He didn't even have a gun in the boat , Yet the police riddled the boat WITH GUNFIRE

[newmember]

Authorities had previously said Dzhokhar exchanged gunfire with them for more than an hour Friday night before they captured him inside a boat covered by a tarp in a suburban Boston neighborhood backyard. But two U.S. officials said Wednesday that he was unarmed when captured, raising questions about the gunfire and how he was injured.


Was this an execution by police gone wrong?
Just like the guy in California in the cabin..



http://nation.time.com/2013/04/24/officials-suspect-unarmed-when-arrested-in-boat/

[Buzz Clik]

1. -1

[newmember]

2. what's wrong

[geek tragedy]

3. This town deserves a better class of trolling. nt

[uppityperson]

4. +1

[newmember]

5. Oh I'm sorry , this make you feel better about the police in Boston

[geek tragedy]

7. Your pity party for the terrorist who was not shot in this standoff is duly noted. nt

[Katashi_itto]

143. +1 Still think the OP needs to brush up on his trolling.

[Zoeisright]

6. Oh yeah, let's just

ASK him to come out of the boat. After all, it's not like he fled from police, shooting at them and throwing bombs at them from the fucking car.



Christ on a crutch.

[newmember]

8. Ahhh yeah.... it's called containment

He wasn't going anywhere and YES they should have asked him to surrender instead of firing into the boat.

[uppityperson]

22. Have you seen the boat or shots where they fired? Did they release any photos yet?

I'd like to see what all happened but for now am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt because they really did not know what he was doing and we don't have enough information yet either.

Finally, how do you decide which bits of info put out by the media to trust? Serious question. How you decide what is real, what isn't?

[newmember]

27. Yes , the owner of the boat posted pictures

[uppityperson]

31. Link? I'd like to see them. Thank you. How do you decide what info to trust?

how do you decide which bits of info put out by the media to trust? Serious question. How you decide what is real, what isn't?

[susanna]

63. Agree with uppityperson. Link? n/t

[newmember]

69. There's a thread about it in GD here

People were sending him money to replace or repair his boat.
The boat owner declined the donations and sent it to the victims fund.

[uppityperson]

81. I notice you keep avoiding answering my question. How do you decide

what info to trust?

How do you decide which bits of info put out by the media to trust? Serious question. How you decide what is real, what isn't?

[HiPointDem]

96. it's a very good question. i think we all decide based on our own experience & personal bias.

[Fawke Em]

77. Yes... it's on that thermal video.

Not weighing in one way or the other, but it's clear on that video that the police shot him.

It's at about 2:07

http://gawker.com/5995157/police-release-thermal-imaging-video-of-captue-of-dzhokhar-tsarnaev

[uppityperson]

82. Thank you.

[bahrbearian]

170. How do you decide what is real and what isn't.

How do you decide what bit of info put out by the media to trust?

[Bluenorthwest]

30. Do you know they did not ask him to surrender prior to firing?

Or are you making assumptions? Perhaps he refused. Got a link to support your assertion? Or are we scriptwriting here?
Do you know what he said from his courageous hiding spot in a stranger's boat? Perhaps he claimed to have explosives. Maybe he refused to say yes or no. Maybe he said no and they just did not believe him, based on his resume to date.
Could be many things, but there are no facts at hand to suggest he was not asked to surrender. Maybe he wasn't, but I bet that he was. It was a long standoff.
And he survived it, unlike his victims, with both life and limbs.

[newmember]

73. Do you know what he said from his courageous hiding spot in a stranger's boat? Perhaps he claimed to

He didn't say anything , he was shot in the throat.
He couldn't talk

[pnwmom]

126. You don't know when that happened. It could just as easily have happened near the end. n/t

[actslikeacarrot]

163. "courageous hiding spot"???

Is this sarcasm?

[uppityperson]

33. How do you know they did not ask him to surrendeer?

[elleng]

50. They did.

'The video follows still photos police released showing the infrared helicopter pictures of Dzokhar in the boat, and the officers using a mechanical arm to pull back the tarp covering. The New York Times reports: "An F.B.I. hostage negotiator, who kept his distance, communicating from the second floor of the nearby home, began talking to Mr. Tsarnaev and eventually convinced him to surrender, according to the Watertown Police Chief Edward Deveau." The negotiator reportedly talked for about 25 minutes.'

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/04/two-very-different-ends-for-tsarnaev-brothers.html

[newmember]

65. Conviced to surrender .... lol

He was in critical condition and almost died.
They had already shot the boat up

[LisaL]

68. He was never in critical condition.

No indication he was anywhere close to death either.

[newmember]

71. My mistake he was listed as serious condition

[HiPointDem]

97. then why is the media saying he's in critical conditon?

http://www.google.com/#output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=tsarnaev+critical+condition&oq=tsarnaev+critical+condition&gs_l=hp.3...1257.7151.1.7465.27.25.0.0.0.1.717.7678.0j8j9j3j1j3j1.25.0...0.0...1c.1.11.hp.mcKT99U79NA&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45645796,d.cGE&fp=7bfa033871245053&biw=1024&bih=582

[MADem]

117. He's in FAIR condition now.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57580991-504083/boston-marathon-bombing-update-condition-of-surviving-suspect-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-upgraded-from-serious-to-fair/

Boston Marathon Bombing Update: Condition of surviving suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev upgraded from serious to fair



Everybody sing...."What a difference a day makes....24 little hours...."

[HiPointDem]

121. the poster claimed he was never in critical condition. the media reported he was in critical

condition 3 days ago and 2 days ago.

[MADem]

138. The media has reported a lot of stuff, but in this case, I think they got that from the

Boston Police Chief. I recall a presser where he used the "critical condition" phrase.

In any event, if he was critical, he went quickly to serious and then to fair.

Youth is helpful in recovery, certainly.

[Warpy]

52. Are you 100% sure they didn't?

First thing the cops have done whenever I've seen them after a bad guy is surround the place. Second is some cop with a bull horn announces escape has been cut off, come out with your hands up.

That was true in Boston. It's been true here in NM, too. No matter how nervous they are, they always want the guy to give up and come out under his own power.

[pnwmom]

125. How do you know they didn't? How do you know he didn't make a noise

that someone misinterpreted as a threat?

Maybe you could wait for more details before condemning the police? They'd had a very stressful 48 hours.

[MADem]

58. After murdering a young campus cop in cold blood, too...nt

[bahrbearian]

171. So he was convicted for that murder, already.

[supernaut]

185. Yes.

By Judge Dredd.

[MADem]

204. He will be. They've got him on video committing that murder, too.

It's all over but the lawyer fees, bargaining, and tears.

He'll have his day in court, and if he's smart, he'll make a deal to preserve his life--unless he wants to "McVeigh" it.

[bahrbearian]

206. I'll wait till after the trial .

[MADem]

207. Of course you will. We all will, since none of us have a time machine.

However, a bet on an acquittal is a sucker bet.

He is going directly to jail, if he's lucky. If he's unlucky, he'll spend the next twenty years trying to avoid the needle.

[bahrbearian]

208. So now you'll wait for the trial. I thought he was guilty. Now he's not?

[MADem]

209. YOU thought he was guilty? Well, then, why are you crabbing at me?

Enough with the drama.

See, two can play at that nitpicking game.

Like I said, we all will wait for the trial, because none of us have a time machine. Unless you have one in your pocket? Stewie Griffin, is that you?

Stop being overly dramatic and context-free in your commentary--it's noticed and it doesn't acquit you well at all. You aren't conversing, you're fight-picking, and it's boring I get it--you "disagree." We can come back when it's all over and see who is "right." I bet on life in prison if he's lucky. You think he might magically be acquitted. Whoop-dee-doo--we're neither of us going to be before the judge, we're just spectators, and it doesn't really matter what either one of us think.

None of that carping will bring four dead innocents back, now, will it? Nor will it put the blown off limbs back on the grievously wounded, or heal their other injuries or a lifetime of PTSD.

[bahrbearian]

211. I was just going by what you told me.

[uppityperson]

212. I think you confuse being guilty of something with being guilty in a court of law

Plenty of people are guilty of things that never even go to court.

[bahrbearian]

215. Does being declared guilty on the internet count? I'll wait for the trial. We might even have

Last edited Thu Apr 25, 2013, 05:53 PM - Edit history (1)

more information by then.

[alcibiades_mystery]

86. He never had a gun, so he never shot at them

That's just fact.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev never fired one shot at any police officer. Now, to be sure, his brother did, and one doesn't play guessing games with such things, but the fact is that this particular person had no weapon, and never fired a single shit at any police officer the entire night and day.

[brett_jv]

112. I'm confused how you could be so sure of this?

Apparently he had no gun in the near vicinity at the point he was captured.

I'm curious though how you're so sure that he never fired a single shit at any police officer during the entire night and day? I mean, the boat was the end of the line, but he was clearly in lots of other places during the course of the manhunt, so ...

Not trying to be snarky, just wondering how you know what you claim to know with such certainty?

Also, as an aside ... who really gives a shit if they shot up the boat, and he just happened to not have a weapon at that moment? They had no way of knowing whether he did or didn't, based on the events of the previous 24 hours. I'm prepared to cut the boys in blue some slack with regards to the idea that they did whatever they thought was appropriate, given the overall circumstances.

[pnwmom]

128. He can't. He's just guessing.

And he's entirely ignoring the issue of the homemade explosive devices that they were lobbing at the police.

[pnwmom]

127. How do you know he NEVER had a gun? Just because they only recovered the one on the brother

doesn't mean he didn't dump a gun during the 20 hours he was hiding.

And don't grenade like devices count? How do you know he didn't throw any of those?

[alcibiades_mystery]

184. I don't know whether he threw any of the bombs

I know this, from available evidence:

1) He brought a backpack bomb to the Boston Marathon, left it on the street, and exploded it (or knowing it would explode)
2) He accompanied his older brother - one or the other of them shot and killed an MIT police officer - authorities suggest it was the older brother; they attempted to get the gun from his holster and failed; authorities suggest that they were trying to procure a second gun through the act - they did not procure one.
3) He and his brother carjacked a civilian; the civilian witness states that the older brother had the firearm during the initial carjacking; no indications are that that changed
4) He and his brother were involved in a chase / firefight / bomb throwing event with Watertown police - in the images we have of the shootout, only one brother can b seen with a gun, and firing at police - that's the older brother; there are no images publicly available of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev firing a weapon at police. He may have thrown a bomb or these homemade grenades. It's not clear.
5) The older brother approached police firing the one weapon that has been recovered; he runs out of ammunition, and the police tackle him; younger brother gets in the stolen Mercedes and drives it at the police and his brother, scattering the police and running over and dragging his brother. He breaks through a barricade, travels some distance, then ditches the car - no evidence that he has a gun during this episode. Police recover the gun being fired by the older brother; it is the only gun they recover.
6) He is found in a boat the next day, apparently shot earlier. According to authorities, he has no gun with him in the boat.

That's what we know, I think. Correct me if I'm wrong in any of those reported elements of the narrative. As far as I can tell from the reported elements, there's no evidence that he had a gun at any point in the evening or the next day. Now, we can of course speculate that he had a gun during episoe 1), 2), 3), 4) and 5). For 6), clearly h did not. We can speculate that he had eight guns and a crossbow. Perhaps he carried an antique derringer. I don't know, you're right. But there's no evidence that he did, and the evidence we do have suggests he didn't. Why is this important? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I'm interested in the facts of the narrative - what actually happened. If others aren't, that's their prerogative.

[pnwmom]

196. You said before he had no weapon, but most of the rest of us

would consider a hand-held grenade-like device to be a weapon. And numerous sources say they were both tossing those. Also, his dorm room contained a "large pyrotechnic," whatever that is.

As far as the gun issue is concerned, there is a difference between asserting that the photos we've seen so far don't show him shooting a gun, and asserting that he never had one. No one at this point can make a positive statement about that either way.

But what difference does it make? The police, in the thick of bombs and bullets being thrown at them, had every right to assume this man was armed and dangerous. Someone apparently overreacted and shot the first bullet, causing others to react, and this was unfortunate.

But police are only human. I'm reserving judgment till we know more.

[alcibiades_mystery]

199. I said he had no "weapon"? I don't think I did

Last edited Thu Apr 25, 2013, 03:41 PM - Edit history (1)

I've tried to be careful in my wording here. I asserted that he had no firearm or gun. If I said he had no "weapon," then I apologize, but I don't think I said that.

ON EDIT: Sure enough, I had said he had no weapon. I apologize for that.

In any case, even with respect to the gun issue, I've then corrected my previous statements based on your and other contributions to include the qualifier: we have no evidence that he had a gun. Surely, as you note, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. At the same time, it's certainly not evidence of presence.

I don't think he had a gun at any time of the night. Why? There's no evidence that he did. It's not just the photos. The attack on Officer Collier very much appears to be an attempt to procure another firearm. There was only one firearm recovered. The idea that he had a gun and ditched it is not plausible. The only eyewitness in direct contact with the two puts a gun in Tamerlan's hand, and that's it. So, it's not merely absence of evidence. There's significant evidence pointing in the other direction.

[HooptieWagon]

160. What about the self-inflicted throat wound? Slingshot?

[alcibiades_mystery]

173. Indeed, what about it?

Strange how that could have happened. Or been claimed to have happened.

[rightsideout]

9. You just rocked the boat. LOL

You posed a question that apparently others here don't think is worth the time of day or they can't understand why you are asking it.

Usually the response is, "Your concern is noted." Which means these holier than thou folks find your unintelligent question not worth a consideration or you should know better than to ask it.

It's quite a welcome isn't it? LOL.

[elleng]

23. 'Others' are engaging newmember in discussion here,

and s/he is receiving an appropriate welcome imo.

[Butterbean]

166. The response "your concern is noted" is

code for implicating the poster as a "concern troll." Look up "concern troll" here, you'll see swaths of threads about the subject.

[tblue]

10. I just have a hard time

with taking people's rights away. Maybe it's just my nature. But this young man, as heinous as his crimes are, still has guaranteed Constitutional rights that possibly, as you say, were suspended. People HATE this guy, passions are running red hot, and not unjustifiably, so almost no one will give a damn about his rights. But our authorities have to uphold our civil laws even in times like these, whether we the public condemn the man or not. I can only guess what actually happened at that boat but, if the SWAT team acted inappropriately, then I hope it will come out even in this highly charged climate.

[newmember]

13. You know how scary that sounds

"so almost no one will give a damn about his rights"


apparently so

[elleng]

21. His rights were not suspended,

they've been careful in their dealings with him, and we all give more than a damn about his rights.

[uppityperson]

26. They were trying to capture him alive, could very easily have shot him to little bits.

What rights did he have taken away? Serious question, what rights?

[HiPointDem]

38. +1

[pnwmom]

129. I heard they read him the Miranda. So what rights did they take away?

[malaise]

141. You know what's amazing to me?

You can hear someone shouting cease fire and listen to the shooting.
He did not have a gun.

[Swagman]

144. the ferocity on DU to accept and condemn based on what they are being told in the

media and by authorities is quite frightening.

I have no idea who did what nor does anyone really. Past experience has told me to be wary of official stories which may be exactly correct, or may not be.

some healthy skepticism is in order despite the horrible events.

[midnight]

152. I agree.

[GitRDun]

11. I am definitely willing to cut the police some slack in this situation

I read in another post they were shooting rubber bullets, e.g. , non life threatening.

I listened on the scanner and they seemed to be taking great care to keep folks safe and get the guy alive.

Who knows what the kid did and they saw...they got him out alive and no one was hurt. I think that speaks loudly to their intent.

[elleng]

12. A negotiator had been talking to him.

The gunfire had been exchanged when he and his brother were running from police, and

'The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity . . . tell The Associated Press that no gun was found in the boat. Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis said earlier that shots were fired from inside the boat.'

Read more: http://nation.time.com/2013/04/24/officials-suspect-unarmed-when-arrested-in-boat/#ixzz2RRpZcc6A

[grasswire]

15. I believe I heard the Watertown chief also say that bullets...

....were fired FROM the boat. Yesterday.

[elleng]

18. Right.

[newmember]

25. Officials: Suspect Unarmed When Arrested in Boat

The FBI declined to discuss the exact sequence of events that led officers to open fire on Tsarnaev’s hiding place and whether the dozens of bullets that struck the boat caused any of his gunshot wounds

[alcibiades_mystery]

87. Since Mr. Tsarnaev had ZERO GUNS in the boat, that's quite a miraculous occurrence

The fact is that the police shot up the boat through panic or some other reaction. This person did not fire on them, because he was 1_ damn near bled out and 2) more importantly, not in possession of a firearm.

As it turns out, it is difficult to shoot bullets at police officers when you don't have a firearm. Wacky? Yes. Contrary t the desires of some people hoping for a clean story? Certainly. But the fact is that this person did not have a firearm, and probably did not have one the entire night. Those are facts.

So.

[brett_jv]

114. So, now it's 'probably' ... a 'fact'.

Upthread you were saying it as stone-cold, known fact that he never shot at a single cop the entire time all this was going down, never had a weapon.

I'm curious ... are we SURE he never had a weapon/shot at a cop the entire time ... or are we making stuff up, based on the fact that he didn't have one in the end, at the boat?

Just askin'

[alcibiades_mystery]

174. Making stuff up...he definitely didn't have one in the boat, right

He probably didn't have one all night, since there is no evidence of him with gun all night.

But thank you for the correction. You're quite right that the language there is hinky.

[pnwmom]

197. You don't know there is no evidence -- all you know is the photos you have seen.

We don't yet know the totality of the state's case -- just what they've released so far.

[alcibiades_mystery]

200. Of the publicly available evidence, there is none that he held a gun

I have no basis for believing he had a gun at any time during the night, based on what has been reported.

We can do this epistemological thing all day, I guess.

[pnwmom]

201. Is there a site where anyone can see all the publicly available evidence?

How do you know you personally have seen everything there is to be seen?

[alcibiades_mystery]

203. I don't know that I've personally seen everything that is publicly available

Thanks.

Qualified: Of the publicly available evidence that I've personally seen, there is none that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was in possession of a firearm on the night of April 18-19.

If anybody has any evidence to that effect, especially people claiming that he WAS in possession or possibly in possession of a firearm on the night of April 18-19, please let me know! I'm interested in that kind of evidence, since I haven't seen any, and surely if you believe he did have a gun, you must have some (publicly available) evidence as the basis for that belief. Thanks y'all!

[pnwmom]

205. I'm not going to go hunting for that because I don't think it's important.

He and his brother were clearly acting as a team, and the younger brother was shown putting down his own backpack shortly before it exploded. And the car he drove off in (after he ran over his brother with it) contained additional explosives.

I agree that it's unfortunate if a mistake happened and the police shouldn't have been shooting at the boat at the end. But that seems like a fairly small issue in light of the whole situation.

[alcibiades_mystery]

213. Yes, it's a fairly small issue

I'm interested in what happened. I'm not interested in making a big issue of the boat shooting.

So he didn't have a gun. OK. So a bunch of jacked up, exhausted, stressed out cops blasted away at the boat, mistakenly believing that they were taking fire from it. Fine. Big deal. He wasn't killed. He probably wasn't even wounded additionally. It's not a big deal.

I like the actual true narrative in such cases. I'm not condemning the cops or anyone else. I like the truth of the matter. Here, we start to see some truth: the younger Tsarnaev had no gun in the boat. That's admitted. What looks increasingly probable is that these two guys had the one gun (the 9mm) and the several explosives. This is starting to seem like the truth of the matter. Do we know for sure yet? No. But we can make plausible extrapolations from what we do know. These two guys had a single firearm and these explosives. They surely used everything at their disposal to kill or injure more cops. But the developing truth of the matter suggests that they only had the one gun.

I'm not making some grandiose point. I have no agenda here other than the truth of the matter.

[11 Bravo]

162. So, it's a "fact" that he "probably" didn't have a gun? My head hurts.

[alcibiades_mystery]

176. Agreed...that was inelegant

He didn't have a gun in the boat. That's been admitted by officials. Did he have a gin at any previous point in the evening? Perhaps, but we have no evidence of that. We do, however, have evidence that the older brother had a gun (from witnesses and images), and we know for a fact that there was only one gun recovered.

I agree that I was extrapolating from evidence. Thanks for the correction.

[newmember]

16. They lied about shots coming from the boat. This is so bad

[elleng]

17. 'They' lied?

[newmember]

20. Yes

[pnwmom]

130. There was understandable confusion. n/t

[gateley]

14. I'm sure this will be investigated and reported on. Why don't we wait to see the outcome?

[elleng]

19. Yes, gate.

[RetroLounge]

24. Most trolls are less obvious

Keep trying



RL

[BootinUp]

28. So you think they fired without warning him?

[newmember]

37. Oh of course not, that could never happen by police

Two women who were delivering newspapers in Torrance, Calif., early Thursday were shot by jittery Los Angeles police officers who mistakenly thought cop-hunting fugitive Christopher Dorner might be in their vehicle, NBCLosAngeles.com reported

[BootinUp]

39. That is some strong proof that Boston PD fucked up

you got them now! lol.

The fact that the LAPD screwed up so royally does not help your argument imho.

[newmember]

45. You think those guys in Boston weren't pumped full of adrenalin.

It's obvious they opened fire on that boat with an American Citizen inside the boat unarmed and hurt.

If that's okay with you... fine

[LisaL]

48. They had all the right to assume that he wasn't unarmed.

In fact it would be stupid to assume otherwise.

[newmember]

53. He's an American citizen contained as I previously stated

He wasn't going anywhere.
They opened fire on that boat , by their description they riddled it with gun fire.

How can you agree with their actions?

[LisaL]

57. Mistakes will happen in such situations.

The alleged terrorist is alive and well, by the way. No harm, no foul.

[davidpdx]

119. His citizenship isn't what was question, it was whether or not he was armed

The police do have a right to use force if they believe a suspect to be armed. The previous evening he and his brother had exchanged gun fire with police.

He was likely shot the night before, hence the blood on the ground leading to the boat. Now, please explain that away.

The police were pretty clear they wanted him alive because without him they would have only a limited amount of information about the motives for the bombing and whether they were working with someone else. I'd say that is a pretty strong indication that what you are claiming in the OP is incorrect.

[pnwmom]

132. He could have lobbed more explosives from the boat. They didn't know what he had

in there with him.

[pnwmom]

131. So the citizenship was the key element here?

I would think it would be the possible level of danger. They didn't know what he had in there with him and, yes, someone made a mistake.

[treestar]

167. Would it be OK had the person in the boat not been an American citizen?

How were they supposed to know he was unarmed?

[lpbk2713]

51. Hey, come on ...

they're only 3,000 miles apart.

I mean after all ...

[uppityperson]

41. Logic fallacy. Just because something has happened in a situation does not mean it will always

happen in another situation.

[newmember]

47. It's not a fallacy at all , not one bit

[uppityperson]

75. So because la cops shot a totally wrong vehicle, it logically follows that these ones, on the

opposite coast, must have fired without warning him or asking him to surrender? And this is good logic?

Just because something happened in one place by one group of people does not mean that every group of people like the first group will always do that. Poor logic.

A dog bit my cousin does not mean every dog is out to bite me.

[brett_jv]

116. It literally is like ... a textbook logical fallacy ...

Now, just because an argument is fallacious does not make it inherently 'wrong'. Here's an example:

All Fish Live in the Sea
This creature lives in the Sea
Therefore, this creature is a fish

It's fallacious, but that doesn't make 'the conclusion' wrong.

Your argument follows the exact same lines.

It might still be 'correct', but it's absolutely fallacious, regardless.

[Politicalboi]

29. The guy who owned the boat

Went out to check on his boat, and saw blood on the side, and then looked under the cover and saw the suspect. That injury may have happened the night before. They may have fired warning shots so he wouldn't make a sudden move.

[uppityperson]

34. Another first report now wrong, link to interview by boat owner.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/23/us/boston-attacks-boat-owner/index.html

Contrary to police reports, David Henneberry said the discovery of blood had nothing to do with the inspection of his boat, the Slip Away II, he told CNN affiliate WCVB. During the inspection, he found a bloodied Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, hiding in the boat, he said.
Henneberry said he had been obsessing over how two pads had fallen out of the shrink-wrap protecting his boat for the winter. He had put the pads under the shrink-wrap to prevent chafing, he told the station. It took two visits tending to the boat before he finally saw Tsarnaev and his trail of blood.
"It was really windy, so I didn't think twice about it," he said of the dislodged pads.

[graham4anything]

134. This proved that he was hurt long before he got into that boat

NOTE-the owner went to his boat long before the cops came, and the haterperp already had been shot long prior.
That is why he was weak from the long period of losing blood

Beng that he shot at cops and threw bombs out the windwo

The OP in one of his CT posts here, called the haterperp couragous. Meaning the OP is sympathizing with this mass killer.

Sounds like Alex Jones/Glen Beck territory to me, sympathizing with a mass killer, but then that is the cottage industry and why these people should never be named, they develop cult worship groups.

[Demonaut]

32. whut?

seriously.............if they wanted him dead ............you finish the sentence

[Beacool]

35. Guy's alive, right?

So what's the problem? He has his life and his limbs, which is more than he deserves considering what he and his brother did.

No one other than his family gives a crap about the well being of this creep.

[LisaL]

36. As I recall, the "guy in California in the cabin" is burned to the crisp.

Whereas this one is alive and well. They most assuredly wanted him alive.

[HiPointDem]

40. If he didn't have a gun, then he couldn't have tried to kill himself or shot his tongue out either.

As reported by the police.

[uppityperson]

42. Unless he did it before he got to the boat and ditched the gun somewhere.

[HiPointDem]

59. he tried to kill himself to the extent that he shot out part of his mouth, *then* escaped to the

boat?

nah.

there's this picture, too. dunno if that's him getting out after the police caught him or before, but he doesn't look shot in it. it's labeled "Hiding out: This is a surveillance video image of Tsarnaev getting out of the boat where he was pinned down on Friday night"

[alcibiades_mystery]

88. It is quite a preposterous scenario, I'll admit

Others are suggesting he "ditched" a gun. Um, why?

Ridiculous.

The brothers had their one 9mm handgun, and young Mr. Tsarnaev had zero guns when they blasted this boat up in a panic.That seems obvious now. Only the real fools are denying it.

[LisaL]

43. I don't recall police ever saying he tried to kill himself or shot his tongue.

And since he is already talking, I presume his tongue is very much intact.

[HiPointDem]

54. they said he tried to commit suicide in the boat and that was the reason he couldn't talk and

could only communicate through writing. throat injury.

if you didn't hear it you haven't been attending.

Mr. Tsarnaev, 19, remained in a Boston hospital in serious condition. The authorities said they believed that he had tried to kill himself, because a gunshot wound to his neck “had the appearance of a close-range, self-inflicted style,” the senior United States official said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/22/us/boston-marathon-bombing-suspects-hoped-to-attack-again.html?pagewanted=all

[LisaL]

60. Who are they? I heard all of it, but who is the source of this info?

Press always claims to have sources, and yet there have been so much reported wrong in this case.

[HiPointDem]

61. in that report, 'authorities". if you heard it, why did you say you hadn't heard it?

In this report, 'investigators':

When Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was captured by police, he was seriously injured with two bullet wounds, one in the leg and another in the back of the neck. That bullet wound in the neck is particularly interesting to investigators. Based on the bullet’s exit point, investigators believe that Tsarnaev stuck a gun inside his mouth and fired in an attempt to kill himself before his capture by police.

“Of course, he and his brother were in a big shootout," CBS New correspondent John Miller said on air. "But (investigators are) saying that wound to the back of the neck is very possibly a suicide attempt. They say it appears from the wound that he might have stuck a gun in his mouth and fired, and (the bullet) actually just went out the back of his neck without killing him. That's one of the reasons he's unable to communicate, but he can understand what they're saying. And they believe there will be a point where he will be able to talk to him.”

http://www.ibtimes.com/did-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-try-kill-himself-bullet-wound-boston-bombing-suspect-points-toward-failed

[LisaL]

62. I haven't heard police say it.

Isn't that clear enough?

[HiPointDem]

70. so do you think 'investigators' are unconnected from police or policing agencies (homeland

security types, for example)?

i was using 'police' in the broad sense of any actors with police functions.

it's been reported that 'investigators' and 'authorities' think he shot himself. i assume those 'investigators' and 'authorities' are part of the general police power.

if you're saying you didn't hear any specific police person say it on camera, well, that may be. but it's been reported in many venues, including the paper of record.

[bahrbearian]

172. Reported by police.

or maybe he was wounded during his escape. I'll wait to come to my conclusion.

[seabeyond]

44. newmember. do you not plan on being here long, cause i cannot imagine that name

Being chosen if you planned to use du. Odd that

[BootinUp]

46. ROFL!

[Codeine]

158. +1 nt

[limpyhobbler]

49. If he was unarmed, it's fair to question why the boat was riddled with gunfire.

Don't be intimidated by people who call you a troll for asking such questions.

I don't know (or care) who is a troll, or even what a troll is.

[newmember]

56. Do I seem intimidated

but thanks

[onenote]

198. Its also a fair question as to whether the boat was "riddled" with live ammunition gunfire

or whether it was "riddled" with rubber bullets, which is what the evidence (both live reports from scanners during the event and the visual evidence after the fact) would seem to suggest.

[MADem]

55. Oh please. What an asinine theory.

These two little shits killed a cop in Cambridge.

If they wanted to kill the guy and create a scenario, they would have dropped a 'hot' gun in the boat and claimed he was using it.

How much of that Bang-Bang-Bang was flash-bangs? Which "authorities" said these things? "Authorities" at the scene, or Bigmouthed "Authorities" making assumptions based on incomplete evidence?


If they wanted to kill the little shit, believe me, he'd be dead. They wanted him alive, and they got him that way.

His condition has been upgraded to FAIR. Kinda screws that "They wanted him dead" theory....unless you expect someone to creep into his room with a pillow now, or something.

And it's not "just like the guy in California." Did he explode a couple of bombs at a marathon, or am I missing something? Gee, I thought he was a steroid-pumped, poor performer who got fired after a shaky probation period and couldn't deal--but no, that's too simple and "obvious." Why not make any tragedy involving a whacked out guy with violent tendencies a major conspiracy? Yeaaah...that's the ticket.

You're shopping garbage-speculation, ascribing motive not in evidence; with no basis in fact.

It is still not clear what prompted officers to fire into the boat. “Shots fired, multiple shots!” someone was heard saying on the radio, before another call went out: “All units hold your fire! Hold your fire.”

Commissioner Davis said that “we will have to see what prompted the volley of shots before the cease-fire was ordered by a superintendent of the Boston police.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/25/us/officers-killing-spurred-pursuit-in-boston-attack.html?pagewanted=3&src=un&feedurl=http://json8.nytimes.com/pages/national/index.jsonp

[newmember]

66. "they would have dropped a 'hot' gun in the boat and claimed he was using it. "

lol



Did you see that in a movie.

[MADem]

67. Enjoy your stay, pal. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

72. Any pictures of the bullet riddled boat floating around the web?

[newmember]

79. Here....... I count at least 50 shots

?6

[alcibiades_mystery]

90. They sho nuf shot it up

No return fire.

Way to pinpoint the fucking enemy.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

115. Not clear those are bullet holes...

There are all kinds of evidence tags.

Look at all the flags of different colors.

For all one can tell, those could be fingerprint tags, blood smears, scuff marks,...anything.

[magellan]

122. How about these?

I think it's safe to say these aren't rubber bullet marks. After all they'd been through, the police would hardly go in to this situation expecting to apprehend an armed and dangerous individual using rubber bullets.

And let's not forget the boat was described afterwards as looking like "Swiss cheese".

[Spitfire of ATJ]

133. More fuzzy images in the age of gigapixles....

Is that Sasquatch on top of it?

[Occulus]

188. You're kidding, right?

You'd deny that those are bullet holes?

[randome]

194. You're kidding, right? You don't think real bullets would have made a hole or two?

Those aren't holes. They're scuff marks.

[rightsideout]

74. The boat owner had a good observation

When he looked in the boat he noticed there was a large pool of blood.

If they say they didn't find a gun in the boat and the neck wound was self inflicted he may have tired to kill himself before he got to the boat and tossed the gun.

I think people already said he may have tossed the gun. I imagine they are still trying to figure out the timeline between the shootout and when he got into the boat.

Either that or the cops aren't saying everything yet.

[newmember]

84. Yeah okay , he shot himself in the neck to commit suicide threw the gun and crawled in

the boat to slowly die....

He was hit during the gun fight when his brother died.
That's the blood the boat owner saw.

[alcibiades_mystery]

93. One always ditches one's gun in impossible to excavate sewers upon attempting neck-shot suicide

It's very common, doncha know?

[HiPointDem]

91. except that he'd already been shot at by police during the gunfight/suv getaway thing. so

you're suggesting that after the firefight with police he drove to some unknown location, shot himself, then, with a neck wound, ditched the suv , ditched the gun somewhere else, & crawled into the boat.

nah.

the police shot him.

[alcibiades_mystery]

95. ROFL

Thank you for highlighting the absurdity of the "ditched the gun" nonsense. It wouldn't even make sense to a small child.

[HiPointDem]

104. look at the picture of the police surrounding the boat, then the artist's rendering of dzhokhar

opening fire after negotiators supposedly 'try to talk him out'.

it's j edgar hoover gangbusters quality.

and who are the guys in camo?



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2312486/Dzhokhar-Tsarnaev-Bomb-suspect-wakes-answers-FBI-questions-writing-shooting-mouth.html

[alcibiades_mystery]

106. The comic book image of him shooting the gun is, of course, ridiculous

Literally worthy of ridicule.

[uppityperson]

190. Whoah! He had a squirt gun with Red Dye #6 in it! OMG!!!11111

Love the daily mail.

[alcibiades_mystery]

92. There was no gun

"tossed the gun" = bitter ender.



Dude didn't have a gun. There's not a lick of evidence that he ever had a gun. The images from that night show him without a gun. Nobody ever saw him with a gun. They apparently killed Collier to get him a gun, and failed. Only one gun was found. No evidence. None. So why do you still believe that he had a gun?

He never had a gun, friend. There is no gun. These two had one firearm: the older brother's hot 9mm. That's it. The evidence is petty clear: younger bro never had a gun. Arguing that he might have "tossed the gun" (what gun?) is getting to the equivalent of people who suggested Saddam Hussein "moved his WMD to Syria!!" Um, no. He just didn't have any.

[brett_jv]

120. Right ... he just set the bomb that killed and maimed people ...

Along with committing dozens of other criminal offenses during the past week.

For the record, I've seen nobody on this page insisting the kid ever had a gun. Maybe he didn't. But YOU don't KNOW that he didn't (EVER), no matter how much want to make it sound like you do. You DON'T. You want to argue there's no evidence (yet) that he ever did, fine. You want to speculate that since there's no evidence (yet) that we should give him the benefit of the doubt, okay.

But you really shouldn't sit there and act like you KNOW he never had one, never fired a shot, etc. You don't friggin KNOW that yet, bro. You're guessing.

And perhaps more importantly ... NOBODY CARES. I'm the biggest bleeding heart liberal you'd ever wanna meet, and I'm sitting here reading the story, and contemplating the idea that a 'mistake was made', and that the cops shot up the boat without him ever shooting at them, and I just think ... OH WELL.

With some people, in some situations, I might care. But in this one? I'm sorry, I just can't bring myself to fault LE for being a tad bit trigger-happy, given the totality of the situation. And I STRONGLY suspect that the vast majority of Americans feel the same. And I'd bet that whoever 'audits' the actions of the cops in this case will care even less than me.

On a side note, I've seen lots of newspaper articles saying that 'authorities suspect' ... he shot himself in the neck. But all the QUOTES just say that the wound is 'consistent with' a self-inflicted wound. We have never heard an actual authority figure come out and say 'he shot himself in the neck'. For all we know, the media were just drumming up a 'story' that they think will generate clicks. OR ... the cops are trying to cover up for the fact that they shot up the boat w/o 'good reason'. It's possible. But again ... I don't think hardly anyone 'cares', given the overall situation. It's 'understandable', given all that had transpired.

[alcibiades_mystery]

179. I can only

know the situation as stated by the authorities and as represented in the evidence that's publicly available: correct.

The authorities say he had no gun in the boat. No evidence shows him with a gun at any point in the evening. No witness puts a gun in his hand that we know of. So, that's all I can possibly know.

As for whether anyone cares, that's beside the point. I'm certainly not trying to acquit the young Mr. Tsarnaev of anything. I'm not sure why exploring the facts of the case, or the facts as best as we can know them, immediately translates in some people's minds into sympathy for Tsarnaev. We can try to get a true narrative of events here without being on "Team Tsarnaev," I hope.

[Skittles]

78. you are utterly failing in your efforts

and the worst part is YOU'RE NOT EVEN ENTERTAINING. *NEXT*

[still_one]

80. The little boy didn't even have a gun, and yet he placed the bomb behind him to kill him /nt

[Rex]

83. Make sure to let us know how the gun range went!!!

[pinboy3niner]

85. 2 anonymous officials report newmember was unarmed on the gun range shooting trip

[newmember]

89. Oh.... you guys are just wrong

I'm going to bed

[Hekate]

94. And after having had bombs thrown at them and a cop shot to death, HOW were they to know that?

[alcibiades_mystery]

98. They weren't

They couldn't possibly know one way or another if he was armed.

Solution: blast 50 shots into boat?

I think we can expect a bit more from professionals.

[pnwmom]

136. These professionals were tired, stressed human beings

who probably made a mistake. But until we know more details, we don't even know that.

[alcibiades_mystery]

177. Correct

It would seem (from authorities' admissions that they found no gun with the younger Mr. Tsarnaev) that Mr. Tsarnaev had no gun in the boat, and therefore could not have shot at himself or anybody else, and that shooting up the boat was therefore a mistake, likely caused by panic and stress and exhaustion.

[BainsBane]

99. I heard the police say he shot at them

And there was video/audio of a shootout. I think it unlikely the cops imagined that.

[HiPointDem]

101. there's audio of a barrage of shots. i think if no gun was found in the boat, the only possible

alternative is that the police *did* imagine it. or else they just opened fire on the boat.

[alcibiades_mystery]

102. It's quite likely the police imagined it, since he didn't have a gun

There was certainly *shooting.* When it is only one side shooting at an unarmed person, it's not quite a shootout, in classical terms, anyway. Dude didn't have a gun. They recovered no gun. They even admit that he didn't have a gun. So how was there a shootout at the boat. He didn't have gun. This isn't conjecture: it's established fact, as stated by the police. He didn't have a gun.

[BainsBane]

103. the article sites unnamed sources

I wouldn't call that an established fact.

[alcibiades_mystery]

105. OK...hold on to that

When it is officially announced, will you come back here and admit that Dzhohkar Tsarnaev had no gun with him in this boat, and could not therefore have shot at the police from the boat?

Although police feared he was heavily armed, the suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing had no firearms when he came under a barrage of police gunfire that struck the boat where he was hiding, according to multiple federal law enforcement officials.

Authorities said they were desperate to capture Dzhokhar Tsarnaev so he could be questioned. The FBI, however, declined to discuss what prompted the gunfire.

Other law enforcement officials said the shooting may have been prompted by the chaos of the moment and some action that led the officers to believe Tsarnaev had fired a weapon or was about to detonate explosives.

Seems like quite the multitude of unnamed sources. On what basis do you think he had a gun? Named sources? Your cousin?

[BainsBane]

107. I see nothing humorous about any of this

and you can't even bother to cite where you found your unnamed sources.
But I suppose I should trust in your omniscience. I, on the other hand, am a mere mortal who must wait for actual evidence.

[alcibiades_mystery]

110. Oh, that would the Washington Post

It's a little newspaper in a small eastern city. You might have heard of it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/officials-boston-suspect-had-no-firearm-when-barrage-of-bullets-hit-hiding-place/2013/04/24/376fc8a0-ad18-11e2-a8b9-2a63d75b5459_story.html

I actually do find it funny when people cling to ideas that are definitively disproven. It is clear from multiple news sources today that Dzhohkar Tsarnaev had no gun with him in the boat he was found in. Indeed, he seems to have had no gun with him all night. His brother had a 9mm, recovered at the scene of his death. The younger Tsarnaev, zip, zilch, nada.

So, that's a fact. Now, let me clarify: I'm not some CT nut. These two brothers planted backpack bombs at the Boston Marathon. They killed an MIT police officer. They got in a shootout with Watertown police (or, at least, the one that had their only gun did). Moreover, I think the authorities acted intelligently and heroically throughout. But shooting up that boat was not their proudest moment of the ordeal. In fact, it was probably the dumbest. Since young Mr. Tsarnaev was unarmed and bleeding out. It was dumb and panicky. There's no way to rescue the most unprofessional moment of he episode. He didn't have a gun. So what the fuck were these trained professionals shooting at?

[brett_jv]

123. If that's all you're trying to say ...

"It's not their proudest moment", the shooting up of the boat ... okay mate.

I'd go along with that

[uppityperson]

193. To answer your last question. Someone they thought may have had a gun, bomb or other explosives.

There have been so many conflicting stories through this whole thing as usual and as expected. Since those "multiple sources" have released so much inaccurate untrue "facts", I am willing to wait and see once all the info is gathered rather than jump to multiple conclusions ahead of time.

I will be interested in seeing what the story is when the investigation is over.

[alcibiades_mystery]

195. True

[HiPointDem]

100. because he didn't shoot at them?

[Live and Learn]

108. It certainly raises a question in my mind.

I have yet to hear of anyone trying to commit suicide by shooting themselves in the neck. It is always the head. And either one would be quite difficult without a gun.

Looks like the police either panicked or simply willfully shot at him. I don't find either difficult to believe.

[Hekate]

109. By the way, my friends returned safely to Calif., and their family in Boston are okay too

WERE YOU THERE? WERE YOU THERE?!

They were. And they have nothing but praise for how the various authorities handled the situation.

A whole lot of folks are NOT okay -- they are missing their legs, or dead. Photos show blood all over the street, people whose lower legs consist of nothing but bone, no flesh.

Don't ask anyone to feel remotely sorry for the two perpetrators of these heinous crimes. The authorities/investigators needed them alive for questioning, and we are lucky that there is one. As you no doubt know, one brother ran over the other in an SUV, crushing whatever life was left out of him. Don't try to pin blame on the cops for that, either.

Enjoy your stay -- and check out these graphic links, before you go back where you came from:

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2013/04/terror_at_the_boston_marathon.html
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/04/boston-amputee-missing-leg-in-1-picture-next-picture-leg-is-back-on-2621464.html

[Savannahmann]

148. So now we are to judge the efficacy of the police based merely on proximity?

Or is it the victim only standard, as was mentioned in another thread? Now, I thought we as a nation were supposed to look at incidents like this, figure out what went wrong, and try to fix it. Now, we're not going to do that because those who were closer than I was, are the only ones allowed to form opinions? Just to make sure I understand mind you.

[Milliesmom]

111. He never had a gun ever

All pictures taken by people the night of the gunfight with his brother show his brother is the only one shooting and cops clearly state his brother is the one throwing the bombs. Jokhar never had a gun, the police lied when they said he shot himself, he does not look like he had been shot in the neck as he climbed out of boat, cops state he was climbing in the boat, odd as they say security camera show him climbing in, I say not so fast as the cover as you can clearly see is torn on boat, it was torn back by the robot, I think the cops shot him as he climbed out of the boat, shot him in the throat. I am not condoning what he did, but I want the truth from the police, remember when they said they were looking for a brown skinned man, they also did make one man strip naked and I seen a picture of that as a reporter was reporting it on live TV, where did he go, nothing has been heard of him since. A lot of falsehoods by police and a lot of unanswered questions.

[gordianot]

113. Unanswered questions are good food for skepticism.

There is a lot to be skeptical about. I woild like to see a trial but wonder if that will happen. In spite of really crappy reporting CNN ratings are up that is probably all the piblic is going to get to know about this horrible episode.

[pnwmom]

135. They released the man they had strip. That was a reasonable precaution

since they had been afraid he was one of the bombers.

You haven't seen all the pictures taken that night -- NO ONE HAS. You have no basis for saying he never had a gun, or for saying he never threw any of the bombs. The police wouldn't have said that because they couldn't know that, either.

[revmclaren]

118. (revmclaren comes running in)

"trolls in the dungeon...trolls in the dungeon...just thought you should know!"

(I collapse on the floor in a faint)

Really, these conspiracy posts lately are above DU posters. Let the investigation at least finish the first week before going 'Alex Jones' on us! Sheesh......

[pnwmom]

124. After what they'd been through, it's hard to blame them for making a mistake.

Someone probably had a hair trigger, and then the others responded, not even knowing where the shot had come from.

I don't think they were trying for an execution; I think they really did want him alive.

[Historic NY]

137. He was already wounded before he got in the boat.......

most likely from the previous confrontation with police.

[dipsydoodle]

139. How come so much flack here and not in the matching LBN ?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014465108

[GeorgeGist]

140. At the time it was reported that they were using rubber bullets.

Haven't been able to verify that since, but pictures I've seen of the boat afterwards suggest that might be true.
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1324991.1366733174!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/article-boat-0423.jpg

[Historic NY]

145. Sure looks that way, fiberglass isn't bullet proof and the suspect would have been dead...

if real ammo was used. They might have used rubber pellet load shotgun shells....we use them to move wayward bears in residential settings.

[marions ghost]

142. Based on the sources I'm willling to believe he had no gun...

and that there was gunfire from the cops. And then he apparently surrendered.

That's all we know at this point.

[newfie11]

146. Just how we're the police to know he was unarmed

Would you just walk up to the boat? Bombs, assault weapons, shooting a police etc?????
If so you better stay out of police work unless you want to shorten your life span.

[Savannahmann]

151. By the same token, if we as citizens have to endure police who start shooting

Without any clear idea of what is going on, should we stay out of the nation? Twenty years ago, the questions being asked of police included why was your weapon discharged, what reason did you have to fire it? What threat did you personally see? What danger existed that you personally saw? Was there no other course of action that you could have taken?

Today it's different. Today it's Did you think there might be some hint of some vague danger somewhere in front of you before you turned loose with that fully automatic machine gun you're toting there hero?

[newfie11]

164. What???

Vague danger??? Cops not knowing what's going on???
Wow. This is going no where
This guy and his brother killed 3 people and injured many more with bombs, then killed a police officer sitting in his cruiser. Threw out IEDs from the car, the younger one ran over his own brother etc.

THIS is the guy you think
Police should just walk up to his covered hiding spot and uncover him.

You play the game you pay the price!!

[Savannahmann]

168. So because they are police we should expect no responsibility from them?

We can't ask why they started shooting? We can't ask what they saw? All we can do is get down on our knees and worship these guardians of our safety. Guardians who risk their lives by facing down unknown dangers, with as much firepower as they can get their hands on?

When I was in High School, Police had a couple incidents where children were shot. Dark apartment, kid had a toy gun, looked real enough. When that was explained, what the officer saw, what he thought he saw, and why he reacted. We as a nation, agreed that such tragic accidents would happen, because the officer had to react.

In this case, we don't know what the officers saw. All we know was there was a lot of rounds fired, and now the suspect was not armed with a gun according to reports. If twenty rounds fired by the NYPD at a man holding his wallet in his hand was excessive, what should we think about boston where there are at least twenty bullet holes in the boat and now reports of no gun with the suspect.

Remember the questions I said we used to ask. What did you see? What was behind the suspect you were shooting at. We used to care what the officer saw, and what he was doing and why. Now we don't dare ask those questions, because now the Police are above reproach, and are capable of making no mistakes.

We have learned nothing from this incident, and we will be doomed because of that. The cops were scared, but they had guns, so they had to shoot.

[brett_jv]

189. I'd imagine we'll get the answers to all that eventually ...

There will be some kind of investigation as to why the shots were fired when the kid had no guns. Despite how you're painting the picture, there ARE protocols, and it will all be reviewed, and there's even some small possibility that at least the first, and possibly all of the cops that shot the boat up, will be disciplined in some way. Probably not that severely though in light of who they were dealing with.

[Savannahmann]

214. Really?

We have some answers about the massive screwup around Richard Dorner. After mistakenly shooting the wrong make, model, color pick up truck more than 100 times, the LAPD offered to replace the innocent women's pick up truck. If they posed for pictures with the LAPD, and if they paid taxes on the truck that they were replacing after shooting it full of more holes than a ton of swiss cheese.

But still, how those cops shot more than 100 holes in a pick up truck that was a different make, model, and color than the bad guys suspected vehicle is not been answered.

So how hard is it to say that the officers in question over-reacted drastically. How about charges for attempted murder? Reckless discharge of their weapons?

There has always been a double standard for police, but it is getting out of hand friends. Two years ago, a police officer left his K9 unit in the car, while he went to the hospital to see about his son. Now, I am not chastising him for his concern for his child. I am not upset that he wanted to see about his family. I understand and support the idea of family first. What does bother me is that he left the dog in the car, where it slowly died from heat exhaustion. Now, if I was to do that, I would be featured here on the DU boards as deserving death for animal cruelty. If you had done it, same outcome. When the police found out, I would have been charged with animal cruelty at a minimum, and arrested on the spot. If police are going to uphold the law, they need to obey the law, and be held to the same standards as we are. That isn't anti-police. That is pro-civilization. The laws either apply to all, or they are the cudgel that is used to keep the subjects in line.

[randome]

149. They also had unclear thermal images of him moving about.

For all we know, they thought he DID have a weapon. Without being on the ground, we have no way of knowing what it was like so, once more, second-guessing the police or those in Boston is pointless.

[Glitterati]

150. For heavens sake!

Just hours before this little turkey was tossing BOMBS out a car window at cops.

They KILLED a cop. A 26 year old cop.

Hello? Anybody home? Are the lights on upstairs?

[newfie11]

153. Ya got that right

People that think this guy was not any danger seem to have forgotten what started this whole thing.

Asking anyone to walk up to a covered suspect and not knowing if he had more IEDs, assault rifles, or bombs is suicide.

I would like to see those that think this should be the case just try and see how long they live.

Yes it turns out he was out of bullets but could have gone the other way and the police had no way of knowing that ahead of time.

He lived so........

[Glitterati]

156. Why?

Why are these people on DU looking for ANY reason to blame the cops for something?

Good lord, I've seen some really sick shit on DU, but this takes the cake.

The cops had every reason to believe this little fuckwad was gonna try to take a couple more with him as he died.

It was a REASONABLE assumption.

He had just blown up the BOSTON MARATHON!!!!!!!!!!!!

[newfie11]

165. I totally agree

I have no idea how anyone can blame the police in this case.

[Demonaut]

175. unless it's a troll trying to get liberals to show sympathy or concern toward the bomber

which this is

[newfie11]

186. There seems to be several of them

Anyway I said what I thought and put them on ignore.
Keeps my BP down.

[SummerSnow]

154. The people who were killed at the marathon were unarmed.He didnt give a shit.

[Savannahmann]

161. So now we're Biblical in our revenge?

An eye for an eye and all of that? Vice President Biden said we hadn't changed because of the bombing, but clearly some of us have.

[kentuck]

155. Do you mean??

He didn't shoot himself in the throat in a suicide attempt? The things we read!

[Codeine]

157. Here less than a week, and already making DU suck.

Take a bow, son.

[Paladin]

159. +1000 (nt)

[newmember]

181. Sorry for asking hard questions

The FBI would not tell the Post what prompted officers to fire dozens of rounds at the covered boat in a Watertown, Mass., driveway Friday night

[mercuryblues]

169. exacty

what did the suspect do to prove he was unarmed?

Was it when he helped set off bombs that killed people and severly injused many others?

Was it when they found the MIT police officer dead?

Was it when the carjack victim told the police they had weapons and bombs?

Was it when they were throwing bombs out of the car, during the police chase?

Was it when the brother got out of his car, shooting at the police?

Was it when he ran over his own brother to escape?

After all that, even if he indicated he was not armed, why should the police believe him?

[randome]

178. Rubber bullets, as mentioned upthread, is more plausible.

Especially since they did NOT kill him but captured him.

[newmember]

182. They were not rubber bullets

[randome]

192. And you know that because of your extensive forensics experience?

Those listening to the scanners heard the police say 'no live rounds'. While I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, it's strange that you don't consider that to be 'evidence' that rubber bullets were used.

These look like impact marks, not bullet holes, to me.

[warrprayer]

217. yeah they just

peppered the hull of the boat with rubber bullets! Boy, they sure put one big hurting on that boat!!!

[donco]

180. Its a damn

shoulda taken out the dickhead with a drone.

[gopiscrap]

183. You bring up a good point

just becuase he is a "terrorist" labeled as such, doesn't mean his right to life should be abrogated. In fact just the opposite, capture him with out harm so that the authorities may interrogate him. I am not saying one way or another whether I believe the cops shot him with out provocation..but we all know MANY instances of cop state sanctioned overkill!

[kestrel91316]

187. That's what you DO when you are trying to capture someone

alive - you shoot at them hundreds of times when you can't even see them.



I still suspect they tried to Dorner him. They just didn't want the public to know that was the plan, so they said some BS about wanting to take him alive. I bet they were REALLY disappointed to see he survived.

(and no, I am not a fan of the guy and I don't consider this a conspiracy theory, just a sad observation about cops these days)

[randome]

191. Rubber. Bullets. Upthread.

[Progressive dog]

202. Yup and they riddled the boat but he survived

They took him to the hospital too soon after shooting him full of holes so he survived. They're not just executioners but incompetent executioners.

[Rex]

210. So how did the shooting range go?

[bahrbearian]

216. How did they know who was in the boat.

[warrprayer]

218. I was listening

to the surrounding on the scanner. At that point the local feed was blacked out. I switched to Eastern Mass State Police and heard Trooper saying there was flame coming from the boat. It was pretty chaotic, and hard to say what actually went down.