I’d love to see the correlation between those who think the police did the right thing shooting first and asking questions later, and those who are anti-gun. That’s the sort of ironic correlation that I bet would be true.
There are also second-hand anecdotes like this: “A couple of shootings were started when one idiot (cop) accidentally discharged his firearm, spooking others into a “blue on blue” shoot out (oddly, no one was hurt), when asked why they kept shooting if they didn’t see any rivals anywhere, they simply said they didn’t know.”
I would imagine tensions were very high, but it was best to take this guy alive and they’re lucky they did.
Right: it’s a single suspect who’d killed several people and who may have had bombs and guns, and whose injuries may have been unknown (or their severity may have been unknown). Although that may get right back to the original issue because perhaps they shouldn’t have fired until they knew more about his status. This is going to take time to figure out. It’s possible some police really blew it, but I’m more than willing to wait and find out.
Lol, this board is drowning in speculation, on hundreds of topics. I guess emotions run high when the newly-sainted “first responders” are called into question. They, of course, are above reproach.
Now that I’ve seen better pictures of the boat, clearly it was an attempted execution. Just dumb luck Tsarnaev survived. Not that I have any sympathy for the guy, nor would I have cared if he had died, but I wrongly assumed they wanted alive (if possible) in order to get information.
Actually most insurance policies include exclusions to the effect of, “not responsible for any loss or damage caused by acts of war or terrorism” so his boat may not be covered by his insurance policy.
If you were following the internet scanner feed, then you heard the cop with a partial view into the boat being asked at regular intervals whether he saw any movement, and him replying at least once that the suspect was sitting up and making a “flailing” motion. This was before the flash bangs, so I’d say they were making a reasonable assumption that he was conscious.
Stop struggling dude! It was the remarkable number of holes not visible in the lower resolution pic. Why stop? Gee, I’m struggling to figure that out. Maybe they thought a couple hundred rounds would do the job?
Cops would know better than you or I that it’s hard to kill someone that way. I am not sure they hit him at all. If you’ve heard the audio, you know they did fire a lot of shots but that it happened in a few seconds. That’s how these things work. If they had just decided to execute him the way you’re now assuming, they probably would not have just stopped at random. It’s more likely they got spooked.
Given the situation I doubt there will ever be any answers. The police are heroes for capturing the bomber suspect. They even brought him in alive.
I can’t see any investigation happening. It took two unnamed officials to even admit that the suspect was unarmed. Whatever happened in that backyard won’t be disclosed. Mainly because there isn’t any public outcry. The bomber suspect was a public menace.
It amazes me (or maybe not, considering the tone of many of the posts on this board) that so many people, after this thug and his accomplice set off a bomb within feet of an eight year old boy, killed two other innocents, crippled many more, and then have just been in a running gunfight with the police, should now be saying “Oh those nasty police, they shouldn’t have been so mean to those boys”. Jesus Christ on a crutch, what did you expect to happen?
And I know that those same people are going to be just as compassionate when the death penalty comes up, which it will since this is a Federal case.
I’d better stop now - I’m beginning to froth at the mouth.
It was desirable to take Tsarnaev alive, for obvious reasons. There needs to be justification for shooting up the boat. Maybe there was, maybe there wasn’t. I leave emotion out of it.