Hey, there! Log in / Register

Boston cop charged with threatening family member with a weapon

The Boston Police Department reports arresting a patrolman today on a charge of domestic assault with a dangerous weapon.

Police did not provide any further details of the charge against Officer Dana Lamb, a Roslindale resident who has been a patrolman since 1987.

In a statement, Acting Police Commissioner Gregory Long said:

This allegation of domestic violence committed by a Boston Police Officer is extremely disturbing. The Boston Police Department takes all allegations of domestic violence by employees seriously. Domestic violence is unacceptable in society.

Lamb was last in the news in 2020 when he was investigated for non-compliance with regulations related to BPD's then new body cameras.

Innocent, etc..

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 

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

Comments

This means a 56 to 60 year old guy was threatening his wife with a gun and he will now face consequences. Good. What an A-hole.

That is how it is supposed to work. Screw up, get the bracelets, and you lose your job.

No wonder Egga doesn't want the Superintendent's job. He has to deal with things like this, the day to day crime in the city, and all the ACABers thinking they can do it better.

up
Voting closed 23

Go 25 miles west to Ashland, police officer Richard Briggs with multiple domestic incidents was recently promoted to acting chief.

It will be interesting to see further details, there must have been witnesses if they couldn't sweep this under the rug like the did with Dennis White for however many years.

up
Voting closed 42

Is a poor way of saying that this person will not get what they deserve.

That is for the judicial system to decide.

up
Voting closed 15

Dude was making 157k per year on desk duty, so if it comes to it he can afford a good lawyer, but the victim will probably be harassed by this hero and his colleagues to drop the charges or not testify. He may have to resign but that will probably be the extent of the "justice".

up
Voting closed 39

Can simply decertify the officer based on the police report. No need for witnesses to testify in court, or show up or do anything.

Of course it does not look like the POST commission has been funded for 2022 so who knows what will happen.

up
Voting closed 14

How long until LiveBoston617 picks up this story? (They haven’t yet!)

up
Voting closed 40

Kinopio attending the Auto Show

up
Voting closed 29

So when can we expect a permanent police commissioner?

up
Voting closed 11

Working 2 details on top of his regular shift is probably tough, cut the scumbag some slack.
You try guarding a construction site on a side street with traffic cones and flashing lights.

up
Voting closed 22

I'm sure the missus is getting PLENTY of pressure to stfu and move on for the good of the force.

Snitches get stitches.

up
Voting closed 16

Why the hell do we have traffic details again? This is like New Jersey’s requirement that gas station employees pump gas — utterly pointless and entirely wasteful.

up
Voting closed 21

Who approve these foolish things.
They like to say, it's not taxpayers money so who cares?
I saw two cops on a detail when Verizon was doing something on my street, 3 Verizon employees and two cops.
When the Boston water and sewer had a job on the street, not a cop in sight. It's extortion if you ask me.

up
Voting closed 18

They like to say, it's not taxpayers money so who cares?

That line of argument is so damned disingenuous it pisses me off every time I hear it.

The way regulated utilities work is that most costs go directly to the rate base.

Which means that when Verizon, or Comcast, or National Grid, or Keyspan is forced hire details, the cost comes out of my pocket as a ratepayer.

OK, sure, technically, I don't pay it as part of my tax bill, I pay it in my gas bill. What economic difference does that make to me?

It's not the taxpayers' money, but it sure is the people's money.

up
Voting closed 21

When the city asks the union if they would rather get a 10% raise in their detail pay or a 5% cut in their health insurance premiums, the City will save money on this type of negotiation. Then the city gets 10% on every detail payment as well.

Does your average Verizon or National Grid bill in Boston cost more (compared to London or NY where these companies are headquartered and may not require details) because Boston makes those companies get details? That would be the question on whether or not you are paying for something.

up
Voting closed 10

In a negotiation with the city unless they have a seat at the table. Using Verizon to help pay police is not how it is supposed to work.
Anyone who has seen a cop on a detail can tell you it's a scam.
Standing inside a coned off area watching guys work.....why?

up
Voting closed 8

That is why.

up
Voting closed 4

It's a shakedown of private companies..
An armed police officer is not needed when Verizon is digging, and if it is needed it would be needed no matter who was digging.

up
Voting closed 10

.

up
Voting closed 8

n/t

up
Voting closed 4

but since they work for the city it comes out of the overtime budget, not the detail budget.

I mean the city has Verizon pay for police health care and the city gets a cut? why not take that money from a global billion dollar company.?

I wouldn’t worry about Verizon, I’d worry about the homeowner who wants their front wall replaced and need to pay the detail to sit in the cruiser behind the landscape truck. No one is paying more for their phone bill because of details

up
Voting closed 5

And I've seen BWS working on my street with no police detail.
You're saying the city of Boston has an overtime budget to pay police to do non police work?

up
Voting closed 7

Like if the Boston public schools wants to hire a police officer to work at a sporting event or graduation. the pay comes from the same place (the city) so they don’t charge the surcharge to the city. the police officer then does traffic or whatever they want him to do. Same goes for BWS. The cop hired would do traffic but wouldn’t be paid through the detail office (or the detail office wouldn’t collect from another City agency. The rates are different (overtime vs detail rate) and with that goes other contractual obligations

up
Voting closed 5

No one is paying more for their phone bill because of details

Where does the money come from, if not my phone bill?

up
Voting closed 8

If Verizon was exempt from details, you would be paying the exact same on your phone bill. 100% chance of that.

up
Voting closed 5

The rate base is recalculated every so often. Every penny that can be charged to the rate base is charged to the rate base, and that is then used to set the rates. The cost of details is absolutely 100% passed on to the customer; it sure as hell doesn't come out of executive bonuses or shareholder dividends.

up
Voting closed 11

And in the end it amounts to zero more you have to pay on your bill.

up
Voting closed 4

Regardless of your phone bill.
Anyone who has seen a cop looking down a manhole inside a coned off job site, or standing on the sidewalk on their phone,or sitting in their car understands what it is.
1 state out of 50 have this system, why?
We are smarter than everyone else?

up
Voting closed 5

So the millions of dollars the city saves on health insurance premiums and salaries stays in the taxpayers pocket (or City coffers). In the meantime your phone bill isn't impacted.

up
Voting closed 5

It's the principal.
Subsidizing Police with a scam detail system forced on companies who have no say in it is wrong.
The system has apologists and always will and most of he public sees it for what it is.
Mosf Police don't even hide the fact that they are doing nothing, it's so normal now and they don't care if you see them standing there doing nothing.

up
Voting closed 6

Whose pocket do the incremental costs that Verizon pays for details at construction sites in Boston come out of, compared to an alternative world in which they don't pay those costs.

It's either the ratepayers or the shareholders or the employees or someone else. Since you're assuring me that it's not the ratepayers, who is it?

up
Voting closed 7

I'm saying don't think you are paying more for your monthly bill because of police details. That is all.

up
Voting closed 5

You're saying that I'm not paying for it. But it's getting paid. So who's paying for it?

up
Voting closed 4

If you got rid of police details for Verizon road work, do you think your bill goes down 2 cents? or 2 dollars? How about the Verizon customer in Japan? Is it a $2 impact on their bill? What I said and I will say it again is that your bill will not get impacted because police details in the grand scheme of things impact Verizon finances about the same as a 10 power outage in Androscoggin Maine does.

How about the first responder discount Verizon gives? It is 25%. Probably costs 100 or 1000X what police details in Boston cost the company nationally. I bet that doesn't even impact your phone bill.

up
Voting closed 3

The minimum 4 hours pay for BPD details was approved by either the outgoing Kevin White administration or the incoming Ray Flynn administration in 1984. A BPD officer gets paid for at least 4 hours regardless of how long he is required on site. My money is it being a White administration deal. Anyone know for sure?

up
Voting closed 8

It started when overzealous supervisors ordered officers to come to court, miss a detail and then cancel their court and want to pay them for 5 minutes. so the officer was at the whim of abusive administration.

I believe the McCourt corporation fought the City on this at one point as well in court. it had been an established labor practice in many other areas of the labor market before that.

up
Voting closed 7

Has a similar system.
They are called no show jobs, this is similar.
Show up for 30 minutes get paid for 4 hours, even though you don't work for the company paying you and they are forced to hire you.

up
Voting closed 8

which is fine. You are obviously ignorant on may labor laws in mostly blue states.

https://workplacerightslaw.com/library/wage-hour/4-hour-minimum-shift/

see ya.

up
Voting closed 4

You are forgetting the police are not employees of the companies forced to pay them. They had no input in the negotiations.
Do you think all companies who are forced to hire details have the 4 hour minimum clause?
Highly doubtful

up
Voting closed 4

100% chance they all do.

And again, the companies don't have to pay details if they are on private property. They don't own public roads, so have to apply for building permits, and adhere to all sorts of other legal governmental obligations.

up
Voting closed 4

So your 100 percent chance is wrong.
The best clause I've ever had was double time for Sunday, or time and a half for overtime.
And again, I worked fo them, the police work for the city of boston not the companies paying them.
You don't own the sidewalk or street in front of your house but it can be shoveled without a police detail, right? They are using private companies to subsidize police salaries because they can, if they tried it on average citizens it wouldn't fly.
It's a scam.

up
Voting closed 4

companies paying police for one hour, not companies having their own 4 hour minimum.

As for the impact on road or sidewalk work, there are exemptions, just like there are exemptions to labor laws and which job are entitled to overtime, FMLA, FSLA, 4 hour mins, etc.

up
Voting closed 4

The exemptions are when they cant get paid.
The details are super important unless they're not. We all know how the game is played.

up
Voting closed 3

I understand that a lot of this is negotiated, and we the taxpayers need to blame our mayors and not the police if we don't think the deal was reasonable, but...

In any other employment situation, you show up at work and clock in. Your supervisor tells you to go to court, so you go to court. The court appearance gets canceled, so you call your supervisor, who assigns you to a detail. You go there. The detail lasts 2 1/2 hours. You take your lunch break. Your supervisor assigns you to another task. Eventually you clock out at the end of your 8 hour shift, and you get paid for your shift. If there aren't enough employees available to cover the necessary work, your supervisor offers overtime. If you want the overtime, you work the overtime and you get paid overtime rate for that.

Why are details always overtime?

up
Voting closed 6

They are a separate negotiated union rate.

In terms of other employment situations, what you describe is not always the case. Take this law in NY for example:

New York requires employers to pay workers for reporting to the workplace, even if the employer has no work for them to do. An employee who is requested or permitted to report for work on any day must receive at least 4 hours' pay or, if the scheduled shift is shorter than 4 hours, wages for the number of hours in the shift. The hourly rate must be at or above the minimum wage (NY Admin. Code Tit. 12 Sec. 142-2.3).

(there are exceptions for certain jobs here)

Also in your example, if you show up to court and it gets cancelled, you don't get a detail because that work is already gone. Your 1975 ahole supervisor says "Here bob, here is your 75 cents for the five minutes you were here."

up
Voting closed 3

There was about a 40% chance of this happening, lets see what consequences the officer faces.

up
Voting closed 13

According to the sons, who were questioned separately by police, Lamb, 57, became angry over the volume of the television and shouted at them to turn it down before allegedly pointing a gun at them, Suffolk Assistant District Attorney Ian Polumbaum said at Lamb’s arraignment in West Roxbury Municipal Court.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/02/16/metro/boston-police-officer-due-c...

up
Voting closed 7

The father is walking around the house strapped:

"But Lamb told officers the dispute started over WiFi use, Polumbaum said. While Lamb was in the bathroom, one of his sons allegedly blew marijuana smoke on his face and threw a fake punch, startling him, Polumbaum said. Lamb said had his firearm on his hip and reached for it."

up
Voting closed 6