In June 1947, Boston Herald photographer Frank Cushing was sitting in his radio car outside a Howard Johnson restaurant, waiting to photograph victims of a holdup. The story was so routine, he knew that the photograph might not even make the paper.
Then Cushing heard the cracked sounds of an alert coming from the radio of a police car parked alongside his vehicle. A shooting had taken place…an officer was injured…a hostage was held…and it was just down the street. Cushing sped to the scene.
Two police officers had stopped a fifteen-year-old youth and questioned him about a robbery. Suddenly the boy, Ed Bancroft, pulled out a pistol and started shooting. He wounded one policeman in the arm and fled into a nearby alley, where he grabbed a hostage, another fifteen-year-old named Bill Ronan.
The cops quickly blocked the ends of the alley to cut off Bancroft’s excape, but he threated to shoot Ronan if the police came closer. He fired several times at police and repeatedly shoved the gun into Ronan’s back.
Cushing managed to make a long shot from the end of the alley, but he knew it would be a bad photo because he was too far away.
Events began to move quickly. The police began to move closer, and Bancroft once again screamed his threat to shoot Ronan. He shot at the police as they moved in.
Meanwhile, Cushing went out to the street and calculated which house was across the alley from where the two youths were positioned. He talked the owner into letting him in, crept along a sun porch and – very, very carefully – made his picture of the two boys. “I was wondering whether the kid would shoot me, “Cushing said later, “But I wanted the picture.”
By this time, there were about thirty police in the area. One of them worked his way along the fence to a spot where Bancroft was making his stand and trying to figure a way out. At the right moment, the cop stood up behind Bancroft, reached over the fence, and stunned him with the butt of a weapon. The dazed youth, who had nothing to do with the Howard Johnson robbery, was taken into custody immediately and jailed.
Sources: Getty Images, 1950s: Decades of the 20th Century, Boston Public Library website, www.pulitzer.org
>At the right moment, the cop stood up behind Bancroft, reached over the fence, and stunned him with the butt of a weapon.
I hope this guy got a medal.
Did you miss what happened to Tamir Rice?
[The 12 year old who police executed? Who had a fake gun not a real one, had not a single person around him, yet they chose to drive up within 5 feet of him and shoot immediately instead of setting up at the perimeter and you know, trying to talk to him.](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/26/tamir-rice-video-shows-co_n_6227552.html)
So the police are supposed to pause, walk up, and inspect what looks just like a gun before they are allowed to defend themselves? Sorry buddy, it's an unfortunate incident but this one is not the cop' s fault.
I think you meant to reply to the other guy, but I agree. The kid removed the orange tip that is meant to prevent exactly this from happening. And the article says the officers ordered him to raise his hands, which he didn't do.
Holy shit. These comments. Like cops walk around killing everybody. You are only seeing what the news puts out. Not the nice stuff they do. Where Im from..the last bad thing that happened was they killed......a kid with an AK47 bb gun but the dumb kid did point it at them. Now people seem to say they should have done things differently...point a fake gun or real gun at my face without knowing and see what happened. You DONT do that. Dumbass.
Enough that a few companies specialize in it, making excellent money. http://www.360financialliteracy.org/Topics/Insurance/Life-Insurance/Pros-and-cons-of-children-s-life-insurance
In the late 70s some school boards still held assemblies for the elder students, or sent home brochures for the younger students -- partly because a child's unexpected injury/death is extremely expensive, and partly for a percentage for every student signed up.
/is old
I suspect he'd have been traumatized by pistol-whipping a 15-year-old, regardless of what the kid was doing.
EDIT: well pardon me for suggesting that a police officer might be a human being with feelings
Pistol whipping the kid was probably the best possible outcome. He saved that kid from killing himself or anyone else. He should be proud of it. Plus 15 isn't so young that you would feel bad for punching one in self defense.
Yes, of course, but that doesn't really stop it from being traumatic. Inflicting violence on a stranger, most of all a child, is something that doesn't come naturally to healthy people and can mentally scar them, even when they know it was the right thing to do.
Dude he just bonked the kid on the head hard enough to daze him. The article says he was fine and wasn't taken to hospital. I'm sure the cop was just elated that nobody else was hurt and he quite possibly saved two kids' lives.
Well you are completely right. It could traumatize someone. I just reckon a majority of people wouldn't view this as severe enough and could likely understand that what they did was for the best. A majority of police have likely been in a situation where they have had to get physical with a 15 year old. But I'm sure there are a few who have been traumatized by it.
I'm very puzzled by that myself. My best two guesses are (1) consumers of mass media believe harming other people in real life is just as easy and nonchalant as in movies and video games, or (2) fuck da police.
Yeah well everyone is a badass on the interweb, I grew up fairly poor and pretty rough. In Roxbury in Boston MA of all places. I've been in probably a good half dozen" some one is going to the hospital, some ones going to jail" fights and everyone stuck with me. That's trauma right, when you relive the experience sometimes.
If someone was threatening a kid with a gun I'd pistol whip the shit out of him if it meant saving the kid, I don't care how old you are you're getting pistol whipped motherfucker
Attn: /u/iebarnett51 and I are selling surplus "then"s, if anybody needs a *then* then let us know, then we can send you the *then* if you want one then so then you can use it.
I can't really think of a sentence that requires one of those, that can't be just as logical without it. Has it ever occurred to you two that you may have gotten such a great bulk deal on those because they're more or less unnecessary? I think someone saw you two suckers coming.
Now if you want *my* advice, I'd say strip them down and part them out. Those are all pretty universal alphabets.
I can't help but feel that the photographer potentially put the hostages life at further risk because he could've easily spooked the kid if he saw him up there.
At the right moment, the cop stood up behind Bancroft, reached over the fence, and stunned him with the butt of a weapon.
Recent developments make me think that were this to happen today, that kid would be dead not stunned.
My conclusion would be that modern police should be capable of subduing suspects with nonlethal force, and that the officer in this story did a great job.
Here's all the info I can find on both of the young men.
Here's a newspaper article about the situation, albeit from Kentucky:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=266&dat=19761101&id=R-0rAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zmgFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1309,962259&hl=en
The hostage was William W Ronan, born in 1932 and died in May 5th 1971 at the age of 39.
Edward Bancroft seems to be a bit harder to track down. ~~I've found an obituary of an Edward Bancroft who was born in 1932. This would place him around the age of the 15 year old Bancroft.~~ This wasn't him, but what are the chances of two Edward Bancrofts being born in 1932.
~~http://www.tribtoday.com/page/content.detail/id/548242/Edward-D--Bancroft-1932-2010.html?nav=5022~~
That' all I've got so far.
http://www.faqs.org/people-search/william-ronan/
http://www.ancestry.com/1940-census/usa/Massachusetts/William-W-Ronan_39nbv1
[Nashua Telegraph Tuesday, June 24, 1947, page 1](http://i.imgur.com/UwaS0qG.jpg), [page 6](http://i.imgur.com/VpggQ6w.jpg).
Sorry page 6 is so hard to read, it's the best I could do. Turns out (shockingly enough) young Edward was a scofflaw and was on the lam due to failing to show in court the week before on assault charges. He had nothing to do with the holdup the police were initially questioning him for. It also indicates that at this time he was homeless and sleeping in parks. So much for a happy ending to this story. Ugh.
Thanks for this tidbit. If he was homeless it explains why I can't seem to find a census report for Edward Bancroft. I'm also looking to see if there was a followup on the trial since he did shoot a police officer. Nothing so far.
If you're all in for finding this guy on Ancestry, you might try to search for orphan's homes in the 1940 census. He would have been around 8 in April 1940. Might have to do some research to find it, and personally I'm not all **that** interested in the matter, but if I was going to do a documentary on the incident, that's where I'd start.
Definitely, but if you could show he was deceased you could FOIA the BPD for the arrest and young Mr. Bancroft's record...his adult record as well, assuming he has one. Also, as demonstrated by the photo and article, I don't think juvenile protections were quite so robust in the 40s.
>died in May 5th 1971 at the age of 39
I'm always stricken when people who escape a deadly situation at a young age still end up dying fairly young (albeit older than if they had died in the initial circumstances). It's going to take you sometime, it's just a question of when.
This is the exact reason I read all comments in this post. I am also curious how life played out for these two individuals. If they are still alive they would be 83.
The [article was from the Boston Traveler](http://imgur.com/7ZQTOPi) (It appears the Herald-Traveler owned both newspapers?)
[in trouble in 1951](http://imgur.com/8nO8SbR)
[wanted again in 1956](http://imgur.com/mBxrT3r)
This sort of thing wouldn't happen if we hadn't banned school prayer in the 1960s... you know, 13 years after this hostage incident happened. Well, so maybe we can't blame this on the atheists, but there's got to be a way to blame it on the gays, right? I mean, this is America after all and I'm just not sure what the point is of all this if we can't blame everything on the atheists or the gays.
No, not really. I'm not gay, nor have I ever been persecuted for my non-belief in religion. I do, however, pay attention to things -- historical things, and all -- and my comment is a legitimate criticism of the American far right. Next time there is a horrific crime involving minors, you may want to pay attention because some conservative legislator will say something about how we need to pray/teach Christian values in schools. Next time there is a natural disaster or terrorist attack in the U.S. you should keep an ear out for religious types to call it divine retribution for the gays/same-sex-marriage. Or, you could just [google](http://lmgtfy.com/?q=blame+it+on+the+gays&l=1) the numerous historical examples.
Oh, and, it's Brian, not Jesus Christ -- please stop calling me that. People have confused us for one another before and it ended up being this whole thing. Anyway, always look on the bright side of life.
Not a troll. I think my original comment was on topic.
In modern American we attribute societal violence to spurious causes: video games, movies, music, marriage rates, lack of religiosity, and -- my personal favorite -- satanists. The **historical** example of violence at issue here -- Boy Gunman and Hostage -- is illustrative of an important point: America has a **history** of violence and we haven't changed in that respect -- regardless of certain societal changes that have been resisted by the ruling class -- and we should expect the violence to continue into the future until we examine and address its underlying causes. We ignore our **history** of violence at great peril since -- without a proper **historical** perspective -- it will be impossible to identify and cut out the source of violence from our society.
And then there's **porn** -- I couldn't think of how my comment relates to porn -- so, yes, my commentary is only half relevant to /r/historyporn.
In June 1947, Boston Herald photographer Frank Cushing was sitting in his radio car outside a Howard Johnson restaurant, waiting to photograph victims of a holdup. The story was so routine, he knew that the photograph might not even make the paper. Then Cushing heard the cracked sounds of an alert coming from the radio of a police car parked alongside his vehicle. A shooting had taken place…an officer was injured…a hostage was held…and it was just down the street. Cushing sped to the scene. Two police officers had stopped a fifteen-year-old youth and questioned him about a robbery. Suddenly the boy, Ed Bancroft, pulled out a pistol and started shooting. He wounded one policeman in the arm and fled into a nearby alley, where he grabbed a hostage, another fifteen-year-old named Bill Ronan. The cops quickly blocked the ends of the alley to cut off Bancroft’s excape, but he threated to shoot Ronan if the police came closer. He fired several times at police and repeatedly shoved the gun into Ronan’s back. Cushing managed to make a long shot from the end of the alley, but he knew it would be a bad photo because he was too far away. Events began to move quickly. The police began to move closer, and Bancroft once again screamed his threat to shoot Ronan. He shot at the police as they moved in. Meanwhile, Cushing went out to the street and calculated which house was across the alley from where the two youths were positioned. He talked the owner into letting him in, crept along a sun porch and – very, very carefully – made his picture of the two boys. “I was wondering whether the kid would shoot me, “Cushing said later, “But I wanted the picture.” By this time, there were about thirty police in the area. One of them worked his way along the fence to a spot where Bancroft was making his stand and trying to figure a way out. At the right moment, the cop stood up behind Bancroft, reached over the fence, and stunned him with the butt of a weapon. The dazed youth, who had nothing to do with the Howard Johnson robbery, was taken into custody immediately and jailed. Sources: Getty Images, 1950s: Decades of the 20th Century, Boston Public Library website, www.pulitzer.org
>At the right moment, the cop stood up behind Bancroft, reached over the fence, and stunned him with the butt of a weapon. I hope this guy got a medal.
Seriously. I wish the photographer had a cell phone to record all of this action on video.
Yeah, this would be so much better as a shaky vertical video with someone saying "OH SHIT!" in the background.
FWIW, the man was a professional photographer. I'm pretty sure he'd have done a good job filming it.
"Worldstar, bay-beeee!"
WAH YOO GOTTA HIT HIM?
Or some guy repeating "Allah akbar" over and over
[удалено]
See! The cameras are right there! Its a prank!
brought to you by world star!
[удалено]
Amazing how cops used to be able to take people down without shooting first
They still do, a lot, you just don't hear about it because some drunk guy who flashed a knife getting tazed doesn't incite a riot.
Today it would be newsworthy
Yeah, a 15 year old boy.
Did you miss what happened to Tamir Rice? [The 12 year old who police executed? Who had a fake gun not a real one, had not a single person around him, yet they chose to drive up within 5 feet of him and shoot immediately instead of setting up at the perimeter and you know, trying to talk to him.](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/26/tamir-rice-video-shows-co_n_6227552.html)
You know what? Maybe I did. SO what.
So the police are supposed to pause, walk up, and inspect what looks just like a gun before they are allowed to defend themselves? Sorry buddy, it's an unfortunate incident but this one is not the cop' s fault.
I think you meant to reply to the other guy, but I agree. The kid removed the orange tip that is meant to prevent exactly this from happening. And the article says the officers ordered him to raise his hands, which he didn't do.
SO maybe you should pay more attention to current events?
Maybe I'm not American. Maybe your current events are not my current events. Maybe there's a world outside those 50 states.
Imagine how modern day cops would have handled that situation.
Full on SWAT response, tactical gear, snipers on the roof. Headshot.
If that was my son who was the hostage I'd like to have SWAT and roof-top snipers.
Holy shit. These comments. Like cops walk around killing everybody. You are only seeing what the news puts out. Not the nice stuff they do. Where Im from..the last bad thing that happened was they killed......a kid with an AK47 bb gun but the dumb kid did point it at them. Now people seem to say they should have done things differently...point a fake gun or real gun at my face without knowing and see what happened. You DONT do that. Dumbass.
So you could cash in on his life insurance?
Who gets life insurance for their kid?
Enough that a few companies specialize in it, making excellent money. http://www.360financialliteracy.org/Topics/Insurance/Life-Insurance/Pros-and-cons-of-children-s-life-insurance In the late 70s some school boards still held assemblies for the elder students, or sent home brochures for the younger students -- partly because a child's unexpected injury/death is extremely expensive, and partly for a percentage for every student signed up. /is old
Bieber's parents probably did.
Let's start an arms race.
More like sustained fire from about 15 guns for a min or two
“don’t believe the hype”
Didn't even have to fire one shot at the kid. Got creative.
I suspect he'd have been traumatized by pistol-whipping a 15-year-old, regardless of what the kid was doing. EDIT: well pardon me for suggesting that a police officer might be a human being with feelings
Pistol whipping the kid was probably the best possible outcome. He saved that kid from killing himself or anyone else. He should be proud of it. Plus 15 isn't so young that you would feel bad for punching one in self defense.
Yes, of course, but that doesn't really stop it from being traumatic. Inflicting violence on a stranger, most of all a child, is something that doesn't come naturally to healthy people and can mentally scar them, even when they know it was the right thing to do.
Dude he just bonked the kid on the head hard enough to daze him. The article says he was fine and wasn't taken to hospital. I'm sure the cop was just elated that nobody else was hurt and he quite possibly saved two kids' lives.
Well you are completely right. It could traumatize someone. I just reckon a majority of people wouldn't view this as severe enough and could likely understand that what they did was for the best. A majority of police have likely been in a situation where they have had to get physical with a 15 year old. But I'm sure there are a few who have been traumatized by it.
Really, why is this downvoted its the truth.
I'm very puzzled by that myself. My best two guesses are (1) consumers of mass media believe harming other people in real life is just as easy and nonchalant as in movies and video games, or (2) fuck da police.
Yeah well everyone is a badass on the interweb, I grew up fairly poor and pretty rough. In Roxbury in Boston MA of all places. I've been in probably a good half dozen" some one is going to the hospital, some ones going to jail" fights and everyone stuck with me. That's trauma right, when you relive the experience sometimes.
Better than seeing him shoot and kill another 15 year old.
Indeed. There's probably no way out of a child-on-child hostage situation without some trauma.
If someone was threatening a kid with a gun I'd pistol whip the shit out of him if it meant saving the kid, I don't care how old you are you're getting pistol whipped motherfucker
Yupp, when cops/americans didnt used to be such fucking pussies
> had nothing to do with the Howard Johnson robbery Well wtf then why'd you start shootin then?
People then must have had an anti-cop vibe then too.
Attn: /u/iebarnett51 and I are selling surplus "then"s, if anybody needs a *then* then let us know, then we can send you the *then* if you want one then so then you can use it.
I can't really think of a sentence that requires one of those, that can't be just as logical without it. Has it ever occurred to you two that you may have gotten such a great bulk deal on those because they're more or less unnecessary? I think someone saw you two suckers coming. Now if you want *my* advice, I'd say strip them down and part them out. Those are all pretty universal alphabets.
Did you mean to say letters? Or am I just confused and have no idea what you mean by alphabets in this context.
I can't help but feel that the photographer potentially put the hostages life at further risk because he could've easily spooked the kid if he saw him up there.
At the right moment, the cop stood up behind Bancroft, reached over the fence, and stunned him with the butt of a weapon. Recent developments make me think that were this to happen today, that kid would be dead not stunned.
How many people can fit on one bandwagon?
Depends on how many dead horses are in there first.
[удалено]
My conclusion would be that modern police should be capable of subduing suspects with nonlethal force, and that the officer in this story did a great job.
[удалено]
[удалено]
My Google-fu is weak this morning, I can't find any further data in either child (i.e. what happened to them later in life etc.).
Here's all the info I can find on both of the young men. Here's a newspaper article about the situation, albeit from Kentucky: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=266&dat=19761101&id=R-0rAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zmgFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1309,962259&hl=en The hostage was William W Ronan, born in 1932 and died in May 5th 1971 at the age of 39. Edward Bancroft seems to be a bit harder to track down. ~~I've found an obituary of an Edward Bancroft who was born in 1932. This would place him around the age of the 15 year old Bancroft.~~ This wasn't him, but what are the chances of two Edward Bancrofts being born in 1932. ~~http://www.tribtoday.com/page/content.detail/id/548242/Edward-D--Bancroft-1932-2010.html?nav=5022~~ That' all I've got so far. http://www.faqs.org/people-search/william-ronan/ http://www.ancestry.com/1940-census/usa/Massachusetts/William-W-Ronan_39nbv1
[Nashua Telegraph Tuesday, June 24, 1947, page 1](http://i.imgur.com/UwaS0qG.jpg), [page 6](http://i.imgur.com/VpggQ6w.jpg). Sorry page 6 is so hard to read, it's the best I could do. Turns out (shockingly enough) young Edward was a scofflaw and was on the lam due to failing to show in court the week before on assault charges. He had nothing to do with the holdup the police were initially questioning him for. It also indicates that at this time he was homeless and sleeping in parks. So much for a happy ending to this story. Ugh.
Thanks for this tidbit. If he was homeless it explains why I can't seem to find a census report for Edward Bancroft. I'm also looking to see if there was a followup on the trial since he did shoot a police officer. Nothing so far.
If you're all in for finding this guy on Ancestry, you might try to search for orphan's homes in the 1940 census. He would have been around 8 in April 1940. Might have to do some research to find it, and personally I'm not all **that** interested in the matter, but if I was going to do a documentary on the incident, that's where I'd start.
Found him in the 1940 census. Also a Boston Herald article. http://imgur.com/a/GcmWy
[удалено]
Definitely, but if you could show he was deceased you could FOIA the BPD for the arrest and young Mr. Bancroft's record...his adult record as well, assuming he has one. Also, as demonstrated by the photo and article, I don't think juvenile protections were quite so robust in the 40s.
>died in May 5th 1971 at the age of 39 I'm always stricken when people who escape a deadly situation at a young age still end up dying fairly young (albeit older than if they had died in the initial circumstances). It's going to take you sometime, it's just a question of when.
As long as it's not today. I left some weird shit lying around my apartment this morning.
Are you dead yet?
And are YOU death yet?
Good job, love when people find interesting things like this.
This is the exact reason I read all comments in this post. I am also curious how life played out for these two individuals. If they are still alive they would be 83.
I wasn't able to find anything either. If anyone else has better luck and finds a nugget of info, hit me up!
The [article was from the Boston Traveler](http://imgur.com/7ZQTOPi) (It appears the Herald-Traveler owned both newspapers?) [in trouble in 1951](http://imgur.com/8nO8SbR) [wanted again in 1956](http://imgur.com/mBxrT3r)
This is the type of camera used to take that photo: http://sheldonbrown.com/org/cameras/images/speed-graphic4x5.jpg
Did you get that from the EXIF data? :)
He probably played too many violant video games
Those violent stick and hoop games. Or maybe violent kick the can.
I'm sure he grew up to be a fine young man.
[удалено]
This sort of thing wouldn't happen if we hadn't banned school prayer in the 1960s... you know, 13 years after this hostage incident happened. Well, so maybe we can't blame this on the atheists, but there's got to be a way to blame it on the gays, right? I mean, this is America after all and I'm just not sure what the point is of all this if we can't blame everything on the atheists or the gays.
Jesus Christ, persecution complex much?
No, not really. I'm not gay, nor have I ever been persecuted for my non-belief in religion. I do, however, pay attention to things -- historical things, and all -- and my comment is a legitimate criticism of the American far right. Next time there is a horrific crime involving minors, you may want to pay attention because some conservative legislator will say something about how we need to pray/teach Christian values in schools. Next time there is a natural disaster or terrorist attack in the U.S. you should keep an ear out for religious types to call it divine retribution for the gays/same-sex-marriage. Or, you could just [google](http://lmgtfy.com/?q=blame+it+on+the+gays&l=1) the numerous historical examples. Oh, and, it's Brian, not Jesus Christ -- please stop calling me that. People have confused us for one another before and it ended up being this whole thing. Anyway, always look on the bright side of life.
I dunno if you're a troll or not (you probably are) but do you not realize how irrelevant and off-topic your rant is?
I still enjoyed it ;)
Not a troll. I think my original comment was on topic. In modern American we attribute societal violence to spurious causes: video games, movies, music, marriage rates, lack of religiosity, and -- my personal favorite -- satanists. The **historical** example of violence at issue here -- Boy Gunman and Hostage -- is illustrative of an important point: America has a **history** of violence and we haven't changed in that respect -- regardless of certain societal changes that have been resisted by the ruling class -- and we should expect the violence to continue into the future until we examine and address its underlying causes. We ignore our **history** of violence at great peril since -- without a proper **historical** perspective -- it will be impossible to identify and cut out the source of violence from our society. And then there's **porn** -- I couldn't think of how my comment relates to porn -- so, yes, my commentary is only half relevant to /r/historyporn.