Kingston police have released the surveillance video from the Cumberland Farms on Main Street, and it shows what the arrest report described: a man getting out of a silver car on the morning of September 8, walking toward the driver of a van at a gas pump, and attacking him. Police say the attacker, identified as Gary Phillipo, 46, of Carver, called the victim, who is Black, a racial slur before the fight began, then kicked him and struck him several times. The victim was left with a broken finger among other injuries. Store employees called 911 and one tried to break up the fight. Phillipo is charged with assault and with a civil rights violation under the state’s hate crime statute, is held on bail, and is presumed innocent.
We explained the hate crime statute and what the Commonwealth has to prove in our report on the charge. This piece is about the video: what it adds to the case, what it cannot prove, and how surveillance footage from a gas station becomes evidence in a Plymouth County courtroom.
What the video shows, and what it does not
According to the department, the footage captures the approach, the confrontation, the kick and the blows. Lieutenant Michael Skowyra told WHDH: “It appears the suspect started to yell obscenities at the victim, out of nowhere, unprovoked.” That is the value of the video for the assault charges. It establishes who moved toward whom, who struck first, and that the victim did nothing before the attack that could support a claim of self-defense. On the assault and battery counts, the footage is close to the whole case.
What gas station surveillance video ordinarily does not capture is sound. The hate crime charge turns on the words. G.L. c. 265, § 39 punishes an assault or battery committed “with the intent to intimidate” a person because of race, and the evidence of that intent is what Phillipo said before and during the attack, and what police say he continued to say at the hospital. If the footage has no audio, the slur is proved by the victim, by the store employees who witnessed it, and by the officers who heard the hospital statements. The video corroborates that an unprovoked attack occurred; the witnesses supply the motive. That is why the department’s statement leaned on the bystanders: “We were notified by staff at the Cumberland Farms who called 911, and then also a member of staff tried to help break up the fight.”
Why police released it
Massachusetts police departments are not required to release surveillance evidence before trial and often do not. Departments release footage when they want witnesses to come forward, when the case has drawn public attention and the department wants to show the basis for the charge, or when the footage rebuts an alternative account. Skowyra’s comment that it is “not common for us to see such hate crimes so blatantly” suggests the second purpose. The release also fixes the public account of the incident before any defense version emerges.
Release has costs. Defense counsel in a case with pretrial publicity can move for a change of venue or for expanded voir dire on the ground that jurors have seen the footage, and a video that circulates on social media with a hate crime label attached is the kind of publicity that motion cites. Plymouth County has handled that problem this month in a larger case.
How the footage becomes evidence
The store’s system recorded it. Police obtained a copy, by consent from the store or by warrant. To be admitted at trial, the Commonwealth must authenticate it: a witness who can say the system was working, the footage is a fair and accurate depiction of what it recorded, and the copy has not been altered. A store manager or the officer who retrieved it usually suffices. The video is then evidence of what it shows. Witnesses testify to what it does not, including the words.
The defense receives the footage in discovery under Rule 14 and can retain its own examiner to review frame timing, angles and gaps. In a case where the footage shows an unprovoked approach, the defense’s use of it is usually limited to what happened in the seconds the camera did not see, or to the defendant’s state of mind. Police said Phillipo told them he has mental health issues. A defense built on mental state does not contest the video; it contests intent, which the video cannot show.
What comes next
Phillipo is held on bail and is due back in Plymouth District Court next month. The charges include assault and battery with a dangerous weapon causing serious bodily injury, the shod foot being the weapon; assault and battery to intimidate resulting in bodily injury; and disturbing the peace. The dangerous-weapon charge with serious bodily injury carries up to fifteen years and is a Superior Court case if indicted. The victim has a civil claim under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act and in tort, and the Attorney General’s Civil Rights Division has independent authority to seek an injunction under G.L. c. 12, § 11H.
Common questions
What does the Kingston video show?
According to Kingston police, a man leaving a silver car, approaching a van driver at a gas pump, and attacking him: a kick and several blows after shouting a racial slur. Employees called 911 and one intervened.
Does the video prove a hate crime?
It proves an unprovoked assault. The hate crime element, intent to intimidate because of race, depends on the words spoken, which surveillance video usually does not record. Witnesses and the officers who heard later statements supply that evidence.
Can surveillance video be used at trial?
Yes, once authenticated by a witness who can say the system was working and the footage is a fair and accurate copy. It is then evidence of what it depicts.
What is Phillipo charged with?
Assault and battery with a dangerous weapon causing serious bodily injury, assault and battery to intimidate resulting in bodily injury, and disturbing the peace. He is held on bail and presumed innocent.
Video description and quotations from Kingston Police Lt. Michael Skowyra as reported by WHDH and Boston 25 News, September 14 and 15, 2026. Charges from the Kingston Police Department’s September 8 statement as reported previously. G.L. c. 265, § 39 read at malegislature.gov for our earlier report. Gary Phillipo is presumed innocent. General information about Massachusetts law, not legal advice.