Mayor Wu Vows Prosecution as Out-of-State Suspects Face Charges and Low Bail in Wake of Violent Takeover
By CHESTER TAM
In the early hours of October 5, 2025, the streets of Boston’s South End became the scene of a chaotic event that highlighted ongoing tensions between public safety and criminal justice practices. Around 2:12 a.m., at the intersection of Massachusetts Avenue and Tremont Street, a gathering of more than 100 people escalated into what authorities described as a large-scale vehicle takeover. Participants blocked roads with cars and barriers, performing high-risk maneuvers like doughnuts and street racing. When police arrived to intervene, the crowd turned hostile, hurling fireworks, traffic cones, poles, and other objects at responding officers and their vehicles. One marked police cruiser was surrounded, bombarded with explosives, and ultimately set ablaze, forcing the officer inside to navigate through smoke and sparks to escape. Firefighters later extinguished the flames, but the vehicle was declared a total loss and towed away.
This incident was not isolated. Similar disturbances unfolded in nearby areas that same night, including in Randolph and Middleborough, where crowds of masked individuals attacked police cruisers with fireworks and physical force, recording the events on their devices. In Randolph, around 1:30 a.m., over 100 people punched vehicles, lit explosives near officers, and sat on hoods, creating what police called an extremely dangerous situation. Authorities are investigating potential connections between these events, noting that some vehicles involved had stolen plates and that pursuits extended into neighboring states like Rhode Island. These coordinated actions suggest a broader pattern of organized disruptions, often drawing participants from outside the immediate area.
Boston Mayor Michelle Wu addressed the events publicly, expressing appreciation for the officers’ response and emphasizing that those responsible would face consequences. She characterized the perpetrators as “outside individuals who came into our city to cause disorder and brought dangerous behavior here,” stating they would be prosecuted and were not welcome in Boston. Wu called on the public to provide any information that could aid investigations, underscoring the need for community cooperation to maintain safety. Boston Police Commissioner Michael Cox echoed this sentiment, declaring that such illegal activities, including street racing, would not be tolerated, and highlighted the potential for serious injury to officers. Suffolk County District Attorney Kevin Hayden labeled the gatherings as “dangerous and intolerable assaults on our police officers and neighborhoods,” committing to identify and pursue anyone involved, with no leniency for actions that endanger public safety.
Amid these assurances, two suspects were quickly apprehended following foot chases from the scene. Julian Bowers, an 18-year-old from Cumberland, Rhode Island, was observed throwing objects at officers and a cruiser before fleeing. William Cantwell, a 19-year-old from Warwick, Rhode Island, was seen repeatedly striking a vehicle with an orange pole and resisted arrest during a struggle with police. A search of Cantwell’s bag revealed two packages of marijuana edibles, adding a drug possession charge to his case. Both face accusations of malicious destruction of property over $1,200, disorderly conduct, assault and battery on a police officer, and resisting arrest. Cantwell also has unrelated charges pending in Rhode Island.
The pair appeared in Roxbury District Court for arraignment on October 6, 2025. Prosecutors sought substantial cash bail—$15,000 for Bowers and $20,000 for Cantwell—along with GPS monitoring and curfews, citing their lack of local ties and the severity of the incident as reasons to send a strong message. However, the judge set significantly lower amounts: $500 for Bowers and $1,000 for Cantwell. Both were required to sign waivers of extradition and ordered to avoid Boston except for court appearances. Their next hearing is scheduled for November 5, 2025. This decision has sparked discussions about what constitutes meaningful consequences in the wake of such events.
The relatively low bail figures align with Massachusetts’ evolving approach to pretrial detention, shaped by recent reforms aimed at addressing inequities in the cash bail system. In 2018, the state passed the Criminal Justice Reform Act (CJRA), which emphasized that bail should be set at amounts defendants can afford, reducing the likelihood of wealth-based incarceration. A key influence was the 2017 Supreme Judicial Court ruling in Brangan v. Commonwealth, which mandated that judges consider a defendant’s financial resources when imposing bail, ensuring it does not result in unnecessary pretrial detention. These changes were intended to prevent low-income individuals from being held simply because they cannot pay, while still allowing for detention in cases posing significant risks to public safety. Proponents argue that this framework promotes fairness, as bail is not meant to punish but to ensure court appearance. Critics, however, contend that lower bails in high-profile cases like this one may undermine deterrence, potentially encouraging similar behavior by signaling minimal immediate repercussions.
This perspective was voiced by the Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association president, who attributed the crowd’s audacity to a perceived “lack of prosecution” in prior incidents, describing the attack as premeditated. Such views reflect broader concerns among law enforcement that lenient pretrial decisions contribute to a cycle of unrest. On the other hand, reform advocates point out that the system’s focus on affordability helps mitigate racial and economic disparities, as studies have shown that pretrial detention disproportionately affects marginalized communities, often leading to job loss, family disruption, and higher recidivism rates. In this instance, the judge’s ruling balanced these factors, imposing conditions to limit the suspects’ movements while avoiding excessive detention.
The event also raises questions about enforcement strategies during large-scale disturbances. With an estimated 100 or more participants, only two arrests were made, both involving individuals from out of state. This has prompted speculation about whether local residents were overlooked, perhaps to influence crime statistics by reducing reported arrests among Massachusetts citizens. However, available accounts suggest practical challenges played a larger role. The scene was described as riot-like, with masked individuals dispersing quickly amid fireworks and chaos, making widespread apprehensions difficult without escalating risks to officers. Police reports indicate that additional units were deployed to clear the area using non-lethal equipment, prioritizing de-escalation over mass detentions. Mayor Wu’s reference to “outside individuals” may imply that investigations are focusing on non-locals as primary instigators, but no official statements confirm directives to selectively arrest based on residency. Instead, authorities have appealed for public tips, including video evidence, to identify more involved parties, indicating an ongoing effort rather than a closed case.
Street takeovers, as these events are commonly known, have become an increasing concern in Boston and across Massachusetts in recent years. These gatherings, often promoted through informal networks, involve blocking public roads for stunt driving and racing, sometimes drawing hundreds of spectators and participants. Historical incidents in the city include a March 2025 event where crowds jostled police cruisers while blocking streets for late-night activities, leaving skid marks and debris in their wake. In April 2024, a takeover on Commonwealth Avenue led to charges against a 20-year-old for drag racing, highlighting the potential for injury and property damage. Similar occurrences have been reported in other areas, such as a December 2024 event that drew law enforcement attention for its scale and recklessness. Nationally, these phenomena have surged in urban centers, often linked to social media coordination, though specific platforms are not detailed here. Law enforcement agencies have responded with increased patrols and inter-state collaboration, but the transient nature of the crowds complicates prevention.
In the context of Boston’s overall crime landscape, this incident occurs amid fluctuating trends. The city experienced a historically low homicide rate in 2024, with just 24 recorded killings, the fewest in over six decades. However, 2025 has seen a notable uptick, with 24 homicides reported by mid-August, doubling the pace from the previous year. Despite this, Boston remains one of the safer major U.S. cities, with violent crime rates approximately 35% lower than comparable metros like Philadelphia, and property crime nearly halved. Initiatives like the FBI’s Operation Summer Heat, which targeted violent crime and resulted in thousands of arrests nationwide, including in Boston, demonstrate proactive federal and local efforts. Still, property crimes and disorderly events like takeovers contribute to perceptions of insecurity, even as overall statistics suggest progress.
Public responses to the October 5 event have varied, reflecting divided opinions on accountability and reform. Some community members and law enforcement representatives have expressed frustration, viewing the low bails and limited arrests as insufficient deterrents, potentially emboldening future disruptions. Others advocate for a measured approach, arguing that harsh pretrial measures do not address root causes, such as youth disengagement or the appeal of high-adrenaline activities. City officials have maintained that prosecution will proceed rigorously, with the district attorney’s office vowing to pursue all leads. This commitment aims to balance justice with fairness, ensuring that consequences match the actions without perpetuating systemic biases.
As the case against Bowers and Cantwell moves forward, it serves as a focal point for larger debates on how cities like Boston navigate the intersection of public order, judicial equity, and community trust. The low bail amounts, while compliant with state guidelines, test the boundaries of what society deems adequate response to threats against law enforcement and residents. Meanwhile, the emphasis on outsiders in official narratives underscores the challenges of managing cross-border disturbances in a densely populated region. Whether this incident leads to policy adjustments—such as enhanced surveillance of known takeover hotspots or further refinements to bail practices—remains to be seen. For now, it underscores the complex dynamics at play in maintaining safety without compromising principles of justice. Investigations continue, with authorities hopeful that additional evidence will clarify the full scope of involvement and reinforce efforts to prevent recurrence. In a city striving for progress amid rising challenges, events like this remind stakeholders of the need for collaborative solutions that prioritize both accountability and equity.
Chester Tam Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.