Hey, there! Log in / Register

Panic on the bus when man boards with what look like dozens of bullets strapped to his waist

Real bandolier filled with fake bullets. Photo by BPD.

UPDATE: Charges dismissed.

Boston Police report arresting an alleged yutz who thought it was a good idea to try to get on an MBTA bus wearing a bandolier filled with what looked like actual bullets Friday afternoon.

Police responded to Cambridge Street and Harvard Avenue around 4:20 p.m. on reports from a 66 bus whose driver had pulled over after noticing alarmed passengers - several of whom were busy calling 911 - because of the alleged bandito.

The driver stated that the passengers were in a panic, fearing that the suspect was about to pull out a weapon. The suspect, later identified as Kevin Young, 26, of Watertown, exited the bus and was stopped by police on Penniman Road at which time it was discovered that the ammunition was fake. Officers recovered 69 replica bullets in all. The suspect was wearing what was described as spiked fighting gloves and spiked leather bracelets.

Young faces arraignment Monday in Brighton Municipal Court on charges of unlawful possession of ammunition, unlawfully carrying a dangerous weapon and disorderly conduct.

Innocent, etc.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 
Free tagging: 

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

Comments

Um, okay. If he had a gun, that would be an issue. Otherwise, they are just decoration (real or fake).

If they were fake bullets, how is this unlawful possession?

up
Voting closed 0

The definition of "ammunition" in Massachusetts includes any of the component parts, including casings, projectiles, powder, and primer. That means that if even one part of those fake rounds was "real," most likely the casings, they count as ammo.

up
Voting closed 0

How can you be charged with unlawful possession of ammunition when you do not, in fact, possess any ammunition?

Who is the prosecutor, and does the accused have a legal defense fund?

up
Voting closed 0

nt

up
Voting closed 0

You really think justice is being done, Judge Smales?

up
Voting closed 0

So I didn't comment on it.

up
Voting closed 0

just some "common sense" gun control

he's looking at 2 years...assuming they don't try to charge him for each piece of brass

(h)(1) Whoever owns, possesses or transfers a firearm, rifle, shotgun or ammunition without complying with the provisions of section 129C of chapter 140 shall be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than 2 years or by a fine of not more than $500. Whoever commits a second or subsequent violation of this paragraph shall be punished by imprisonment in a house of correction for not more than 2 years or by a fine of not more than $1,000, or both. Any officer authorized to make arrests may arrest without a warrant any person whom the officer has probable cause to believe has violated this paragraph.

“Ammunition”, cartridges or cartridge cases, primers (igniter), bullets or propellant powder designed for use in any firearm, rifle or shotgun. The term “ammunition” shall also mean tear gas cartridges, chemical mace or any device or instrument which contains or emits a liquid, gas, powder or any other substance designed to incapacitate.

up
Voting closed 0

Comm. V. Mendes, 44 Mass. App. Ct. 903 (1997)

Unlike firearms, the commonwealth does not need to prove that the particular ammo is capable of being fired, only that the ammo was "designed for use in any firearm"

The defendant also claims that the Commonwealth's evidence was deficient as to the charge of possession of ammunition. Specifically, he claims that the Commonwealth was required to submit evidence that the ammunition in question consisted of live rounds, capable of being fired. Admittedly, to sustain a conviction under s. 10(a) there must be some evidence indicating that the firearm is functional. See Commonwealth v. Nieves, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 1 , 2 (,1997). This requirement stems from the statutory definition of a firearm contained in G. L. c. 140, s. 121 (As appearing in St. 1983, c. 516, s. 1), which provides in pertinent pail that the ability to discharge a "shot or bullet" is a defining attribute of a firearm. However, as to ammunition, the definition in s. 121 (as appearing in St. 1973, c. 892, s. 1), provides only that it be "designed for use in any firearm"; in contrast to the firearms provision, there is no requirement as to current functionality.

In view of these important differences in the statutory definitions, we hold that the Commonwealth, in the context of a prosecution under G. L. c. 269, s. 10(h), does not bear the burden of proving that particular ammunition is capable of being fired. Compare In re Khamphouy S., 12 Cal. App. 4th 1130, 1134 (1993) (government required to prove ammunition is functional to support conviction of unlawful possession of ammunition where statute specifically refers to "live ammunition"). Rather, the government must show only that the putative ammunition is designed for that purpose.

There was ample evidence here, including the physical appearance, manner of packaging, and testimony from a police witness, for the jury to infer that the .22 caliber ammunition seized by officers here was "designed for use in [a] firearm." Nothing more was required. As with the conviction of unlawful possession of a firearm, the Commonwealth's evidence was legally sufficient.

up
Voting closed 0

There are enough people walking around (Especially in Allston/Brighton) that have belts, bandoliers, bracelets, etc with .50 cal rounds that don't get 911 calls every day. This guy must have done something else to have all these people call.

up
Voting closed 0

You take one down, pass it around, 95 brass bullets in the belt ...

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that there's a difference between somebody with a single bullet made into a keychain and a guy who has 96 bullets around his waist.

I was never too concerned when my barber used to have a hand grenade on his counter, but if I'd shown up one day and there were suddenly a couple dozen of them sitting there ...

up
Voting closed 0

Especially in Allston, even though that look is less common now. Kind of surprised charges were brought against the guy. Usually we would take the stuff and tell him to pick it up at the station sometime and never wear it in public again if it is that much of an alarm to people.

up
Voting closed 0

I'm old enough to remember when belts like this were a bit of a fashion statement in the late 60s/early 70s, so this little fashion victim is a bit behind the times. Some rock stars, etc used to wear them. Nobody was too concerned. But back then people weren't looking for terrorists around every corner. They were still to busy looking for communists around every corner.

But in all seriousness, nowadays I see enough whack jobs on the T and on the bus on such a regular basis that I might be a bit concerned to see someone with this accouterment.

up
Voting closed 0

Legally there is not

up
Voting closed 0

Except - as a bunch of other comments said - it's a common fashion style of walking around in leather stuff and bullet belts. Not as common as it used to be, but common enough to still be recognized. Even as a Millennial.

That said, since I'm imagining some Allston punk rock Millennial with plenty of others for years donning this and went without incident. I'm not crazy at the idea that this guy should be facing 2 years imprisonment with all the costs and stuff with it.

up
Voting closed 0

Either this:,

This guy must have done something else to have all these people call.

or maybe all the people who called 911 on this guy were feeling a bit twitchy and out-of-sorts that day, to begin with.

up
Voting closed 0

Yes, it was more common in the 1970s and 1980s to see things like this, but I see enough of it now to know that most people just don't call the police when they see people wearing the stuff.

up
Voting closed 0

this:

most people just don't call the police when they see people wearing the stuff.

was mostly true, but nowadays, in this post-911 era, many people have become much, much twitchier and more on edge, so the police are more likely to get called for petty things like that.

up
Voting closed 0

but post-mass-shootings, more likely.

up
Voting closed 0

Pray tell, when was this pre-mass-shooting era?

up
Voting closed 0

Call the cops. When they get there, they can use common sense to tell the guy "hey, cool outfit, but could you not wear it on public transportation where it might cause a stir? You see why, right? Ok, thanks."

Hahaha...ok, never mind. They should just shoot him and say he was going for his belt.

up
Voting closed 0

has been drummed into people's heads for years now. You can even do it anonymously. Add to this the fact everyone has phones, usually smartphones with specific apps to snitch, or simply dial 911.

The dude was a dbag to get on a bus with that to begin with. A week doesn't go by without some mass shooting so obviously people are antsy. But, if we could get into the wayback machine, say 25 years ago, no one would have batted an eye.

up
Voting closed 0

Every time I hear someone use the word "snitch", I picture a seventh grader who's just done something they know damn well they're not supposed to do, and who's got a case of butthurt because they were called out for it. This is too damn childish for words. As you yourself say, we've had ample reason to think beyond any residual middle-school pseudo-ethics about "snitching" and act like grownups.

up
Voting closed 0

A week doesn't go by without some mass shooting so obviously people are antsy

Are mass shootings more common than they used to be?

up
Voting closed 0

Unless you could load all of those using the belt, they wouldn't be particularly useful if mass mayhem was on the schedule.

Most mass shootings have involved shooters with several fully loaded guns with large magazines already set up.

up
Voting closed 0

I believe are the dangerous weapon and the ammunition and disorderly charges are because he scared the s***t out of the passengers and was an a-hole to the cops

up
Voting closed 0

IMAGE(http://www.idolpeter.de/tl_files/CD%60s/CD_Billy_Idol/Compilationen/cd_billy_idol_10_great_songs_eu_4556822_1front.jpg)

...Terrifying

up
Voting closed 0

Scared the splat?
Scared the shart?
Scared the snort?
Scared the scoot?

???

up
Voting closed 0

Bullet belts have been a part of punk fashion for decades. I used to wear one myself back in the day and no one ever blinked an eye. They are also fairly common to see on any given day in Allston. I'm genuinely surprised that this kid's belt caused a panic and seriously feel bad for the guy.

up
Voting closed 0

or other costume parties on a Friday/Saturday night where people can't dress up as a banditio or even as an Imperial Storm trouper. The message is to drive, unless clearly unarmed on T underwear day.

up
Voting closed 0

So the Boston Police are arresting people for their fashion accessories now? They should round up everyone who wears crocs and fake uggs as well!

up
Voting closed 0

Prime example of what I've brought up before. Anyone at all question why BPD is making a MBTA arrest? 911 call goes to Boston PD, they dispatch their own, wait to see if it's juicy enough, based on response from their own they either keep it or finally inform the T. They really take advantage of the 911 calls going to them to up their stats. Why are we paying for all these specific police departments if they police what they want whenever they want?

up
Voting closed 0

BPD AND TPD seem to work well together.

BPD has a lot more feet on the ground than TPD, it's not at all unusual for TPD to ask for help. Also, the guy didn't stick around when the bus pulled over. Police found him a couple blocks away.

Put the two together and you've got BPD getting involved. Hardly the first time: BPD was also involved when that guy shot up Forest Hills station (one of the victims ran to a friend's house across Washington Street, BPD got a 911 call about a woman shot there, not at the bus stop). Similar responses for shootings involving Ashmont and Dudley stations.

up
Voting closed 0

Punks wearing bullet belts is not a new thing. Pretty ridiculous that they arrested him. Are they going to start arresting little kids for having squirt guns next? ACAB

up
Voting closed 0

So the kid from Watertown was on his way to a punk show. Perhaps he pre games with a few pints. No one like a drunk in public.

Those rounds mostly likely have no primers in them. Massachusetts does have laws against "false devices" ie: Phoney hand gernades etc. They become ill-legal when used for a crime, etc.

I used to wear a bullet belt in the 1990's around Boston. Never had a problem.

The gloves and spikes are like a shod foot / steel toed boot etc. A chargeable offense when you act out and get caught.

No wonder the FBI used to spy on Black Flag. Way too punk.

up
Voting closed 0

He's from Watertown (where the 57 goes, and not the 66), and got on at the stop where the 57 and 66 connect. I assume that means he took the 57 bus there. Interesting that no one there felt the need to call 911.

up
Voting closed 0

Guy gets on with what looks like a shotgun in a soft carry case. Everyone on the bus acts real smooth like it's cool, but suddenly everyone has stopped talking. Couldn't get off that bus fast enough...

up
Voting closed 0

When the guy whipped a Bassoon out o the case and started jamming those passengers must have felt really silly.

up
Voting closed 0

In Austin, TX, I've seen punk rockers pushing strollers and donning those belts and gloves. Nobody batted an eye. What a world we live in.

up
Voting closed 0

Texas and Massachusetts.

up
Voting closed 0

The police report states that these 911 callers reported that the man had a gun. The facts show that the man did not have a gun, but instead, some "fake bullets" (which has no legal definition, by the way).

Was anyone charged with lying to the police for saying he had a gun when in fact, he did not have a gun? This kind of recklessness can get people killed. It is a lot like "SWATting" someone whom you don't like.

up
Voting closed 0

When SWATing happens, it is people who know there is nothing dangerous going on but they lie about a situation bad enough to send out the SWAT team. In this case, people probably saw something they thought was a gun and reported it. The whole mistaking other objects for guns is a mistake even police officers make.

up
Voting closed 0

  1. Rube Just in from Flyover State Sees First Punk, Panics
  2. Boston Punk in 80's Garb Arrested, Charged with Crimes Against Fashion
  3. Boston's Bullet Belt Ban Proves Bonanza for Constitutional Carry Crazies
  4. Punk Arrested, Informed that Rebellion Now Consists of Growing Beard, Wearing Warby Parkers, Making DIY Pickles.
up
Voting closed 0

... revisited?

up
Voting closed 0

All charges have been dropped. What a fucking joke, not to mention a waste of municipal resources. Remember kids, punk rock isn't a crime!

up
Voting closed 0

up
Voting closed 0

He's a damn punk rocker wtf R u kidding me,
How many other punks there where bullet belts GEEZ that's heavy wonder what law is in Pdx oregon.

This is the most stupidest thing an them people on bus are so dumb, this is going overboard if they can't tell its JUZ a punks goddamn belt.an THATS how we dress.

up
Voting closed 0