I wish the Boston Globe hadn’t put their paywall back up.
Quite a few sources are running this story. The cops spent an hour shooting up a boat with an unarmed man in it. I guess it’s not surprising. The gun battle the night before resulted in bombs getting hurled at them. They were suited up in their black tactical gear and ready for war. We saw the same itchy trigger response in LA that resulted in a woman delivering newspapers get shot and her pickup truck was bullet ridden.
I don’t see how anyone survived in that boat. It’s riddled with bullet holes.
That’s not really fair; this was apparently the actual criminal they were after. That’s quite a bit different than the LAPD shooting two women who didn’t resemble the man they were after in the slightest.
The actual criminal who’d previously had actual explosive devices and was now completely hidden inside the boat and not walking out with his hands up. Who’d like to be the guy to walk over, remove the tarp from the boat, and visually confirm that he didn’t have a bomb or a gun on him?
Not me. I’d empty a clip in that boat too if I was there.
But the cops did have the advantage of those infrared photos. A gun that was recently fired would be a heat source. That should have been visible in the photos. A hot gun barrel would glow almost like a neon sign in infrared. They could even tell how he was lying and the position of his arms in those photos that I saw. It shouldn’t have taken an hour of shooting to figure out that no one was shooting back.
I’m just glad it was the bomber suspect in the boat. It could have easily been a homeless guy sleeping off a pleasant night with his friend Jack Daniels.
I have a neighbor a few houses down from me with a ski boat in the driveway. The tarp is filthy and lots of leaves on it. I’m pretty sure it hasn’t been in the water in five or more years. A perfect place for a homeless person to sleep at night. Then leave the next day after the homeowner goes to work.
I thought they only brought the helicopter in for the initial “yup, he’s hiding in there” check and then backed it off. You wouldn’t want one close around if he did have a gun (imagine if he shot at it) or a bomb (unfortunately-aimed shrapnel = bad news). Thermal imaging wouldn’t show if he was clutching a bomb and just waiting for a group of police officers to assume he was too injured to fight back and approach, with plans of detonating it then.
Oh, and the owner saw blood in his yard and blood on the guy in the boat when he peeked in - though The Onion had similar thoughts when they published an article to the effect of “Boat owner checks his boat daily now, just in case of terrorists.”
As it was a man who was responsible for multiple indiscriminate deaths and only hours earlier was armed and very very dangerous, they did the logical thing (given the laws of the State*).
I think killing anybody for any reason is abhorrent, lawfully or not, but I don’t blame the cops for their actions in this situation.
*May not have been the right thing in other parts of the country or the world
Is that a thing homeless people regularly do? Sneak into someone’s driveway, cut a hole in their boat coverings, and sleep in the boat instead of on the street? Do they normally do this while covered in blood? I’m tempted to ask for a cite.
During the boat stake-out we commented that it’s value would skyrocket after all this was over. Holes or not, it’ll be interesting to see what comes of it.
They shut down the city of Boston and it’s surroundings to look for this guy. A major American city was told to shelter in place. You don’t do that when you expect to take your suspect unarmed. The last contact they had with this guy he was armed and had explosives.
It’s worth asking why the police opened fire. Treating him as very dangerous makes sense, but basically they shouldn’t be shooting at a suspect unless there’s some kind of immediate threat, and a wounded guy laying in a boat doesn’t qualify on the face of it. They were watching him from the air and sending in a bomb robot made sense, but just shooting him at random doesn’t. And don’t forget that it was initially reported that it looked like he tried to kill himself at some point. That obviously wasn’t true.
Remember also that the guy has an injured throat and can’t speak. If that was the case before they apprehended him - before the shooting started - communication was even more confused.
“Come out!”
Nobody comes out. Silence.
“Why aren’t you coming out? Are you injured?”
Silence.
Just because he hadn’t fired a gun didn’t mean he didn’t have one. Just because he hadn’t thrown any bombs out didn’t mean he didn’t have them.
Assuming that happened during the firefight where his brother was killed- which it very well might have, but I don’t know if we can say that for sure now.
Supposedly, he was lying prone in a boat, with no attempt to shoot anyone (or so far as I can tell, move at all). The man who’d found him had already gone over and looked inside the boat without being fired on. He said the man wasn’t moving and was covered “in a good amount of blood”, further suggesting he wasn’t going to spring up and start spraying bullets (he also described the man as “a body” suggesting he thought he was dead, though I don’t think I’ve heard that said explicitly).
I’m pretty sceptical of any news from “unnamed law-enforcement officials” in any case. But assuming the above description is really what happened, I disagree firing on the boat was logical or the correct thing to do.
Eh, weird stuff happens. The guy who owned the boat hadn’t seen the face of the person he’d uncovered. The obvious assumption is that a wounded man hiding out in the neighbourhood where the manhunt was taking place was their guy, but I think the standard needs to be a little higher then “its probably the same guy” before blazing away.
I suspect that after one cop killed and another wounded, the police were pretty amped up. Once one cop fired his gun, the others probably thought they were being shot at and opened up.
I’d empty a clip in that boat too if I was there.