Hey, there! Log in / Register

Man charged with violent armed robbery outside South Boston Burger King; second suspect remains at large

A Framingham man was arraigned today on charges related to a Nov. 16 stickup of two hearing-impaired people outside the Burger King at 280 West Broadway in South Boston - which the Suffolk County District Attorney's office says resulted in one of the victims suffering a stroke.

Christopher Jimenez-Nunez, 19, was charged in South Boston Municipal Court with armed robbery with both a gun and a knife and two counts of assault and battery for the incident, the DA's office reports.

Jimenez-Nunez already had a separate open case in South Boston court from October 23 on charges of armed robbery and assault with a dangerous weapon.

Prosecutors asked that his bail on his earlier case be revoked. however, Judge John McDonald Jr. ordered him released on personal recognizance and home confinement, with an exception for going to work, the DA's office says.

According to the DA's office, around 6:30 p.m. on Nov. 16, the victims were walking down West Broadway when two men walked out of the Burger King and pointed both a knife and a gun at them. Speaking to police through a sign-language interpreter:

The first victim said one suspect, later identified as Jimenez-Nunez, pointed a knife at her stomach and pulled her hair while removing two IPads from her backpack. The second suspect, later identified as Chance Morgan, pointed a gun at the second victim, placed him in a chokehold, and grabbed his fanny pack containing his cell phone, an Apple watch, and $200 in cash. Both Jimenez-Nunez and Morgan fled the scene.

The second victim reported he was also hit on the forehead and suffered a stroke after the incident due to fear. The victims were unable to call for help until they got home due to the thefts. EMS arrived and transported the victims to a local hospital for treatment.

Morgan remains at large, the DA's office says.

Innocent, etc.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 


Ad:


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

Comments

with an exception for going to work

I'm sure he's in a big rush to get to work after going out robbing people!

up
Voting closed 2

The judge released the guy? Does not compute. That's like......perverse.

up
Voting closed 1

It's called due process and the right to a jury, which are in the constitution. I know it's easy and popular to assume that anyone who has been arrested is guilty (unless it's someone you like), but it's not always true.

Pre-trial detention is supposed to be to make sure the accused shows up for the trial. It's not supposed to be punishment, or a way for the police or local government to raise money from cash bail.

up
Voting closed 0

It's not that they don't deserve bail, it's that when they can't stay out of trouble while out on bail they've demonstrated that they don't deserve it.

up
Voting closed 0

Dangerousness hearings are a thing. We do have a mechanism to keep people who present extreme risk to the public locked up pending trial.

up
Voting closed 0

released? wtf!

up
Voting closed 0

Seems like there isn’t. Shouldn’t they have a yearly review like everyone else in the working work of their performance? Judge John McDonald Jr. Would get an F for the year if it was up to me, but I’m sure he’s from the good ole’ boys club so it wasn’t his fault.

up
Voting closed 0

Maybe someone knows. Maybe it’s a big secret.
At least we seem to have a better selection of judges in MA than in other states. But I’d like to know why and how.

up
Voting closed 2

So will the accused be under home confinement and going to and from work in Framingham? Or does the Boston community get to continue to enjoy his escalating dangerousness thanks to Judge McDonald?

up
Voting closed 0

His or her job is to follow the law.

The law says that bail is not punishment nor is it meant to keep a person incarcerated just because.

This has been explained multiple times in many many posts. Please look it up.

up
Voting closed 0

Bail is not punishment, but it does come with conditions and can be revoked for violations. Obeying the law is a common condition. I think it's most people's assumption that, once bail has been granted, if you then get arrested on new violent criminal charges, your previous bail would be revoked based simply on the probable cause necessary for the arrest. I don't think that's an unreasonable assumption.

up
Voting closed 0