If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic Wire)   That crazy shootout in Watertown? About that   (theatlanticwire.com) divider line 424
    More: Followup, radio-controlled car  
•       •       •

30965 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Apr 2013 at 9:16 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



424 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-25 11:32:57 PM

TopoGigo: remus: Here's some news crew footage of it:  http://www.mrctv.org/sites/default/files/embedcache/120977.html

Not cool, toy soldiers. Not cool.


The guy at 1:14 needs an autotune remix.
 
2013-04-25 11:33:32 PM

cc_rider: The night this happened, I remember the local media said that police may have been using non-lethal ammunition and flash-bang grenades which could account for the alleged "explosions" that were reported, and the fact that the suspect is still alive and not filled with 300 holes. However, I have not heard any updates on that, so it may have been incorrect.


I don't know about rubber bullets, but they used flash-bangs at least twice according to the traffic over the police scanner.  They'd toss a flashbang, and then ask the helicopter pilot if he'd moved.

As to the (second) shoot out, real easy to guess what happened.  They were moving in to take a guy who they thought was armed and dangerous in the boat.  Some idiot accidentally pulled the trigger on his gun firing a shot, and all the other cops surrounding the boat assumed the shot came from the boat and started firing wildly.
 
2013-04-25 11:34:35 PM

LoneDoggie: Nope, nothing wrong with this at all citizen.  Might as well get used to it...

/ps for the hard of seeing, that dude is pointing a M4 at your face for daring to look out his/her window.
//doubleplusungood


Because a bunch of paranoid comments make total sense to rational people.
 
2013-04-25 11:34:39 PM

redsquid: 401kman: It was dumb luck that they didn't shoot anyone else. They got really lucky they didn't shoot that guy sitting in that chair.

Yes the stay at home shiat was a good move. I don't think anyone would have been better off on the street with the army going down the street with safeties off.

My point is that they probably could have done the same job
A) with a much smaller force...and not the fricking national guard and swarms of swat team guys with heavy ordinance and itchy trigger fingers.
B) The suspects in this case were easy to spot. The second suspect was missed by the inch by inch search and found by some boat crazy guy who noticed that a trail of blood was all over his backyard and precious boat. With all of the guys in full body armor you think that they could have sent ONE guy into find out if the suspect is armed. And not turned the entire block into a bullet fiesta, where no one really knows why anyone is shooting anymore.

I agree about the smaller force thing. I also think it would have worked just as well if it was handled by the locals. I think the feds and National Guard probably made things worse. I know the use of different radios by different agencies probably made communications far less efficient. On the other hand, if this had been a well organized terror cell and the Boston boys flubbed it, the press and arm chair strategists would have eaten them alive.
Of course the photo of the soldier pointing his rifle at the photographer in their own house is pretty scary. The civil liberties precedent is the most worrying outcome of this story. Like I said, we need to insure it doesn't become the norm.


Its amazing how many civil liberties people would be willing to give up not to have this happen.  Living in New York I talk to pretty reasonable people who either tacitly/actively agree with all this warrantless stuff.  Also people that actively advocate censorship to prevent designs of common devices, like the bombs these rocket scientist assholes cooked up in Boston, from reaching the internet.

The implications of these very common attitudes in and out of congress. And the massive buildup in the "intelligence" services and "homeland security" type organizations that seems to defy almost all of the austerity measures that government is legislating (actively or passively).  Leave me more concerned that I would caught in the cross fire of those that are trying to "keep me safe" than those who actively wish me harm.

In other words as a New Yorker I am very scared of friendly fire.  And think that cops waste a ton of my money to give me the illusion of safety.
 
2013-04-25 11:35:24 PM

winchester92: They also never mentioned the name of the boat. I know it because I have friends who know the owner personally, and we looked up the boat name in the Watertown Yacht Club directory. BTW, it's "Slip Away II". Is that freaky or what ??


This was mentioned in numerous articles. They definitely wanted us to know this.
 
2013-04-25 11:38:31 PM

FormlessOne: doyner: since the rules of engagement were "don't fire unless fired upon," obviously he was armed.

Feh. I'm sure the two ladies in a pickup truck, the ones mistaken by cops for Dorner, were quite thrilled to learn those "rules of engagement", when those cops fired around 100 rounds at them. Boston cops, chasing two suspected terrorists? I'm surprised that the cops only shot at them, to be honest, instead of cornering him and setting fire to the friggin' boat.



I blame the anti-smoking crusaders.

They WANTED to set fire to the boat, but no one had a match.
 
2013-04-25 11:39:32 PM

remus: weasil: LoneDoggie: [img195.imageshack.us image 800x707]

Nope, nothing wrong with this at all citizen.  Might as well get used to it...

/ps for the hard of seeing, that dude is pointing a M4 at your face for daring to look out his/her window.
//doubleplusungood

So sick of this part of this shiat...  "that dude" is doing what would be expected in the situation, whether he's sitting in an armored vehicle or not. He is ready to deal with whatever comes his way. If there had been a sniper, and that dude got taken out because his weapon was not at the ready, people would be ragging on him for being incompetent.

WTF was law enforcement supposed to do? Tip toe down the center of the street calling "olly olly oxen free, come out come out wherever you are" ???

If they had done anything less, someone else would give them shiat for not doing enough.

The thing is, he's pointing his weapon directly at a person a few feet away who is obviously standing in an open window taking his picture.  At that distance, the cop (who's got his make believe solider outfit on with all his awesome tacticool gear on) should very clearly have recognized that a) the face in the window wasn't the same as the picture of the suspect and b) he was just taking a picture and wasn't a threat.  Thus, he should put down the rifle and continue sweeping for an actual threat.

Does that mean an increased danger to the police?  Yes.  But they are supposed to put that pesky Constitution before their lives.  That means they don't get to go all Martial Law all over the citizens just because a SUSPECT MIGHT be nearby.  They should be following the rule of law and not recklessly pointing loaded rifles are obviously innocent civilians.

Here's some news crew footage of it:  http://www.mrctv.org/sites/default/files/embedcache/120977.html


I'm sorry, but if you ask me to choose Safety or Liberty, I'll keep my Liberty and take my chances.  They should have been getting search warrants.  That, however, would have actually required them to articulate probable cause for each individual house, which they obviously didn't have.  Judges don't normally give the cops carte blanche to go on fishing expeditions.  So, they just went Judge Dredd and did what they liked.


Because a suspected mass murder wannabe eluding capture isn't probable cause enough to go on a manhunt.

Tinfoil tinfoil everywhere but n'er a potato to bake.
 
2013-04-25 11:41:36 PM

LoneDoggie: [img195.imageshack.us image 800x707]

Nope, nothing wrong with this at all citizen.  Might as well get used to it...

/ps for the hard of seeing, that dude is pointing a M4 at your face for daring to look out his/her window.
//doubleplusungood


Damn some of you people are dense.
 
2013-04-25 11:44:22 PM
Tinfoil tinfoil everywhere
But n'er a spud to bake

/FIFM
 
2013-04-25 11:44:46 PM

LoneDoggie: [img195.imageshack.us image 800x707]

Nope, nothing wrong with this at all citizen.  Might as well get used to it...

/ps for the hard of seeing, that dude is pointing a M4 at your face for daring to look out his/her window.
//doubleplusungood


Not only that, but it's apparently a soldier in a vehicle marked "Military Police"

Nope, anyone talking martial law or shades of it is a whacko.  Nothing to see here citizens, close your window and stay in your house.
 
2013-04-25 11:44:54 PM

401kman: With all of the guys in full body armor you think that they could have sent ONE guy into find out if the suspect is armed.

ShawnDoc: They were moving in to take a guy who they thought was armed and dangerous in the boat.


See, this is what I don't get. Under normal circumstances, they might have to send in a guy in body armor. But this wasn't normal circumstances... they had a frickin' Terminator:
www.abc.net.au
They had already sent the robotic arm - with a camera on the end, mind you - to pull the tarp open. At that point:
(i) they could use the camera to see if he was armed or wearing a suicide vest;
(ii) they could use the robot arm to poke him inna face multiple times to see if he's conscious;
(iii) they could use the robot arm to grab him by a leg and lift him up in the air and dangle him until he's unconscious;
(iv) they could smack him around with the robot arm, knowing that to get away, he'd have to climb out of the boat and expose himself to the cops.

So, wtf did they open fire at all? Unless taking him alive wasn't a goal, of course.
 
2013-04-25 11:45:26 PM
The scariest thing about this is how eager people are to declare the suspect an enemy combatant and whisk him off to a secret CIA holding facility to be waterboarded and summarily executed. Hell, on Fox News yesterday the token "liberal" was talking about restricting Muslims from entering the United States. How quickly people are willing to let fear control their lives and give up all the freedoms we supposedly love truly astounds me.
 
2013-04-25 11:46:24 PM

weasil: LoneDoggie: [img195.imageshack.us image 800x707]

Nope, nothing wrong with this at all citizen.  Might as well get used to it...

/ps for the hard of seeing, that dude is pointing a M4 at your face for daring to look out his/her window.
//doubleplusungood

So sick of this part of this shiat...  "that dude" is doing what would be expected in the situation, whether he's sitting in an armored vehicle or not. He is ready to deal with whatever comes his way. If there had been a sniper, and that dude got taken out because his weapon was not at the ready, people would be ragging on him for being incompetent.


Am I allowed to point my gun at people in case they might do something to me?  Is it OK for me to point guns at people so that people don't rag on me for being incompetent?
 
2013-04-25 11:47:13 PM

pedrop357: remus: Amos Quito: doyner: since the rules of engagement were "don't fire unless fired upon," obviously he was armed.


No one wants to be on the receiving end of hot lead.

Shoot first.

Answer the uncomfortable questions later.

Cops have been shot during traffic stops before. No one wants be on the receiving end of hot lead. So, shoot everyone in the car when they pull it over? Officer safety! Amiright?

THAT, well the variation of that, is the problem.  They exaggerate the risks to themselves, exaggerate the capabilities of their opponent, then treat everyone they encounter as an opponent while placing their safety above all else. This is a recipe for disaster and serious injury and death to anyone unlucky enough to be in range of them.


Well this very much may be the case however, in this instant that's complete bullshiat.

  Look at the facts on the ground well the situation is unfolding.  What did the officers know, two individuals deploying various IED's, more than likely had possibly killed one cop already.... car jacked one vehicle, they were armed.  So  in that situation any leo in their right mind is going to shoot first on those guys, they've proven they are a threat to live, property and the public.  Okay they'd give them one second or two to show hands before unleashing some rounds...

It's very simple to look back at situations and judge from a distance.  What you have to put yourself in the officers shoes at that time, in that situation with all those various factors in place at that moment.
 
2013-04-25 11:49:25 PM

whidbey: Because a suspected mass murder wannabe eluding capture isn't probable cause enough to go on a manhunt.


Not in my f*cking house, it isn't. If you have probable cause---not just reasonable suspicion--to believe the suspect is in my house, then sure, come on in. If you just happen to think he's somewhere in the neighborhood? Go f*ck yourself.
 
2013-04-25 11:50:30 PM

tmonsta: The scariest thing about this is how eager people are to declare the suspect an enemy combatant and whisk him off to a secret CIA holding facility to be waterboarded and summarily executed. Hell, on Fox News yesterday the token "liberal" was talking about restricting Muslims from entering the United States. How quickly people are willing to let fear control their lives and give up all the freedoms we supposedly love truly astounds me.


Because some remark made by a Fox News "token liberal" (lulz) is the Shot Heard Round The World II: Electric Boogaloo in your mind.
 
2013-04-25 11:50:38 PM

LoneDoggie: [img195.imageshack.us image 800x707]

Nope, nothing wrong with this at all citizen.  Might as well get used to it...

/ps for the hard of seeing, that dude is pointing a M4 at your face for daring to look out his/her window.
//doubleplusungood


Well here's what I know from listening from the police scanner on thursday and friday.  So 2 guys blew up bombs injuring what, 100-200 people?  Then they killed a cop, stole a vehicle and ran off.  Police confront them, 200-300 shots(quote from the residents there) are fired, putting holes in houses and furniture, ieds thrown, backpack dropped.  One brother gets run over as the other leaves.

Younger brother throws ieds as cops chase, pulling them back.  They send robots in to disarm the bombs and evacuate the area.  Where he is is unknown as well as what he has.

Now, clearly the most logical thing to do is to have every citizen walking around so that, if they confront the younger brother again, he can throw ieds at little johnny with his parents walking buy and have uncle Ross and cousin Bobby in the middle of a gun battle hit by a stray bullet, or have another bomb go off around a bunch of people.  And to top it all off, they should have just let him escape, why look for him?  If a terrorist can't run away without the cops keeping off my property, not even going inside, just searching the area, they are INFRINGING on my liberties.

I mean do they just stand around hoping he pops up with no more bombs?  Like maybe they advised everyone to stay inside to, you know, make sure they arn't in the middle of a friggin bomb and gun fight?  Or is it easier to pick out a 19 year old in a crowd of a thousand?

all I know is i'd like a few more details.  I mean we should know what he has in his gun cache when we don't even know if he's white or muslim.
 
2013-04-25 11:51:12 PM

sn82: His Sonshine: FTA: We already knew that Dzhokhar was a pothead..

But by all means let's legalize marijuana. So we get more of these kinds of things? No thanks.

You know you can get high without killing anybody, right?


I refuse to believe that!

/Goes back to a bowl and some videogames.
 
2013-04-25 11:52:10 PM

whidbey: Because a suspected mass murder wannabe eluding capture isn't probable cause enough to go on a manhunt.


It was more like a military invasion than a manhunt.    Putting that kind of ordinance in close contact with with civilians is more like something for a time of war.  Because the very real problem is that putting troops in with civilians will cause casualties.

In this case the police/fbi response was way overkill for the even the worst case projections of what heat the suspects were packing.
 
2013-04-25 11:52:19 PM

VerbalKentt: So  in that situation any leo in their right mind is going to shoot first on those guys, they've proven they are a threat to live, property and the public.  Okay they'd give them one second or two to show hands before unleashing some rounds..

It's very simple to look back at situations and judge from a distance. What you have to put yourself in the officers shoes at that time, in that situation with all those various factors in place at that moment.

The problem with them shooting first is that this makes it very possible that they will shoot people who merely look like these guys.  THAT is where my problem primarily lies.

In their shoes, I'm still not opening fire on anyone in the vicinity.  Just because a dispatcher says that a police vehicle was stolen, I'm not opening fire on a vehicle that is marked police just in case they're in there.

I may have to hide and assess things in order to avoid shooting the wrong people.  This is how good people do things.  They realize that they aren't the only ones that matter.  The police apparently don't do this.  They sure as hell don't put themselves in anyone else's shoes.
 
2013-04-25 11:52:26 PM

His Sonshine: FTA: We already knew that Dzhokhar was a pothead..

But by all means let's legalize marijuana. So we get more of these kinds of things? No thanks.


If them selling pot provided the funds for the bombs then legalizing it would have meant they would have had less money for bomb materials. So yeah, legalize away.
 
2013-04-25 11:52:35 PM

VerbalKentt: Look at the facts on the ground well the situation is unfolding. What did the officers know, two individuals deploying various IED's, more than likely had possibly killed one cop already.... car jacked one vehicle, they were armed. So in that situation any leo in their right mind is going to shoot first on those guys, they've proven they are a threat to live, property and the public. Okay they'd give them one second or two to show hands before unleashing some rounds...


Jesus. You really believe that, don't you? Just some food for thought here: we don't let our military behave this way in a war zone, but you're fine with it on American soil.
 
2013-04-25 11:53:28 PM

whidbey: Amos Quito: winchester92: I live in Watertown and tow for the state and local police, I towed one of the smashed and shot-up police cruisers from the scene of the shootout. It's incredible how much of the story the media got wrong. They also never mentioned the name of the boat. I know it because I have friends who know the owner personally, and we looked up the boat name in the Watertown Yacht Club directory. BTW, it's "Slip Away II". Is that freaky or what ??

"All the Federales say
They could have had him any day
They only let him Slip Away
Out of kindness, I suppose..."

You have a really unhealthy obsession with outlaws. Just saying. Protip: romanticizing lawbreakers doesn't make them innocent.



"Pancho needs your prayers it's true
But save a few for Whidbey too
He only did what he had to do
And now he's growing old..."


Whidbey = "Lefty"?

Who would have thought???

/Pass that bong,,,
 
2013-04-25 11:54:00 PM

jaytkay: ZOMG all the exact details were not known immediately in a chaotic situation!!!

UNPOSSIBLE!!!!


Yeah, in the chaos of "suspect already in custody" zero guns can accidentally be miscounted as three.

Cops are covering their asses because they farked up, stripped a neighbourhood of their fourth amendment rights to try and fix the problem, still couldn't find their guy, then overreacted when presented with an unarmed suspect who wasn't armed by that time.
 
2013-04-25 11:54:18 PM

TopoGigo: whidbey: Because a suspected mass murder wannabe eluding capture isn't probable cause enough to go on a manhunt.

Not in my f*cking house, it isn't. If you have probable cause---not just reasonable suspicion--to believe the suspect is in my house, then sure, come on in. If you just happen to think he's somewhere in the neighborhood? Go f*ck yourself.


Just referencing the 4th Amendment. And if you don't think probable cause was justified after an attempt at mass murder, then you are sorely mistaken.
 
2013-04-25 11:55:27 PM

TopoGigo: whidbey: Because a suspected mass murder wannabe eluding capture isn't probable cause enough to go on a manhunt.

Not in my f*cking house, it isn't. If you have probable cause---not just reasonable suspicion--to believe the suspect is in my house, then sure, come on in. If you just happen to think he's somewhere in the neighborhood? Go f*ck yourself.


They didn't search houses, they searched the yards.  They asked voluntarily to search houses, kinda like I can ask you to voluntarily suck a dick.
 
2013-04-25 11:56:35 PM

jaytkay: Those cops totally overreacted.

I know because 6 days later I have a much better understanding of what happened.



"Shiat happens" in the heat of the moment.

amitite?

Strangely, folks are often held accountable, regardless.

Aren't they?
 
2013-04-25 11:57:01 PM

401kman: Its amazing how many civil liberties people would be willing to give up not to have this happen.


The mistaken assumption of the 'more security' crowd is that safety can be achieved. There will always be crazy and violent people. Giving up freedom for the illusion of safety is a fools bargain.
 
2013-04-25 11:59:00 PM

Theaetetus: 401kman: With all of the guys in full body armor you think that they could have sent ONE guy into find out if the suspect is armed.
ShawnDoc: They were moving in to take a guy who they thought was armed and dangerous in the boat.

See, this is what I don't get. Under normal circumstances, they might have to send in a guy in body armor. But this wasn't normal circumstances... they had a frickin' Terminator:
[www.abc.net.au image 850x566]
They had already sent the robotic arm - with a camera on the end, mind you - to pull the tarp open. At that point:
(i) they could use the camera to see if he was armed or wearing a suicide vest;
(ii) they could use the robot arm to poke him inna face multiple times to see if he's conscious;
(iii) they could use the robot arm to grab him by a leg and lift him up in the air and dangle him until he's unconscious;
(iv) they could smack him around with the robot arm, knowing that to get away, he'd have to climb out of the boat and expose himself to the cops.

So, wtf did they open fire at all? Unless taking him alive wasn't a goal, of course.


I bet 90% of them didn't know why or what they were firing at.  Its called sympathetic fire, and it is dangerous as shiat in a neighborhood of a dense city.

Your points are all good.  I didn't even know they had a robot.  I knew they had helicopters with heat vision, tanks, apcs, and enough ordinance to hurt a small country.   Yes why the hell do you need to open fire if you can't even see the suspect.  Its like theses guys were creating areas of fire like in a war.
 
2013-04-25 11:59:02 PM

TheManofPA: Amos Quito: jaytkay: ZOMG all the exact details were not known immediately in a chaotic situation!!!

UNPOSSIBLE!!!!


When in doubt, make shiat up.

Chances are that MOST people will remember the made up shiat, and pay little mind to the pesky "details" as they trickle out anyway.

Kind of related, wonder how many people remember Richard Jewell as the Olympics bomber.


http://www.cracked.com/article_20284_5-horrifying-ways-universe-has- re paid-good-deeds.html

Waay too many. Poor fellow.
 
2013-04-26 12:00:07 AM

jaytkay: cameroncrazy1984: Is Boston-ghazi a scandal yet?

Here's an actual headline: "Republicans: Boston bombings reveal intel system still broken "

/ Not gonna link to that nonsense


I never would have figured the GOP to be AMD supporters.
 
2013-04-26 12:00:23 AM

401kman: whidbey: Because a suspected mass murder wannabe eluding capture isn't probable cause enough to go on a manhunt.

It was more like a military invasion than a manhunt.    Putting that kind of ordinance in close contact with with civilians is more like something for a time of war.  Because the very real problem is that putting troops in with civilians will cause casualties.

In this case the police/fbi response was way overkill for the even the worst case projections of what heat the suspects were packing.


Not seeing it. And I would have to say that after a horrible act of attempted mass murder that took place at the Marathon and the firefight in Watertown, anyone refusing to cooperate in the ensuing manhunt just ends up looking like a total asshole hampering an apprehension process.
 
2013-04-26 12:03:54 AM

TopoGigo: VerbalKentt: Look at the facts on the ground well the situation is unfolding. What did the officers know, two individuals deploying various IED's, more than likely had possibly killed one cop already.... car jacked one vehicle, they were armed. So in that situation any leo in their right mind is going to shoot first on those guys, they've proven they are a threat to live, property and the public. Okay they'd give them one second or two to show hands before unleashing some rounds...

Jesus. You really believe that, don't you? Just some food for thought here: we don't let our military behave this way in a war zone, but you're fine with it on American soil.


Yes you have a confirmed active shooter numb nutz.  Given a situation where an officer has the subject in front of them and he is the confirmed active shooter every single officer in the country has a right to neutralize that threat.  This is how our world works.  And how almost every single use of force policy is written in this country.

We don't let our military behave like that in a war zone?  You're high.  Many solders have opened fire on vehicles for not stopping at a road block, thinking it could have been a bomb laden car only to find they just shot a family.  Majority done with no repercussions.  So while your theory looks good on paper and in print in the real world the shiat just doesn't work that way.    Not saying that's right or correct but i'm not the one to judge their self preservation.
 
2013-04-26 12:04:07 AM

redsquid: 401kman: Its amazing how many civil liberties people would be willing to give up not to have this happen.

The mistaken assumption of the 'more security' crowd is that safety can be achieved. There will always be crazy and violent people. Giving up freedom for the illusion of safety is a fools bargain.


True, and even "sane" people get brain tumors and go crazy and kill people.  E.g. Charles Whitman.
These events cannot be prevented.

There is a massive amount of profiteering upon the notion of security....at the ultimate expense of our rights.
 
2013-04-26 12:05:46 AM

jaytkay: They had one gun?

Odds are the transit cop who was badly wounded in Watertown took some friendly fire.


Yeah, I said that in another thread. There was chatter over the scanner as they were transporting him to the hospital that alluded to him being hit by firendly fire.
 
2013-04-26 12:06:05 AM
www.charlock.org
 
2013-04-26 12:06:14 AM
Nobody is claiming the body (of the perp, Tamerlan), not even his wife.

Wow.  Deserved, absolutely, for his heinous acts, but wow.  He will end up being cremated and spread over the back lawn of some municipal site.  No tombstone, memorial service, etc.  Good.
 
2013-04-26 12:06:32 AM

Amos Quito: whidbey: Amos Quito: winchester92: I live in Watertown and tow for the state and local police, I towed one of the smashed and shot-up police cruisers from the scene of the shootout. It's incredible how much of the story the media got wrong. They also never mentioned the name of the boat. I know it because I have friends who know the owner personally, and we looked up the boat name in the Watertown Yacht Club directory. BTW, it's "Slip Away II". Is that freaky or what ??

"All the Federales say
They could have had him any day
They only let him Slip Away
Out of kindness, I suppose..."

You have a really unhealthy obsession with outlaws. Just saying. Protip: romanticizing lawbreakers doesn't make them innocent.


"Pancho needs your prayers it's true
But save a few for Whidbey too
He only did what he had to do
And now he's growing old..."


Whidbey = "Lefty"?

Who would have thought???

/Pass that bong,,,


More like "come up with actual arguments that aren't fueled by total kneejerk paranoid loathing of authority figures" but you clearly aren't up to the task.

Also, distracting from criticism of your unhealthy fantasies by shaming others' marijuana usage is equally disingenuous.
 
2013-04-26 12:07:38 AM

pedrop357: VerbalKentt: So  in that situation any leo in their right mind is going to shoot first on those guys, they've proven they are a threat to live, property and the public.  Okay they'd give them one second or two to show hands before unleashing some rounds...  It's very simple to look back at situations and judge from a distance. What you have to put yourself in the officers shoes at that time, in that situation with all those various factors in place at that moment.

The problem with them shooting first is that this makes it very possible that they will shoot people who merely look like these guys.  THAT is where my problem primarily lies.

In their shoes, I'm still not opening fire on anyone in the vicinity.  Just because a dispatcher says that a police vehicle was stolen, I'm not opening fire on a vehicle that is marked police just in case they're in there.

I may have to hide and assess things in order to avoid shooting the wrong people.  This is how good people do things.  They realize that they aren't the only ones that matter.  The police apparently don't do this.  They sure as hell don't put themselves in anyone else's shoes.


Maybe I should have been more clear shooting first when properly identifying this subject and he still fails to comply with a verbal command...then fark it he's identified, he's failing to comply, he's taken life, he has the possibility to take more life, a safe shot can be made then "shooting first" is completely justifiable given the totality of the circumstances.
 
2013-04-26 12:09:23 AM

Giltric: jaytkay: They had one gun?

Odds are the transit cop who was badly wounded in Watertown took some friendly fire.

Yeah, I said that in another thread. There was chatter over the scanner as they were transporting him to the hospital that alluded to him being hit by firendly fire.


Bullshiat.
 
2013-04-26 12:09:30 AM

links136: TopoGigo: whidbey: Because a suspected mass murder wannabe eluding capture isn't probable cause enough to go on a manhunt.

Not in my f*cking house, it isn't. If you have probable cause---not just reasonable suspicion--to believe the suspect is in my house, then sure, come on in. If you just happen to think he's somewhere in the neighborhood? Go f*ck yourself.

They didn't search houses, they searched the yards.  They asked voluntarily to search houses, kinda like I can ask you to voluntarily suck a dick.


If that's the case, I'm less upset. I still don't love that police can search my yard without probable cause or a warrant, but under extreme circumstances such as this I can accept it.  Based on the video posted a little upthread, though, it sure sounded like they weren't asking permission to search houses.
For the record, if given the choice between sucking a dick and getting my house searched by SWAT teams, I might just go for the dick. Both would disgust me and leave a bad taste in my mouth, but at least sucking a dick wouldn't feel so much like rape.
 
2013-04-26 12:09:56 AM

VerbalKentt: pedrop357: VerbalKentt: So  in that situation any leo in their right mind is going to shoot first on those guys, they've proven they are a threat to live, property and the public.  Okay they'd give them one second or two to show hands before unleashing some rounds...  It's very simple to look back at situations and judge from a distance. What you have to put yourself in the officers shoes at that time, in that situation with all those various factors in place at that moment.

The problem with them shooting first is that this makes it very possible that they will shoot people who merely look like these guys.  THAT is where my problem primarily lies.

In their shoes, I'm still not opening fire on anyone in the vicinity.  Just because a dispatcher says that a police vehicle was stolen, I'm not opening fire on a vehicle that is marked police just in case they're in there.

I may have to hide and assess things in order to avoid shooting the wrong people.  This is how good people do things.  They realize that they aren't the only ones that matter.  The police apparently don't do this.  They sure as hell don't put themselves in anyone else's shoes.

Maybe I should have been more clear shooting first when properly identifying this subject and he still fails to comply with a verbal command...then fark it he's identified, he's failing to comply, he's taken life, he has the possibility to take more life, a safe shot can be made then "shooting first" is completely justifiable given the totality of the circumstances.


i'm guessing they didn't want them alive so, you know, they could find out the extent of the plot.  Like if both of them died, think of how many conspiracy theories would be going around making them sound like they're the mob.
 
2013-04-26 12:10:19 AM

SirHolo: He will end up being cremated and spread over the back lawn of some municipal site.


They should use him for pothole filler on Boylston street at the finish line for next year's race. Let 40,000 pairs of shoes pound on his remains.
 
2013-04-26 12:10:53 AM

FormlessOne: take_flight: Talking fact based only...NO conspiracy theories...there's a bunch I don't like about the whole thing. All of this is just the tip of the iceberg. My questions started with the press conference the night of the capture. The very carefully chosen language got my attention, plus the fact that the whole bombing was really a huge failure compared to what they had reportedly planned. Then this kid ran like a scared jackrabbit, running his brother over in the process. They had virtually no set plan for after the bombing. I just don't get it. I guess acts of violence on this scale really shouldn't make sense, but this whole thing smacks of confusion, even on the part of law enforcement...except for the press conference.

Here are a couple of other questions:
- At least 3 other devices were found - who placed them? It's not like they were wearing multiple backpacks.
- Who firebombed the JFK Library?


Yeah I was wondering about that I thought there were 4 total they found.... Did they have 2 backpacks each?
 
2013-04-26 12:12:18 AM

Virulency: Yeah I was wondering about that I thought there were 4 total they found.... Did they have 2 backpacks each?


No, the other two turned out to just be abandoned backpacks. They asploded them to be safe, but it turned out they were normal.
 
2013-04-26 12:13:28 AM

Amos Quito: luxup: Just wondering something.  I was listening on the scanner that Friday and I remember after that first firefight someone was saying to make sure to load up on the rubber bullets.  I don't remember the exact words but he mentioned rubber bullets twice and I certainly had the impression they were not using live ammo.  I figured they wanted to get this guy alive.

Accepting that they were using rubber bullets instead of live ammo, could they have opened fire with the intent to incapacitate without killing thereby making his having a gun irrelevant?  If he had a gun or not (which it looks like he didn't at the time), could pelting him with rubber shots been a tactic to make him easier to approach?


Yeah, they were after assailant(s) that they believed just KILLED A COP.

I'm sure they were all about the "less than lethal" mentality.


/Think of Chris Dorner


How does any of that change that they were using rubber bullets?  Cops may have wanted to kill the kid, I'm sure many did not.  They are professionals not bloodthirsty thugs.
 
2013-04-26 12:14:42 AM

Dimensio: FormlessOne: - At least 3 other devices were found - who placed them? It's not like they were wearing multiple backpacks.

[citation needed]

- Who firebombed the JFK Library?

[citation needed]


There was a fire at the JFK library, it was just a fire, and unrelated to the marathon bombing. Initial press reports were that it was because of a bomb. Like most press that day, it was wrong, and soon retracted.

Just because some sociopaths blow up a public event doesn't mean all the usual accidents and emergencies stop happening.
 
2013-04-26 12:15:08 AM

His Sonshine: FTA: We already knew that Dzhokhar was a pothead..

But by all means let's legalize marijuana. So we get more of these kinds of things? No thanks.


You're missing the point.  They made their money to fund their terror by selling pot.  The DHS needs to start selling weed and cut out the terrorists opportunity for fundraising ... for the children!
 
2013-04-26 12:15:48 AM
Meh.  No tears for terrorists.
 
2013-04-26 12:16:16 AM

whidbey: TopoGigo: whidbey: Because a suspected mass murder wannabe eluding capture isn't probable cause enough to go on a manhunt.

Not in my f*cking house, it isn't. If you have probable cause---not just reasonable suspicion--to believe the suspect is in my house, then sure, come on in. If you just happen to think he's somewhere in the neighborhood? Go f*ck yourself.

Just referencing the 4th Amendment. And if you don't think probable cause was justified after an attempt at mass murder, then you are sorely mistaken.


Do you know what words mean? The courts have been fairly generous in their definitions of probable cause, both in the sense of the Fourth to justify a warrant, and in the broader sense of when police can skip getting a warrant due to exigent circumstances. Nowhere in the history of the judiciary has "something really, really bad happened, so we're going to search all the things" been said. This was not "hot pursuit" as defined by the courts. There was no active firefight. There was no immediate threat to life. There was no probable cause to search these houses without a warrant. It's doubtful there was even enough PC for a judge to issue warrants for all these houses. In short, THE POLICE CAN NOT BEHAVE THIS WAY IN AMERICA.
 
Displayed 50 of 424 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report