PDA

View Full Version : Suspect in Boat had no weapons (fog of war)




mike6623
04-25-2013, 01:05 PM
From the washington post, says he had no weapons in the boat, the fired upon him and I assume since the tarp was covering the boat...they couldn't 100% identify the SUSPECT. Not to mention....innocent until proven guilty? Anyone?

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


By Sari Horwitz and Peter Finn, Published: April 24

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.

These new details emerged as investigators continued their examination of the movements and motives of Tsarnaev, 19, and his brother, Tamerlan, in last week’s coordinated bombing, which killed three people and wounded more than 250.

Law enforcement officials said they do not believe the brothers were connected with a terrorist organization, but they cautioned that the inquiry is at an early stage.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, was killed in a confrontation with police in the early morning hours Friday, four days after the marathon bombing. A transit police officer was seriously wounded in the exchange, in which more than 200 rounds were fired and the suspects lobbed homemade explosives at police. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev escaped and was the subject of a massive manhunt. He was cornered hiding in a boat in the driveway of a house in Watertown, Mass., on Friday evening.

Law enforcement officials described the 30 minutes before the arrest of Tsarnaev as chaotic. One characterized it as “the fog of war” and said that in a highly charged atmosphere, one accidental shot could have caused what police call “contagious fire.”

Officers from several agencies gathered around the Watertown house as darkness fell. The FBI was in charge of the scene, but there also were officers from the Massachusetts State Police, local police and transit police.

“They probably didn’t know whether he had a gun,” said one law enforcement official, who like others interviewed for this article spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation. “Hours earlier, he and his brother had killed a police officer, shot another officer and thrown explosives out of their cars as the police were chasing them. They couldn’t assume that he did not have a gun and more explosives.”

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.

A spokesman for the FBI said law enforcement agents were tracking an extremely dangerous suspect who had used guns and explosives on a public street to avoid arrest.

“Law enforcement was placed in an extraordinarily dangerous situation,” said FBI spokesman Paul Bresson. “They were dealing with an individual who is alleged to have been involved in the bombings at the Boston Marathon. As if that’s not enough, there were indications of a carjacking, gunfire, an ambushed police officer and bombs thrown earlier. In spite of these extraordinary factors, they were able to capture this individual alive with no further harm to law enforcement. It was a tremendously effective outcome under dire circumstances.”

Zippyjuan
04-25-2013, 01:07 PM
The could not have known if he was armed in the boat or not. The last time they encountered him, there was a fire exchage which included bullets and bombs.

mike6623
04-25-2013, 01:11 PM
Isn't the law, do not fire until fired upon? How did they know for SURE it was him? It could have been a kid playing hide and seek? the tarp was covering the boat, so they obviously didn't see him. So, you agree with police openeing fire when NOT being fired upon? And you agree with no due process? He wasn't firing, they couldn't see him, yet they fired. I am not a police officer, but I do not believe that is legal

mike6623
04-25-2013, 01:12 PM
The could not have known if he was armed in the boat or not. The last time they encountered him, there was a fire exchage which included bullets and bombs.
And they returned fire. This instance, nothing was fired at police. He is an american citizen, you can't just kill someone because he is "suspected" of a serious crime.

Bruno
04-25-2013, 01:22 PM
Isn't the law, do not fire until fired upon? How did they know for SURE it was him? It could have been a kid playing hide and seek? the tarp was covering the boat, so they obviously didn't see him. So, you agree with police openeing fire when NOT being fired upon? And you agree with no due process? He wasn't firing, they couldn't see him, yet they fired. I am not a police officer, but I do not believe that is legal

Dogs don't fire guns.

Zippyjuan
04-25-2013, 01:26 PM
Isn't the law, do not fire until fired upon? How did they know for SURE it was him? It could have been a kid playing hide and seek? the tarp was covering the boat, so they obviously didn't see him. So, you agree with police openeing fire when NOT being fired upon? And you agree with no due process? He wasn't firing, they couldn't see him, yet they fired. I am not a police officer, but I do not believe that is legal

Don't know what led to the shooting at the boat so we can't say. Just speculation (like anybody else) but it is possible that he tried to raise his hand or head to look around and somebody trigger happy thought they saw something and fired and everybody else reacted and fired as well.

shane77m
04-25-2013, 01:32 PM
http://youtu.be/X2UXm19Un_Y

Bruno
04-25-2013, 01:46 PM
^ + rep!

Dr.3D
04-25-2013, 01:50 PM
Isn't the law, do not fire until fired upon? How did they know for SURE it was him? It could have been a kid playing hide and seek? the tarp was covering the boat, so they obviously didn't see him. So, you agree with police openeing fire when NOT being fired upon? And you agree with no due process? He wasn't firing, they couldn't see him, yet they fired. I am not a police officer, but I do not believe that is legal

Exactly my thoughts. They could have been shooting at some kid playing in his secret hide out.

Brian4Liberty
04-25-2013, 01:55 PM
http://youtu.be/X2UXm19Un_Y

Very funny, yet very true.

affa
04-25-2013, 02:08 PM
Don't know what led to the shooting at the boat so we can't say. Just speculation (like anybody else) but it is possible that he tried to raise his hand or head to look around and somebody trigger happy thought they saw something and fired and everybody else reacted and fired as well.

except it was widely reported at the time and for quite awhile afterwards that he was the one firing upon officers, not the other way around. now it just 180'd.

also, re: other article at Washington Post, it's now being reported that the two suspects in that wild car/gun chase only had a single 9mm. Not the huge arsenal previously reported.

We haven't actually seen any 'explosives' either... or even, as far as i know (correct me if i'm wrong) pictures of explosion sites along the chase route. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised to find out tomorrow it was the car backfiring.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
04-25-2013, 05:39 PM
Don't know what led to the shooting at the boat so we can't say. Just speculation (like anybody else) but it is possible that he tried to raise his hand or head to look around and somebody trigger happy thought they saw something and fired and everybody else reacted and fired as well.


Because they're all too dumb to think for themselves.

Ya know what... I am in favor of micro-identification for ammunition possessed by government entities. In fact, I'm starting to support all of the things they support, yet want to be exempted from. But, I'm supportive of those measures for them.