting closed 0

I especially like this part:

Causes Aaron cares about:

Arts and Culture
Children
Education
Environment
Science and Technology

up
Voting closed 0

take this kind of bullshit to reddit, not here.

up
Voting closed 0

That is Adam's call, not yours.

Also, note below that it is indeed the same guy (which I knew it was when I posted this, thank you very much).

up
Voting closed 0

I'm no forensic specialist, but same color hair, same part, etc:

http://patch.com/massachusetts/canton/da-canton-man-held-high-bail-after...
https://www.linkedin.com/in/ajeskey

I wonder how Brightcove will feel about that …

up
Voting closed 0

HIs twitter photo seems appropriate, too: https://twitter.com/ajeskey

up
Voting closed 0

wrong end of the horse...

up
Voting closed 0

such a hero!

up
Voting closed 0

not gonna lie i laughed p hard at this

up
Voting closed 0

You will be giving it to me now please

up
Voting closed 0

Yup, legal guns are always possessed by responsible gun owners who could save lives in defense. Until they're not.

The only thing protecting you from a [suddenly] bad guy with a [legal] gun is a good [undercover PD] guy with a gun. /s/

up
Voting closed 0

The same is true with most legal but dangerous things. They are fine until someone is irresponsible or criminal.

A gallon of bleach, a gallon of ammonia, and a bucket are ridiculously dangerous if combined but we still let anyone, including children, buy these items at almost any store.

up
Voting closed 0

The Consumer Product Safety Commission controls the safety of these products you just mentioned. Like, the lid is child proof, there are warnings on every 5 gallon bucket. There is no federal authority on child proofing guns. CPSC is banned from regulating fire arms.

So if you want to make things analogous, let them be analogous! False analogy, due to differing regulations, not due to benign neglect of legislators. It's thanks to the gun rights lobby.

up
Voting closed 0

all this mustard makes me want a hot dog

go combine some ammonia and bleach.

dont actually, but his analogy wasnt as bad as you think it is.

up
Voting closed 0

It's actually a pretty bad analogy. Knives would be a better one. People don't buy buckets, bleach, or ammonia together very often, let alone with harmful intentions. People buy guns to shoot them. Not necessarily to shoot people with them, but there is no non-destructive purpose for a gun. Bleach was not made to do harm. Buckets weren't either. Neither was ammonia. Knives, on the other hand, were. You can't compare things specifically intended to kill with things that weren't. Yes, kids can buy knives, but that is besides the point.

up
Voting closed 0

Cheeseburgers kill more Americans than unloaded firearms every year.

French fries are more nutritious than a 9mm Glock.

In the hands of a trained killer, a screw driver is more lethal than a semi-automatic AR-15 with a 30 round clip.

NRA-trained individuals are more qualified for Ivy league universities than students who graduate in the top ten of their class from Massachusetts top 10% secondary schools.

Children of gun owners are less at risk for accidental death from gun shot wounds than children of non-gun owning parents because they're taught how to load the weapon. The children of gun owners also create a more polite society.

up
Voting closed 0

The first week of October is officially Eddie Eagle Safety Week in MA.

If schools bothered to teach the four basic of gun safety or at very least "STOP, DON'T TOUCH, TELL AN ADULT!" like they teach sex ed, drivers ed, drugs ed, etc. there would be fewer negligent deaths.

It boggles my mind that every 12 year old Boyscout and Girlscout used to learn these lessons without calamity until very recently and now in the puritan 21st century such lessons are now taboo.

Ignorance is deadly, knowledge is safety.

up
Voting closed 0

You don't seem to know about the state approved roster/the AG's super secret list of approved safety tested firearms nor the industry standards for safety feature designs.

Power tools are more dangerous and held to a lower standard of safety than firearms in the US. Which is mind boggling considering how dangerous construction work is (rate of injury & incidents of workplace deaths/disability).

The CPSC is a joke and only manages to stop bad things after they've killed people. All the toxic shower curtains and toys from China anyone?

up
Voting closed 0

Who's stopping the bad things when kids get guns? CPSC is reactive, but at least they do something. BTW, one of your upvotes is from me. I pressed it by accident.

To add, I don't consider the drop test as all encompassing of safety. I doubt anyone rational could.

up
Voting closed 0

than guns for one simple reason. Unlike guns, the intended use of power tools is not to injure or kill people or other living creatures . The vast majority of people that use power tools seem to have figured that out.

up
Voting closed 0

Power tools are more dangerous and held to a lower standard of safety than firearms in the US.

How many people have been injured or killed in their homes because someone outside it operated a power tool improperly? How many bystanders have been injured or killed when a power tool was operated as designed? Power tools are dangerous for their operators. If firearms were only dangerous for the people who own them, it would be a different story. They aren't. They're dangerous to anyone in their range, particularly when carried by 'good guys with guns' like the maroon in this story.

up
Voting closed 0

No, a torch is not a power tool. Hominid controlled fire predates electricity by a good few 100,000 years or more. And we have long acknowledged fire's ability to level a city.

up
Voting closed 0

Power nailers or nail guns: 37,000 emergency room visits/year
John Deere-type Riding Lawn Mowers: 37,000 hospital visits a year
Chain Saws: 36,000 ER visits/year
Stationary Table Saws: 29,000 ER visits/year
Snowblowers: 5,7000 ER Visits per year; 19 deaths recorded since 1992
Circular or Rotary Saws: 10,600 ER cases/year
Power Drills: 5,800
Backhoes: Average of 38 construction fatalities a year
Air Compression Devices: 2,400
Wood Chippers: Average of 3 deaths a year

Negligent firearm deaths per year ~600
Negligent firearms injuries per year 2,000-3,000

up
Voting closed 0

Would you care to supply the source of your statistics, particularly the negligent gun ones? This site has 2010 gun deaths at 31,000, or 38 per day. NBC News has even worse numbers:

Every year in the U.S., an average of more than 100,000 people are shot, according to The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence.
Every day in the U.S., an average of 289 people are shot. Eighty-six of them die: 30 are murdered, 53 kill themselves, two die accidentally, and one is shot in a police intervention, the Brady Campaign reports.

Perhaps you were using NRA statistics. Or maybe you were only speaking of the children:

In 2010, 2,711 children (age 0 to 19 years) died by gunshot and an additional 15,576 were injured.

Oh, I guess not. At any rate, your "statistics" seem to be off by a couple orders of magnitude.

up
Voting closed 0

Not to mention that I would guess that the hardware hit-list is almost entirely deaths/injuries to the operators (with the exception of the back hoe) - so you might want to compare those numbers to gun suicides and accidental self-shootings and not shootings of other people. Just for consistencies' sake.

up
Voting closed 0

The 31,000 (CDC) number includes ~20k suicides & ~600 negligent deaths. FBI crime stats indicate 10k murders a year. The rate of negligent deaths has been reduced by half over the past 10 years from ~1,200 a year.

Brady/SHV/MDA dishonestly include 18-21 year olds as "children" in their 'stats' and do no separate deaths from negligence/criminality from lawful defensive shootings by police or homeowners.

Overall firearm related deaths are down since 1994 despite population growth, a rise in ownership, and loosened laws.

There's a theory about violent crime being linked to blood lead levels from gasoline. Since 1994 when the stuff was completely phased out global crime rates in lead gasoline free countries have fallen to the same degree. It's the one global constant in a sea of variables.

up
Voting closed 0

It's a false analogy because it's regulated by incredibly stringent state law instead of a federal standard? I can't think of a more diversionary response to a simple analogy.

Dangerous stuff is made more dangerous by irresponsible people. It doesn't matter who stamps the warning label.

up
Voting closed 0

Who stamps the warning label in Idaho?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mom-killed-in-wal-mart-accidental-shooting-k...

Are they different from whom stamps in the Northeast vs South Carolina, Alabama, and Utah? State authorities have great discretion, and they vary greatly in their view of safety regulation. Page 5 below. See the map.

http://everytown.org/documents/2014/10/innocents-lost.pdf

100 unintentional chid deaths by firearms. No uniform regulator. I'm sure gun companies deal effectively and efficiently with 50 states worth and several territories of differing legislation and feedback.

up
Voting closed 0

You do know that guns do have engraved warning labels in multiple locations? And manufacturers offer user manuals free of change to anyone that requests them to the point of even putting engraving that offer on barrels?

up
Voting closed 0

I'm pleased you think everyone can read. Is there a literacy test for prospective gun owners in every state? There must be right? Since written warnings on the gun improve safety so much?

up
Voting closed 0

The result of improper storage and negligence. Again, you're just proving my point. Is a two year-old going to read a warning label?

up
Voting closed 0

What is it about CHILD PROOF CAP that makes no sense to you? I think you're proving my point about the functional literacy, or lack there of, of some people.

up
Voting closed 0

It makes total sense to me; it's just a completely irrelevant argument, as I already said.

A gun is child proof if it's properly secured or otherwise inaccessible because it's holstered and concealed on the person carrying it. Since the weapon in your linked story was neither -- just left in a purse, not on her person, and accessible to a child -- it was improperly and irresponsibly stored.

Very tragic, but a real example of how irresponsible behavior makes dangerous things dangerous. Let me know if you need this re-typed in smaller words...or just keep going back to talking about buckets. I don't really care.

up
Voting closed 0

The cap on chemicals is child proof due to CPSC intervention:

http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Business--Manufacturing/Business-Education/Busine...

There was no such regulatory agency to secure the weapon in Walmart except the individual herself. She's now dead. So you really trust in total self regulation? You expect banks to be honest in such a world also?

Please retype your answer in smaller words if it makes you understand things better.

up
Voting closed 0

Who knew the guy was a cop? Man has a right to defend himself if he or she feels threatened by someone. At least in other cities in Massachusetts they do give people that right to defend themselves! William (Mouse) Evans shouldn't even be the BPD Commissioner.

up
Voting closed 0

But sure sounds like the accused was the aggressor here.

And when it comes to protecting both public safety and civil liberties, I'll take William Evans over some anon gun lover any day.

up
Voting closed 0

Oh yes, brandishing at a guy moving more slowly in front of you is always defensive. I strongly suggest you read up on deadly assault laws. And maybe put away the gun if you're an owner.

up
Voting closed 0

How can you defend someone who pulls a gun in a fit of road rage when HE'S the aggressor?

up
Voting closed 0

Why would the feel threatened but a random car in front of him at traffic? Did you read? The aggressor was the gunman, not the undercover cop.

up
Voting closed 0

Oh hush cop hater. If you were the driver in the cops
Position you would be up in arms about the gun toating aggressive road ragger

up
Voting closed 0

The accused sounds like he was the a-whole in this instance.

up
Voting closed 0

Are the guns in this BPD photo black or gold?

up
Voting closed 0

I was thinking the same thing

up
Voting closed 0

Golden Gun.

up
Voting closed 0

Like Scaramanga?

up
Voting closed 0

I'm pretty sure neither Glock nor H&K make gold guns, so if they are in fact gold, they would have had to be custom finished. I don't think someone would go to the trouble of finishing the magazines in the same way (they're always black AFAIK), if for no reason other than the finish might interfere with operation. Thus, I conclude they are black and it's a trick of the light.

up
Voting closed 0

Would they have the photographer light these things in such a way so that they can get better surface detail?

up
Voting closed 0

its poor lighting and an amateur photographer

up
Voting closed 0

If you had a plainclothes officer demand you pull over without identifying himself as such, it threatening. And you have i right to defend yourself when you feel threatened.

up
Voting closed 0

Another legally deluded, and incorrect adherent to the Second Amendment. I believe in a well regulated militia too, where the right to bear arms will not be infringed, but you're totally off base.

Motioning someone to pull over to discuss is hardly assault, unless you'd like to be the F. Lee Bailey-type attorney to dramatize the menace in the undercover's motion and body language. Responding by bearing a weapon and threat about said weapon is disproportionate.

up
Voting closed 0

Yeah, my understanding is that while you have the right to defend yourself, it's never a valid defense to threaten someone by brandishing, even if you feel reasonably threatened first. While counter-intuitive, if a guy pulls a knife and in reply you brandish a gun with the intent to just wave it and defuse the situation, that is improper usage of the firearm, as it's a last-resort self-defense weapon. You're not flexing and beating your chest in a dominance display.

up
Voting closed 0

Yes, and there is a common law concept that you must retreat, except when defending your home, unless you are in some special states where you can Stand Your Ground. Even then, you must be defending against deadly force.

Stand Your Ground has no legal standing in common law from history. An invention of the gun lobby and passed by macho legislators.

up
Voting closed 0

Notice that he was not charged with failure to comply with the officer's request.

He's charged with threatening someone with a gun, and having improperly-stored weapons in his car.

up
Voting closed 0

Hat-trick if he had a cell phone in the other hand.

up
Voting closed 0

More guns...no, wait, that doesn't make any sense. It does illustrate why the "the more guns the better" crowd don't have a leg to stand on in their argument. Apparently (and obviously) even people with legally registered guns can be dangerous idiots. Imagine if the other occupant weren't a cop, but another hot headed ammosexual? We'd be reading about a gunfight on Tremont Street, with god knows how many people hit.

up
Voting closed 0

He should have undergone a background check.

/snark

up
Voting closed 0

"It was a BAD NEIGHBORHOOD"
"He was frightened by BLACK PERSON"
"SCARY NEIGHBORHOOD"
etc.

up
Voting closed 0

Vermont has no laws and is the wild west with those sorts of road rage shootings happening every day.

up
Voting closed 0

I'm so glad you brought up the 49th least populous state in the union, that has 94.3% racial homogenity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont

up
Voting closed 0

Most other states have loosened carry laws without turning into the wild west.

I thought angry white guys were supposed to go all ragey killy Mad Max on each other if the law wasn't there to make them into gentlemen?

up
Voting closed 0

I'm confused, you're citing a speculative fiction movie as a sarcastic riposte?

ADDENDUM: I thought about what you said some more, and I thought about Locke and natural law, and government (man's law): without which 'life would be nasty, brutal, and short'. But there are not NO laws in Vermont. Just fewer gun laws, if I accept what you or another anon posited.

So if that's what you're going on about, I'm pretty sure assault, deadly assault, and homicide are still illegal there.

up
Voting closed 0

Vermont has plenty of laws, and I've never even heard of a road rage shooting happening there. I live less than ten miles from the Vermont state line, FWIW. Firearms ownership is very common there and in adjacent western Mass -- I'm probably the only person in my neighborhood who doesn't own a firearm -- but I don't know a single person who owns a firearm for so-called "personal protection" or who carries a handgun around. The only people I know personally who own handguns use them exclusively for target shooting.

up
Voting closed 0

I'm certain he was trying to be sarcastic, lbb.

up
Voting closed 0

Apparently tax-paying citizens with legally registered vehicles can be dangerous idiots on the road. Who'da thunk?

It's almost as if huge populations of people are not entirely homogeneous.

up
Voting closed 0

I'd like to use this incident to scrutinize another talking point of gun rights activists: "an armed society is a polite society".

Both these men had guns. Road rage and telling someone "you don't want any of this"? Where was the f***ing decorum???

up
Voting closed 0

Well, had he been reasonably certain that the undercover cop was armed, he'd never have pulled his piece!

/gunnutlogic

up
Voting closed 0

All the people here commenting on the guy's right to 'defend' himself against a 'threat' - you sound like Ricky from Trailer Park Boys:

"You can't arrest me! I'm stoned and I can't understand my rights, this won't hold up in court"
or
"I refuse this arrest under the Canada's Evolution of People Code!"

Basically, dumb.

up
Voting closed 0

I think you're supposed to use the word "both" when you're talking about two somethings.

up
Voting closed 0

And the people who upvoted them (on purpose)

up
Voting closed 0

His last name is, indeed, spelled with an 'e,' according to the DA's office, which provided arraignment info and the fact that while he now lives in Canton, his guns were still licensed in Stoughton, where he used to live, and where the PD ordered him to surrender all his guns.

up
Voting closed 0

Do we have a new internet dress?

The text says they found black guns on the guy. The picture shows gold guns. What's up with that? I know it's not my eyes screwing with me either.

Also, what kind of car was he driving I wonder. Either he's the same guy I saw on Tremont before going nuts behind someone not doing whatever he wanted them to do or there must be something about Tremont past the Common that drives people insane. I saw a Jeep Wrangler one day just start laying on the horn behind a small sedan because the driver wasn't zipping down the road or something. Even when he could go around or whatever, the Jeep just kept laying on the horn and the driver was foaming at the mouth about something. There was no prior screeching of tires or anything, just full blown road rage out of nowhere about some perceived slight.

up
Voting closed 0

moron in an SUV couldn't take the pace of the car ahead, accelerated into the designated bus line passing on the right (in front of me on a bike), cut the guy off, sped another block before swerving into a metered spot...late for a manicure? a lot of this stuff in the south end: drivers of little sports cars and SUVs behaving badly.

up
Voting closed 0

Baffling that this guy didn't notice that the car was an unmarked cruiser. Undercover cop cars are pretty recognizable. What a hot head! "You don't want any of this" Easy there, pump your brakes bro!

up
Voting closed 0