Former high school dean Shaun Harrison, 58, has been found guilty in one of the most bizarre and disturbing criminal cases in Boston. Harrison was an anti-violence advocate that the students called “the Rev.” He turned out to be a drug dealer who shot a student who was selling pot for him.
Harrison was a dean at Boston English High School for five years. During that time, he supplemented his salary with drug sales and used Luis Rodriguez, 17, to sell the pot at the school. Harrison was reportedly upset that Rodriguez was skimming profits and not making enough sales.
Harrison shot Rodriguez on March 3, 2015 when the two met at a gas station for Harrison to deliver some drugs. Instead, Harrison shot Rodriguez in the back of the head under his right ear. It was an amazing lucky shot for Rodriguez if getting shot in the head can ever be lucky. It missed the carotid artery but broke his jawbone.
Harrison was found guilty of all charges, including armed assault with intent to murder.
Kudos: Professor Roger E. Schechter
@mespo727272 June 4, 2018 at 10:25 AM
“Ken, BTW, in your role as house grammarian, what is wrong with the sentence, ” I like the odds of ridding society of miscreants.” IOW, what’s the [sic] for? Or is the [sic] a [sic]?”
I inserted the [sic] after the sentence because it wasn’t clear to me (and, potentially, other readers) what you were saying, and I didn’t want anyone to think I might have misquoted you.
I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, i.e., that you weren’t asserting that executing some percentage of innocent people is a price worth paying in order to execute a larger percentage of people who are actually guilty of the crime(s) of which they’ve been convicted.
If that is what you meant, then I invite you to say so explicitly. And if so, I also invite you to define “miscreants” and explain how executing even guilty people will rid society of them. Or did you mean, “I like the idea of ridding society of some miscreants”?
One more clarification, if you will: are the innocent people executed in your societal cleansing program also “miscreants”? If not, what’s your designation for them?
The lazy student just needs to improve his “work ethic” and increase his sales volume.
Mike S. Goodman – he needs to watch the first season of The Wire. 😉
Some more of my deathless prose disappeared due to the Great Censor in the Internet.
David Benson still owes me two citations, one from the Oxford English Dictionary. You wrote something is prose? Sure slipped by me. I did not know you were capable.
Think of that! You’ve been writing prose all your life and didn’t even know it.
David Benson still owes me two citations, one from the Oxford English Dictionary. If only I had read Weart I would have been enlightened.
It’s not too late for redemption!
David Benson still owes me two citations, one from the Oxford English Dictionary. I might be enlightened, never redeemed. However, I think I am already enlightened.
@CV Brown (R) June 2, 2018 at 9:36 AM
“Da ‘boy’ was lucky he didn’t pull that crap down here in Bama.”
What would have happened to him down there in “Bama,” Cracker V?
STORY RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT ARMING SCHOOL STAFFERS
Yeah, I know, this subject would have been packing regardless of policy. But the story illustrates how certain rogues wind up in school positions.
Therefore official policies arming school staffers could give legal cover to rogues like this.
Arm everyone with guns and watch no one commit acts of violence including blaque thugs like this principal
For every problem solved, a new one will arise. e.g.
https://m.imgur.com/gallery/6isaGI9
The thugs will never go away until all of society has a gun to take care of business.
cheers
NB: watch PH go ape sheet with insults and bullying
Sharon:
As a Baby Boomer who grew up watching Western movies and TV shows, I can tell you categorically that arming everyone will only lead to western style shootouts where people draw on each other. And ‘yes’, saloons will be the most common site of shootouts.
I can’t think of one reason why this conduct shouldn’t be subject to capital punishment.
@mespo727272 June 2, 2018 at 8:24 AM
“I can’t think of one reason why this conduct shouldn’t be subject to capital punishment.”
As you apparently aren’t put off by the barbaric hypocrisy of the death penalty (the killing of human beings by private individuals = despicable, but the killing of human beings by individuals employed by the State = wonderful), how about the fact that the State’s killing the perpetrator under discussion would be for attempting to kill someone, but not actually doing so?
Another possible reason that one might be opposed to the death penalty in general is the fact that since 1973, 162 people have been exonerated and released from death row in the US:
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty
One more reason that one might oppose the death penalty is the evidence of the execution of people who were later determined to have been innocent of the crime for which they were killed:
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=innocent+people+who+have+been+executed&qpvt=innocent+people+who+have+been+executed&FORM=VDRE
And one more reason, with varying significance for various people, might be that killing in cold blood someone who is utterly defenseless is theoretically at odds with the 6th Commandment of the Decalogue.
This guy isn’t a murderer only because he has bad aim. He was found guilty and is the rankest form of hypocrite and a danger to kids. I see no reason why we all have to provide room and board for life for this human refuse. You wanna pay for his upkeep feel free. I’d rather pay for the flowers.
I used to be in favor of the death penalty. Then I had a conversation with a former Soviet “citizen.” It was then that I realized as long as the State can take a life for a reason, it can take any life for any reason. If the Soviet example is unconvincing, I would also refer you to Germany, 1933-45, Cambodia in the 1970s, and yes, sometimes our own country.
Silly analogies. Those were totalitarian regimes. Ours isn’t. We have due process. They didn’t. You wanna pay for murderous human sludge, feel free but why does everyone else? ‘Cause you think it’s right?
I have it on good authority that once a person is executed, they rarely reoffend.
Darren Smith – they do have to be good and truly dead, though. 😉
@mespo727272 June 3, 2018 at 7:16 AM
“Silly analogies. Those were totalitarian regimes. Ours isn’t. We have due process. They didn’t. You wanna pay for murderous human sludge, feel free but why does everyone else? ‘Cause you think it’s right?”
In other words, you’re more concerned about the expense to you, as a taxpayer, of incarcerating people convicted of murder, than you are about the risk of executing innocent people who have been convicted of murder? If so, you should compare the relative costs of life sentences and death sentences, the latter being considerably more expensive.
Fortunately, the attorneys at the Innocence Project, among the growing number of Americans who recognize the barbarism and irreparable harm of executing people, have a decidedly more realistic view of the fallibility of due process in the US:
“The work of the Innocence Project has led to the freeing of more than 350 wrongfully convicted people, based on DNA, including 20 who spent time on death row, and the finding of 150 real perpetrators.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_Project
Officials of the State can free someone who’s recognized as having been wrongfully convicted and incarcerated, and even compensate him monetarily, but an official apology and compensation are inarguably feeble gestures in the case of someone wrongfully convicted and executed.
I’m also glad to see an organization of self-described Conservatives who have joined the effort to abolish the death penalty in the minority of states that still employ it. As one member points out:
“Conservatives have every reason to believe the death penalty system is no different from any politicized, costly, inefficient, bureaucratic, government-run operation, which we conservatives know are rife with injustice. But here the end result is the end of someone’s life. In other words, it’s a government system that kills people.” (Richard Viguerie)
https://conservativesconcerned.org/
A clarification of my last comment, in which I wrote, “I’m also glad to see an organization of self-described Conservatives who have joined the effort to abolish the death penalty in the minority of states that still employ it.” I wasn’t alluding to only the number of states that have legislatively abolished the death penalty, but also to those that have not employed it in the last decade:
“Although the United States is considered a death penalty country, executions are rare or non-existent in most of the nation: the majority of states–30 out of 50–have either abolished the death penalty or have not carried out an execution in at least 10 years. An additional 5 states have not had an execution in at least 5 years, for a total of 35 states with no executions in that time. Only 6 states carried out an execution in 2015, and only 3 states (TX, MO, and GA) accounted for 86% of the executions. Three additional jurisdictions (the District of Columbia, the Federal Government, and the Military) have not had an execution in at least 10 years.”
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/jurisdictions-no-recent-executions
350 out of thousands of murder convictions. Quite the barn burner. Have it your way, let DNA be the deciding factor since your hitched your wagon to it. Capital punishment isn’t barbaric. Disrespecting innocent human life is barbaric.
@mespo727272 June 3, 2018 at 4:36 PM
“Capital punishment isn’t barbaric. Disrespecting innocent human life is barbaric.”
If you don’t consider executing innocent people as “disrespecting innocent human life,” then your concern for innocent human life is obviously more than a little spurious.
Samuel R. Gross, a law professor at the University of Michigan, is the editor of the National Registry of Exonerations and wrote the following:
“The staggering number of wrongful convictions in America”
“How many people are convicted of crimes they did not commit? Last year, a study I co-authored on the issue was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It shows that 4.1 percent of defendants who are sentenced to death in the United States are later shown to be innocent: 1 in 25. [Emphasis added]
“Death sentences are uniquely well-documented. We don’t know nearly enough about other kinds of criminal cases to estimate the rate of wrongful convictions for those. The rate could be lower than for capital murders, or it could be higher.
“Of course, in a country with millions of criminal convictions a year and more than two million people behind bars, even one percent amounts to tens of thousands of tragic errors.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-cost-of-convicting-the-innocent/2015/07/24/260fc3a2-1aae-11e5-93b7-5eddc056ad8a_story.html?utm_term=.5a010fe49cf0
Name another human endeavor that get its right 96% of the time. I like the odds of ridding society of miscreants. That no system is perfect doesn’t mean we have to subsidize those who would kill us. You’re not entitled to a perfect trial (though we try); you’re entitled to a fair trial. If you didn’t get one you get an appeal.
@mespo727272 June 4, 2018 at 12:12 AM
“Name another human endeavor that get its [sic] right 96% of the time. I like the odds of ridding society of miscreants [sic].”
Your comments in this thread, in combination with your endorsement in another thread of the notion of killing thieves, have convinced me that the death penalty is for you primarily a psychological, rather than a philosophical, issue.
No, it’s a housekeeping issue for me. For you, it’s a psychological issue. And I never advocated killing thieves just for being thieves. You either want to warehouse sociopaths or you don’t. I don’t.
Ken,
BTW, in your role as house grammarian, what is wrong with the sentence, ” I like the odds of ridding society of miscreants.” IOW, what’s the [sic] for? Or is the [sic] a [sic]?
Another possible reason that one might be opposed to the death penalty in general is the fact that since 1973, 162 people have been exonerated and released from death row in the US:
No, 162 people have had their convictions set aside for one reason or another.
A distinction without a difference?
Why don’t you and Allan go play patty-cake semantics together. I’m sure it will keep you both busy for as long as you choose.
R. Lien – it is not unusual for people to have their conviction overturned and then be convicted again at the retrial.
Now Squeeky Fromm will chime in and say he should have killed the kid and the beat cop on duty should have summarily executed him, Davao-City-Style.
Since when do high schools have deans?
I’ve been out of high school for 45 years. We had deans back then. There was a Dean of Women and a Dean of Men. They were primarily responsible for discipline, but also served as counselors and advisors.
Since forever. They had them when I was in high school as well. The function of ‘dean’ and ‘provost’ exist at the secondary level, and the title ‘dean’ is quite common. In small schools, the principal may be his own dean and his own provost. In larger schools, the title ‘vice principal’ may encompass one or both of these functions. In my high schools, the office politics were such that the deans were primarily teachers who handled the low-grade problems. The bad cop was one of the vice principals, who had other things to do with his time (hire, evaluate, and fire faculty).
David, it’s you short term memory that should be going at this point. 1960 should still be in there.
At my high school, graduated in 1958, the vice-principal was the sole disciplinary officer. The only excitement was the time two students robbed the high school safe. The FBI quickly solved the case.
The FBI? Yes, this was Los Alamos High School, federal property.
My high school in rural Illinois did not have deans when I graduated in 1965, but did within ten years or so. I figured the reason for that was that the principal got tired of dealing with discipline cases. Also, teachers might have wanted some higher bureaucratic position to which they could aspire.
I figured the reason for that was that the principal got tired of dealing with discipline cases.
Budget, facilities planning, navigating union contracts &c. Plenty for principals to do. Also, the world was less litigious and funding sources were not so multifarious in 1965, so you didn’t have the compliance issues. In addition, schools were schools, not social service centers.
Also, the 1965 principal was a strict disciplinarian, and (I think) enjoyed chastising students. His successor, not so much.
With the low unemployment numbers, it is tough to get good help in the drug trade. When the help is not performing you do have to punish them.
Paul, the shootings will continue until morale improves? =)
Autumn – exactly 🙂
Next thing, they’ll all want to unionize!
Christ! What do you do when they go out on strike and start picketing? And they would be picketing the school.
“If you don’t stop misbehaving Johnny you’ll be sent to the principal’s cell.”
–Corrections Officer Jones.
Sentenced today: 20 years
“Former English High dean who led secret life of crime sentenced to two decades in prison”
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/06/01/former-english-high-dean-sentenced-years-prison-for-shooting-student-head/P44WCqropGhnjaG2utgU9K/story.html
26 years for these crimes is lienency run amuk.
I don’t see what lien law has to do with it.
It’s all about the attachments, Mike.
Mike A – if he had liened a little further, the kid would be dead. 😉
You should get into standup, PCS!
So funny you are, whether you know it or not.