Hey, there! Log in / Register
Woman knocked down by man who tried to drag her behind a building on Mission Hill
By adamg on Tue, 07/07/2015 - 3:33pm
Boston Police report an incident involving a woman walking home with headphones on around 2:30 a.m. on July 4 at Colburn Street and Huntington Avenue.
An unknown suspect approached her from behind, knocked her to the ground and attempted to drag her behind a building. The victim broke free and called police. The victim describes the suspect as either a light-skinned Hispanic or Middle Eastern male in his twenties, about 5'9" - 5'11" in height, thin build, dark short hair, wearing a black short sleeve shirt, dark navy jeans and black wire rim glasses.
If you have any info, contact B-2 detectives at 617-343-6676.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
I'm glad she got away quickly
Decades ago in another community, a serial rapist developed an MO of hitting women in the head from behind, and consequently we were taught to duck and turn rather than merely turn around to face someone we suspected might be about to blitz us from behind. Of course, this advice will only help if you can hear them coming. I'm glad this woman got away quickly. Don't let the criminals own the streets at night, but do remember to stay alert! And this bears repeating: as mentioned previously on UH, we no longer need a weapons permit to carry pepper spray in Massachusetts.
Headphones
Probably wise to not wear headphones. Late at night. Walking alone. Just not smart.
Please
DON'T WEAR HEADPHONES walking alone at night, especially in neighborhoods known for their street crime. GIVE FULL ATTENTION to your surroundings.
NO....this is not 'Blaming the Victim'.
well
its kind of is
headphones and walking at night, not paying attention
No, it's called common sense. When you are distracted you cannot hear what's going on around you. You want to call it "blaming the victim", then fine. I call it asking for trouble.
do you
think short skirts are asking for trouble too
Do skirts....
... affect your ability to perceive your surroundings?
that isnt the point
implying that this wouldnt have happened or could be prevented because of something the victim did or didnt do is blaming the victim.
youre saying at this point that a person shouldnt wear headphones if they dont want to be assaulted
i say thats a bullshit argument
It is the point
One needs to be aware of circumstances. Let's say one is hit by a fire truck, because one can't hear it coming, due to wearing headphones (and listening to music, with the volume on high). One have some responsibility for not paying attention to your environment, doesn't one?. How is this different?
So the onus is on the victim,
So the onus is on the victim, to prevent assault from people and firetrucks? What if the victim wasn't wearing headphones and still was assaulted? Then would we blame her clothing, lifestyle choices, recreational habits?
And what if a deaf woman was assaulted, would you blame them for being deaf? Blame them for walking outdoors? Are there any circumstances in which you would blame the PERPETRATOR, for ASSAULTING a woman?
Just plain silly
Wearing headphones at at a time (or in a place) that makes one less able to pay attention to things one should pay attention to -- does not _cause_ a bad thing to happen. Rather, it makes one less able to protect oneself than would otherwise be the case.
The muggers are responsible for choosing to mug. No one is making any excuses for them or their actions. People are only saying that there are some reasonable steps one should take to minimize risks. Are YOU suggesting a deaf person has made a _choice_ to be deaf? A person wearing headphones (or driving a car with the music so loud they can't hear environmental sounds) has made a choice to not hear.
Senses are too valuable to impair.
It'll happen naturally as you age anyway, probably sooner if you blast your hapless eardrums with trendy noise.
Absolutely Ridiculous.
Your argument is insane.
No one is claiming that someone is "asking" to be assaulted.
It is all about mitigating risk.
Would you walk around with your wallet dangling on a string behind you in DTX?
Yes it is the perpetrator's fault, but if the victim makes themselves an easy target it does nothing but assist the perp in successfully committing their crime.
You actually illustrate the point by using the analogy of a deaf person; Why would someone effectively give themselves a handicap by wearing headphones while walking at night?
Many people already said what
Many people already said what I feel about this, but I thought I'd give you an example; Working in Chelsea, driving in one morning there was an awful traffic jam. Nothing was moving. As it turned out, a young high school girl was hit by a train while walking to school. It was a very cold, bitter morning and I can imagine her hood was on (limiting visibility), but as it came out later, so weren't her headphones.
Hopefully she never realized what hit her.
It's just plain common sense, something that doesn't seem to come naturally now a days.
Common sense: don't assault people.
Is this happened to your wife, daughter, sister, mother, would you tell them they were asking for trouble?
You are giving the criminal element too much credit.
Of course no one would tell a loved one they were asking for trouble after an attack, but as a means of caution before something happens? Yes, I would say that wearing headphones while walking alone at night is asking for trouble.
If you think it isn't you are kidding yourself.
I also hope that you don't walk alone wearing headphones at night.
There will always be scumbags who prey on unsuspecting and vulnerable people.
Why make yourself vulnerable?
Sorry for you
Can't follow the point, eh? The point is, stay on your toes. You're walking alone at night. You bear some responsibility to look out for yourself. You BEAR SOME RESPONSIBILITY.
No one said she was "asking for trouble"
And actually I'm shocked that no one here has said that 2:30am is late for nice girls to be out. But headphones?? Come on. No one's saying to stay home and wear caftans but is saying "be alert and aware of your surroundings" really too much to ask?
I would
Make certain that they were OK after the assault, through all means at my disposal. Then I would highly, HIGHLY recommend that they find some means of self preservation and not wear headphones when out and about.
Honestly, I don't care what time it is. Unless one is absolutely certain of one's surroundings and safety, one does everything in one's means to protect oneself. This is reality. Especially the reality in the city.
And I would take them to the closest RAD training course - probably through the BPD - E-13 runs them - and have them take the course. If they were still traumatized, I'd take the course with them (it would not be my first time being there for someone through this course). And I might even suggest further defense classes if that matches their personality (my friend noted previously is not a sportif-type, thus the extent of the RAD class activity was fine for her). Me - I grew up with hockey player brothers who loved wrestling and The Three Stooges: we had a violent childhood.
A short skirt: most certainly NOT inviting someone to attack them. In fact - said short skirt would give the assaultee more freedom to kick as necessary to achieve escape. Headphones? They only serve to deaden one's senses to the surroundings. Skirts and headphones are apples and oranges.
Blaming the victim as a concept
As degrading and offensive as the time-honored "but she was asking for it" comments always are (and I'm not suggesting anyone here has sunk that low), there is nonetheless some nugget of common sense hidden in that dog pile. Suppose I decide never to lock any of my doors- car or home. Or I choose to store my wallet outside on my front steps every night while I sleep. I can see that such risky behavior leaves me at greater risk of theft, and I can accept that I'd bear some responsibility for that choice, and yet the thief is nonetheless the party to be blamed, and no less guilty. Or does this not become entrapment at some point- leaving a dollar bill on the ground a foot away from a public sidewalk. It's not yours, yet honestly, how many of us would hesitate to pick it up? Even the most earnest among us might pick it up to drop it into the next donation box encountered. It seems to me that the offensive aspect of any "she was asking for it" comment lies in the objectification of the woman in question. Even a scantily-clad woman known to be a prostitute and found passed out in a public alley is not "asking for it" under any circumstance- unless one views her as an unguarded object, like a dropped dollar bill. Since there are, of course, strategies women can use to increase their safety, I suspect it is this objectification that most of us are reacting to when we take offense when those strategies are pointed out. Yet surely discussions of what one might wish to do differently to stay safe are valuable. How do we discuss these things without stepping in it? Thoughts?
Good points
Clearly a sensitive subject - thus tough to discuss without getting worked up.
I participate in a motorcycle group where many a similar discussion and analysis is performed when someone is in an accident. They routinely note the conditions, what they were doing at the time, who or what was nearby, and what they could have done differently. Even when they were clearly not at fault (left turner into them for example): they want to figure out if it could have been avoided. And sometimes it just couldn't have been - mostly due to the things they can't control - ie: the other person involved.
Each person venturing out into the world can effectively control one thing: themselves. Why not do all you can to protect yourself? And as someone noted above: determine your risk awareness and act accordingly.
headphones
Yes, you are correct. No one is suggesting anyone is asking for "it". But as it has been said by many here - you take precautions to mitigate risk. Don't be vulnerable. Don't paint yourself red and stand in front of a bull and say, well it was the bulls fault. You bear some responsibility because you made yourself vulnerable by not using common sense.
I don't disagree at all
I don't disagree at all, and yet, oddly, I still feel my hackles rise at some of what you've said. And this brings me to something I've noticed in the past- that people (in other venues) often seem to be arguing past one another when this subject arises. Inevitably, someone- often a woman- takes offense, then others- often men- wind up characterizing something she's said as absurd, and it degenerates from there. The trolls haven't jumped into this discussion yet, so it might be productive to pursue this here. It seems to me the terms "blame" "fault" and "responsibility" are too broad, as normally used, for the precision needed for this subject. I'm criticizing the English language here, not a specific speaker. Perhaps the lawyers could weigh in and supply some alternative words, but on the one hand, the mugger has affirmative, positive, active fault for his actions. A victim may behave with insoucience, negligence or a foolish disregard for her safety, but we would never ascribe the same type of "blame" or "fault" to her- yet we are stuck using those same words. Perhaps many arguments and misunderstandings could be avoided if we could specify the type of "responsibility" we're all agreeing that potential victim has. Or am I wrong, and we're only talking about differences in degree, rather than making qualitative distinctions? If I'm wrong, then does the victim's fault ever reduce that of the criminal? I'm inclined to say no, of course, but I am hard-pressed to explain why not. Anyone?
Responsibility
I think you are one of those people who turn simple things into big deals. Just keep it simple. Try not to infuse language with political correctness. We need to say what we mean. Be clear. Get it?
don't mind him
He likes to stir up doo doo and can't stand watching a post sit idly without peppering his comments everywhere. Common sense is common sense, and it's not gender exclusive. Plenty of men have been mugged by not being aware of their surroundings, too.
Good point about it not being gender exclusive.
I'm willing to bet that this post wouldn't have half as many responses if it were a man that was mugged/attacked.
But I'm willing to wager just as much that the language would be even more pointed about not being a doofus and wearing headphones at night while walking alone, and I doubt that people would be up in arms about "blaming the victim."
Honestly it should be "Don't
Honestly it should be "Don't wear headphones at night" PERIOD. Crimes happen everywhere so if you think because your in a low crime area(suburbs) that you could give it a thought to put your headphones on, I think it's the wrong message.