Boston police had a busy half-hour this past Saturday morning at Logan Airport.

Law enforcement first responded to a report of a person screaming inside a car with a broken windshield around 11:23 a.m. near Terminal E. They wound up finding the car near Terminal B. Inside were 52-year-old Anton Hilton of Roxbury. Anton was driving. The passenger was a 21-year-old female.

The passenger told the officers that Anton had assaulted her. They charged Anton with assault and battery and kidnapping.

Perhaps they figured their day was done. It wasn’t.

Within a 30-minute period, a naked man fell through the ceiling of a woman’s bathroom in the airport. Allegedly.

The Commonwealth alleges that 26-year-old Cameron Shenk of Boston had entered the female restroom, stripped nude and climbed into the “drop ceiling”.

The spot was aptly named.

They say that Cameron dropped through the ceiling and landed on the bathroom floor, receiving “numerous cuts to his head and body”. At that point, Cameron is said to have exited the ladies room and proceeded to attack an 84-year-old man for no apparent reason.

The man was hospitalized with serious but non-life threatening injuries.

A state police officer was also treated for minor injuries in the scuffle to arrest Cameron, who ended up with several crimnal charges.

The charges include attempted murder, mayhem, assault and battery on a person over 60, assault and battery on a police officer, lewd and lascivious act and malicious destruction to property over $250.

Both Cameron and Anton were arranged Monday in East Boston District Court.

Attorney Sam’s Take On Kidnapping And Attempted Murder

These two recent guests of the Commonwealth invite a look at a couple of often misunderstood criminal charges.

“Yes, Sam. It says the first guy was charged with kidnapping. How? There is nothing to indicate that he brought the female anywhere against her will.”

Well, first of all, remember that often news stories do not contain the complete picture. Nevertheless, this brings up an interesting point. A suspect does not have to transport someone somewhere against their well in order to be charged with kidnapping.

For example, let’s say that you and I are in my office. You have come to my office willingly to talk about a legal problem. At some point, you tell me that you have decided that you want to leave and talk to other attorneys. I, however, stand up, walk over and block the door and tell you that you’re not going anywhere. I am physically blocking your way and communicating to you that should you try to move me and open the door, I will inflict bodily harm.

I can be charged with kidnapping.

I have forcibly restrained you in my office, a place where you do not wish to be.

I hasten to add that I, of course, would never do this… but I digress.

Another crime that is often misunderstood is that of attempted murder.

Most people assume that in order for an assault to turn into an attempted murder, there has to be something deadly used. For example, people think in terms of an attack with a knife or a gun or a hammer. Something.

That is not the case. And assault with an item other than your body, generally associated with murder or not, is assault with a deadly weapon.

I have found that the Commonwealth is fairly anxious to add the extra words “Intent to murder” if the attack as a realistic possibility of causing serious injury or death. I have handled a number Cases where it seemed to me that the only way the particular salt could end up in death was if someone, likely on the other side of the street, happen to be walking by turned and shot the person who was struck byI suspect.

In this case, there does not seem to be any weapon used, but the complainant attacked was over the age of 60. Because of his age, and perhaps the likely “Out-of-control” nature of the assault, the Commonwealth decided to assume that the sauce could have ended up in the man’s death. Of course, the man was apparently also hospitalized, so this was clearly not a non-serious attack.

An actual specific intent to kill someone is not necessary for this judge. Likely, Cameron was simply in a panic trying to get away and the “elderly man” was in the wrong place and wrong time. However, we look at the actions in such a case. even if Cameron did not intend to actually kill the person, he was reckless and indifferent to the likely result of the attack to the extent that the law equates it toan intent to kill
On another note, a person under the statute is considered to be “elderly” when they are older than 60 years old.

Being 55 years of age myself, I resent that. But that’s another story.

Speaking of other stories, in my next posting we will discuss one of this weeks major news stories which is not yet completely finished.

Next we tackle the grand jury action, or in action, in Ferguson and the reaction to it here in Massachusetts.

For the full stories upon which this blog is based, please go to: , and

Contact Information