Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Boston.com)   Boston police sergeant who distributed the Tsarnaev-arrest photos is relieved of duty for not allowing state legislators to release the photos and take all the credit   (boston.com) divider line 187
    More: Followup, Tsarnaev, Boston, state legislators, Boston magazine, Massachusetts State Police, American Justice, arrests  
•       •       •

5210 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jul 2013 at 10:03 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-19 10:36:27 AM  

nekom: Publikwerks: I love how ever single photo of the bomber, you can clearly make out the laser dot on his head.

And that's just the snipers.  Had he reached for something, I have no doubt he'd have well over 100 bullets in him.


Doubt very strongly that it was snipers with lasers. The entire point of being a sniper is not to be seen, a great way to tell the bad guy he's about to have a bad time would be to put a laser on him.
 
2013-07-19 10:36:27 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: You should read it, then the cover makes sense. It's a well written article about how a lone kid with all the blessings in the world has the rug pulled out from underneath him and his descent into extremism and paints a perfect picture on how easy it is for these groups to recruit disaffected youth towards their ill causes.


I might one day, I just really really really f*cking hate that magazine
 
2013-07-19 10:37:14 AM  

HideAndGoFarkYourself: Doubt very strongly that it was snipers with lasers. The entire point of being a sniper is not to be seen, a great way to tell the bad guy he's about to have a bad time would be to put a laser on him.


Yea snipers wouldn't use lasers
 
2013-07-19 10:38:20 AM  

WTF Indeed: Theaetetus: [Citation needed]. The only ones I've seen are after he was in custody, which doesn't contradict what I hypothesized above.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/18/us/gallery/tsarnaev-arrest/index.html? hp t=hp_t1


Tat'dGreaser: Theaetetus: WTF Indeed: Theaetetus: Either he's a vampire, or they shot him after he was in custody.

Or you know, that you can only see half of his neck and there are other pictures of him showing the gash on neck. But don't worry, I'm sure that won't hurt your police beating sexual fantasies.

[Citation needed]. The only ones I've seen are after he was in custody, which doesn't contradict what I hypothesized above.

[i.huffpost.com image 850x566]

There shut up


I don't see a gash on his neck there, do you?

Perhaps you both are confused about what I'm saying. I'm not saying he was entirely uninjured. I'm not saying he didn't have blood on his forehead. I'm not saying that his hand didn't have blood on it. I'm saying, specifically, that he doesn't appear to have a throat injury prior to being taken into custody. And that picture of yours certainly doesn't dispute that.

What's with this whole "you must believe every single word the authorities said or you're a derpy terrorist sympathizer" dichotomy? I expect that from WTF, but not you, Tat.
 
2013-07-19 10:39:03 AM  

Tat'dGreaser: I might one day, I just really really really f*cking hate that magazine


I share your hate, but set it aside yesterday and was pleasantly surprised.
 
2013-07-19 10:39:15 AM  
i141.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-19 10:39:27 AM  

Tat'dGreaser: I didn't really care about this whole outrage but a radio guy this morning made a good point, the other recent mass killers (Aurora theater, Sandy Hook) actually killed more people but they were never on the cover of Rolling Stone. Typically artists and actors are on the cover, a almost hero worship. Why does this kid get that treatment? Take away the headline and he looks like he's in an indie band. It just seems really odd that they'd choose to do so.

From what I hear though, the article is well written. I f*cking hate Rolling Stone so I'm holding my judgment until I read it myself.


This is notable because were talking about a kid who by all outward appearances was as normal and everyday as everyone else ended up radicalized without ever leaving U.S. soil.  Were not talking about someone who went to Syria or Lebanon or Afghanistan or Iraq or somewhere else and got convinced he should do this, this is someone who was by all appearances as normal as anyone else and ended up radicalized without leaving U.S. soil.

The "normalcy" of the picture drives that point home.

This is something that should terrify the living shiat out of anyone in this country and it is very worthy of a cover story.
 
2013-07-19 10:39:30 AM  

Tat'dGreaser: I didn't really care about this whole outrage but a radio guy this morning made a good point, the other recent mass killers (Aurora theater, Sandy Hook) actually killed more people but they were never on the cover of Rolling Stone. Typically artists and actors are on the cover, a almost hero worship. Why does this kid get that treatment? Take away the headline and he looks like he's in an indie band. It just seems really odd that they'd choose to do so.

From what I hear though, the article is well written. I f*cking hate Rolling Stone so I'm holding my judgment until I read it myself.



I think that's bullshiat. That is your (probably influenced by what you've already read or heard from others) opinion.
like it or not that is what he looked like. the rest you've applied to it yourself.

seemeggierun.com
 
2013-07-19 10:40:18 AM  

Tat'dGreaser: HideAndGoFarkYourself: Doubt very strongly that it was snipers with lasers. The entire point of being a sniper is not to be seen, a great way to tell the bad guy he's about to have a bad time would be to put a laser on him.

Yea snipers wouldn't use lasers


There was a cat in the yard, they love lasers.
 
2013-07-19 10:40:36 AM  

hardinparamedic: Theaetetus: [Citation needed]. The only ones I've seen are after he was in custody, which doesn't contradict what I hypothesized above.

Yes. He was shot after the police arrested him. That's why no one but random people on the internet have been saying that. Not his lawyer. Not him. Not anything.

[a.abcnews.com image 640x360]

See that green thing [being applied after the police arrested him]? That's an israeli trauma bandage. It's used for gunshot injuries. It's also being applied [after the police arrested him] to the side of his neck obscured by the shadow and shirt in your picture.


Again, maybe you're confused. I'm  not saying he had no throat injury. I'm suggesting that maybe it didn't occur as early as the police claim, and that appears to be supported by the pictures. The fact that he later had a throat injury doesn't in any way contradict what I'm saying.
 
2013-07-19 10:41:07 AM  

Theaetetus: I don't see a gash on his neck there, do you?


You enjoy the abuse you get from this thread, don't you? This is sexual for you.
 
2013-07-19 10:41:17 AM  

Theaetetus: Perhaps you both are confused about what I'm saying. I'm not saying he was entirely uninjured. I'm not saying he didn't have blood on his forehead. I'm not saying that his hand didn't have blood on it. I'm saying, specifically, that he doesn't appear to have a throat injury prior to being taken into custody. And that picture of yours certainly doesn't dispute that.


You're right! It all makes sense if you think about it! Obviously they shot him on the ground, hoping to eliminate is ability to speak so he couldn't tell the masses that this was a false flag operation by the CIA and Obama's PAC to force baseball parks around the country to play "Sweet Caroline" for two weeks.
 
2013-07-19 10:43:02 AM  

Theaetetus: Again, maybe you're confused. I'm  not saying he had no throat injury. I'm suggesting that maybe it didn't occur as early as the police claim, and that appears to be supported by the pictures. The fact that he later had a throat injury doesn't in any way contradict what I'm saying.


And now, a blast from the past. Your claim was that he was shot after he was taken into custody.I've asked you to cite proof for your claim. Even a statement from Tsaronev himself, or his lawyers. Multiple people are even providing you with photographic evidence to the contrary.

Stop attention whoring. Put up or shut up.
 
2013-07-19 10:43:21 AM  

skozlaw: MithrandirBooga: I still don't understand how the Rolling Stone glamourizes him.

Because American media has become so over-saturated with "analysts", pundits and other mostly useless talking heads that we're so accustomed to our "news" being presented in an opinion format that these sorts of things simply can no longer be viewed objectively by a large number of people.

There's nothing inherently wrong with the cover. It's a picture of Tsarnaev that he took and posted. It has been posted elsewhere. But because it's not tinted to make him look evil or doesn't have some negative slur plastered over it in huge font people are "outraged". If it doesn't make a bad man look bad, the "thinking" goes, it must mean it makes him look good because god knows it can't just be an objective image of a person as he appeared before we became aware of him.

The ridiculous poutrage over the Rolling Stone cover is an incredibly sad commentary on just how farked up most of this country has become when it comes to social and political news. There is no neutral position for facts in our media anymore. It really is the "with us or against us" mentality as applied to objective reporting and it's actually kind of scary.


Why doesn't Fark let me push the "Smart" button repeatedly for posts like this?
/Vote that sucker up!
 
2013-07-19 10:44:05 AM  

skozlaw: There's nothing inherently wrong with the cover. It's a picture of Tsarnaev that he took and posted. It has been posted elsewhere. But because it's not tinted to make him look evil or doesn't have some negative slur plastered over it in huge font people are "outraged". If it doesn't make a bad man look bad, the "thinking" goes, it must mean it makes him look good because god knows it can't just be an objective image of a person as he appeared before we became aware of him.


Here's the problem: it's one thing to do what RS did in 1970 and run a cover story on Charlie Manson, but back then Manson was the main story on the cover, with one other vague blurb about another story that you'd have to look inside to figure out. Like so.

www.mediabistro.com

If this had been what RS did with Tsarnaev there would've been no ethical problem, but instead they gave Tsarnaev the Tiger Beat treatment. They did tart up the photo a bit, like he's Taylor Swift or something, under the guise of improving its resolution, and then ran the sidebar trying to plug all the other stuff in their magazine. The cover treatment makes the Tsarnaev piece into just another entertainment story.

Look at it this way: how stupid would it have looked in 1970 if RS had run the Manson cover with a sidebar featuring John & Yoko talking macrobiotics, a Linda Ronstadt photo spread, and a preview of that hot new band Led Zeppelin?

/yes, linda ronstadt was unspeakably hot back in the day, but that's not the point
//and it won't be the point until i get to my bunk
 
2013-07-19 10:44:06 AM  

hardinparamedic: Theaetetus: I don't see a gash on his neck there, do you?


I can't respond to any of your points, and acknowledge that my picture doesn't show what I claimed it did, so I'm going to just insult you personally and hope no one notices.
 
2013-07-19 10:44:25 AM  

Theaetetus: I don't see a gash on his neck there, do you?

Perhaps you both are confused about what I'm saying. I'm not saying he was entirely uninjured. I'm not saying he didn't have blood on his forehead. I'm not saying that his hand didn't have blood on it. I'm saying, specifically, that he doesn't appear to have a throat injury prior to being taken into custody. And that picture of yours certainly doesn't dispute that.

What's with this whole "you must believe every single word the authorities said or you're a derpy terrorist sympathizer" dichotomy? I expect that from WTF, but not you, Tat.


Just because you don't see it in that picture doesn't mean it's not there. Plus look at the one where they are giving aid to him, they're treating any injury on his throat.

Me?!?! Dude I'm in the process of becoming a police officer
 
2013-07-19 10:45:47 AM  

Tat'dGreaser: Just because you don't see it in that picture doesn't mean it's not there. Plus look at the one where they are giving aid to him, they're treating any injury on his throat.

Me?!?! Dude I'm in the process of becoming a police officer


Don't let facts and logic get in the way of a good tinfoiling! Run away from the light of common sense!
 
2013-07-19 10:45:51 AM  

Skarekrough: The "normalcy" of the picture drives that point home.

This is something that should terrify the living shiat out of anyone in this country and it is very worthy of a cover story.


Hey I said that I frankly don't care about the cover photo, just repeating what someone said.

Those other mass killers also should scare the sh*t out of you since no one seemed to see them coming. That's their point
 
2013-07-19 10:46:00 AM  

ipsofacto: better RS cover?
[cdn.bostonmagazine.com image 850x566]

cdn.bostonmagazine.com


shiatter's full....
 
2013-07-19 10:46:26 AM  

hardinparamedic: Theaetetus: Again, maybe you're confused. I'm  not saying he had no throat injury. I'm suggesting that maybe it didn't occur as early as the police claim, and that appears to be supported by the pictures. The fact that he later had a throat injury doesn't in any way contradict what I'm saying.

And now, a blast from the past. Your claim was that he was shot after he was taken into custody.I've asked you to cite proof for your claim. Even a statement from Tsaronev himself, or his lawyers. Multiple people are even providing you with photographic evidence to the contrary.

Stop attention whoring. Put up or shut up.


Maybe the double negative of "I'm  not saying he had  no throat injury" confused you? Allow me to help: I'm suggesting that the cops gave him the throat injury after he was taken into custody. Proof of this is the picture from before he was taken into custody that appears to show an uninjured throat, and the picture after he was taken into custody that shows them applying a trauma bandage to his throat. No one has shown any pictures other than those two, so stop trying to claim otherwise.
 
2013-07-19 10:46:32 AM  
My oldest son said that Adidas tracksuits were so common on the bad guys in Afghanistan that it almost seemed like a uniform.

The picture reminded me of that.
 
2013-07-19 10:47:16 AM  

Theaetetus: hardinparamedic: Theaetetus: I don't see a gash on his neck there, do you?

I can't respond to any of your points, and acknowledge that my picture doesn't show what I claimed it did, so I'm going to just insult you personally and hope no one notices.


I just responded to your points. Other FARKers have posted pictures which directly contradict what you claim.

i.huffpost.com
a.abcnews.com

"If personally insulting you" is calling your argument ludacris and asking you to back up your claim by even one statement from Tsaronev himself is impossible, then yes. I am insulting you, cupcake.
 
2013-07-19 10:47:16 AM  

WTF Indeed: Don't let facts and logic get in the way of a good tinfoiling! Run away from the light of common sense!


I'm all for a good crazy-as-f*ck conspiracy theory, but come on!

How about the fact that the only injury he has is the one he gave himself? Boston PD needs to go back to the gun range
 
2013-07-19 10:47:18 AM  

Tat'dGreaser: Me?!?! Dude I'm in the process of becoming a police officer


Watch out, Tat'd. Theaetetus might add you to his police beating fantasies now.
 
2013-07-19 10:47:57 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: Tat'dGreaser: Take away the headline and he looks like he's in an indie band. It just seems really odd that they'd choose to do so.
From what I hear though, the article is well written. I f*cking hate Rolling Stone so I'm holding my judgment until I read it myself.

You should read it, then the cover makes sense. It's a well written article about how a lone kid with all the blessings in the world has the rug pulled out from underneath him and his descent into extremism and paints a perfect picture on how easy it is for these groups to recruit disaffected youth towards their ill causes.


Drew, some Farker's trying to make sense and have a well-reasoned discussion over here!

/Mama just told on you.
 
2013-07-19 10:48:22 AM  

WTF Indeed: Watch out, Tat'd. Theaetetus might add you to his police beating fantasies now.


STOP RESISTING
 
2013-07-19 10:49:01 AM  

rubi_con_man: Aarontology: Maybe because that cop had a camera in his hands and not his gun

... meaning he was brave enough to be in the presence of an armed, desperate cop-killer without the ability to defend himself? Yeah, sounds like a really big pussy there...


He was unarmed in the boat.
 
2013-07-19 10:49:33 AM  

WTF Indeed: Theaetetus: Perhaps you both are confused about what I'm saying. I'm not saying he was entirely uninjured. I'm not saying he didn't have blood on his forehead. I'm not saying that his hand didn't have blood on it. I'm saying, specifically, that he doesn't appear to have a throat injury prior to being taken into custody. And that picture of yours certainly doesn't dispute that.

You're right! It all makes sense if you think about it! Obviously they shot him on the ground, hoping to eliminate is ability to speak so he couldn't tell the masses that this was a false flag operation by the CIA and Obama's PAC to force baseball parks around the country to play "Sweet Caroline" for two weeks.


Or someone twitched as he was climbing off the boat and shot him in the throat, and rather than face any questions over whether the cops should've had their fingers off their triggers, the official story became that he tried to commit suicide on the boat.

But hey, forget Occam's Razor or logic or what you see with your own eyes in that picture of him climbing off the boat. It's much better to simply accept that that's all a lie and what the authorities have said is completely true in every aspect. Because otherwise the terrorists win or something.
 
2013-07-19 10:50:28 AM  
Can't recall; was there any butthurt about this?
www.washingtonpost.com
 
2013-07-19 10:50:32 AM  
much butthurt over nothing. I find it rather silly myself. Evil doesn't always look like a monster. That's the lesson to be learned here.
 
2013-07-19 10:52:01 AM  

Skarekrough: rubi_con_man: Aarontology: Maybe because that cop had a camera in his hands and not his gun

... meaning he was brave enough to be in the presence of an armed, desperate cop-killer without the ability to defend himself? Yeah, sounds like a really big pussy there...

Being "brave" is a small consolation when my taxes have to pay his medical records when he takes a bullet in the line of duty because he couldn't put down the Nikon.

As a Bostonian I wanted to know every goddamned armed person on that scene had their gun drawn and was ready to pull the trigger if he was wired to blow or put another person in danger....not document it for "posterity."  He's a farking cop....not Ansel Adams.  We pay him to do a job that does NOT involve taking pics.


Perhaps if you read the article:
"The pictures, taken by Sergeant Sean Murphy, a State Police tactical photographer"....

Sounds to me like he WAS doing his job.
 
2013-07-19 10:52:45 AM  

hardinparamedic: Theaetetus: hardinparamedic: Theaetetus: I don't see a gash on his neck there, do you?

I can't respond to any of your points, and acknowledge that my picture doesn't show what I claimed it did, so I'm going to just insult you personally and hope no one notices.

I just responded to your points. Other FARKers have posted pictures which directly contradict what you claim.

[i.huffpost.com image 850x566]
[a.abcnews.com image 640x360]


Showing a picture from  after he was taken into custody does not contradict the possibility that he was injured while in custody. I really don't understand why you can't admit that. It's like you don't understand the passage of time: things that occur later in time do not retroactively change things that occurred earlier. Stop watching Primer.
 
2013-07-19 10:53:00 AM  
ADIDAS means "All Day I Dream About Sex"
 
2013-07-19 10:54:08 AM  

Tat'dGreaser: IdBeCrazyIf: You should read it, then the cover makes sense. It's a well written article about how a lone kid with all the blessings in the world has the rug pulled out from underneath him and his descent into extremism and paints a perfect picture on how easy it is for these groups to recruit disaffected youth towards their ill causes.

I might one day, I just really really really f*cking hate that magazine


You are Courtney Love? Or the bus driver that killed Cliff Burton?
 
2013-07-19 10:54:17 AM  

Gulper Eel: The cover treatment makes the Tsarnaev piece into just another entertainment story.


I have no comment on the actual quality of RS's reporting, I'm just saying that the reason people are so pissy about it is because it isn't presented in the form of an opinion they agree with. God forbid he should look anything like a decent human being, because clearly the ONLY way he ever looked was like a monster.

As for the bookending with the other stories and the image manipulation, that's just how the media works these days. I'm just pointing out what I think the problem is that leads to the whining, I'm not saying Rolling Stone isn't a part of it.
 
2013-07-19 10:54:41 AM  

Theaetetus: Or someone twitched as he was climbing off the boat and shot him in the throat, and rather than face any questions over whether the cops should've had their fingers off their triggers, the official story became that he tried to commit suicide on the boat.


Well if I remember correctly, the whole thing happened live on tv right? If an officer "twitched" and shot him, other officers would respond by shooting considering how high the tension was.

A lot of attempted suicides do not end with the person succeeding. He was probably nervous, not fully committed in doing it. Those make more sense then one round just barely hitting his throat when they fired a couple hundred rounds earlier and hit nothing.
 
2013-07-19 10:54:56 AM  

Tat'dGreaser: Theaetetus: I don't see a gash on his neck there, do you?

Perhaps you both are confused about what I'm saying. I'm not saying he was entirely uninjured. I'm not saying he didn't have blood on his forehead. I'm not saying that his hand didn't have blood on it. I'm saying, specifically, that he doesn't appear to have a throat injury prior to being taken into custody. And that picture of yours certainly doesn't dispute that.

What's with this whole "you must believe every single word the authorities said or you're a derpy terrorist sympathizer" dichotomy? I expect that from WTF, but not you, Tat.

Just because you don't see it in that picture doesn't mean it's not there. Plus look at the one where they are giving aid to him, they're treating any injury on his throat.


Yes, they are. They quite clearly are treating an injury on his throat, at time Y. However, the first picture of him coming off the boat, at earlier time X, does not appear to show an injury. Therefore, something must have happened between X and Y, right?
 
2013-07-19 10:55:05 AM  

mama2tnt: Drew, some Farker's trying to make sense and have a well-reasoned discussion over here!


But it's too early to start drinking

Tat'dGreaser: STOP RESISTING


Watch out, keep it up and you send Theaetetus into orgasm
 
2013-07-19 10:55:09 AM  
I love the manufactured outrage. Rolling Stone took the best photo they could find and ran with it. Do you think they sat around saying "Hmmm, no, no. We need to have a worse photo that's more smudged so it looks like it was taken by a three-year-old using an old phone."

His outrage that anyone who has ever been in a uniform should be offended by the Rolling Stone cover is weird. I think this is pretend outrage over a non-issue.
 
2013-07-19 10:55:30 AM  

Theaetetus: WTF Indeed: Theaetetus: Perhaps you both are confused about what I'm saying. I'm not saying he was entirely uninjured. I'm not saying he didn't have blood on his forehead. I'm not saying that his hand didn't have blood on it. I'm saying, specifically, that he doesn't appear to have a throat injury prior to being taken into custody. And that picture of yours certainly doesn't dispute that.

You're right! It all makes sense if you think about it! Obviously they shot him on the ground, hoping to eliminate is ability to speak so he couldn't tell the masses that this was a false flag operation by the CIA and Obama's PAC to force baseball parks around the country to play "Sweet Caroline" for two weeks.

Or someone twitched as he was climbing off the boat and shot him in the throat, and rather than face any questions over whether the cops should've had their fingers off their triggers, the official story became that he tried to commit suicide on the boat.

But hey, forget Occam's Razor or logic or what you see with your own eyes in that picture of him climbing off the boat. It's much better to simply accept that that's all a lie and what the authorities have said is completely true in every aspect. Because otherwise the terrorists win or something.


I'd trust authorities that have been known to lie once in awhile over a raving lunatic transparently scrambling to make up their own narratives.
 
2013-07-19 10:57:44 AM  

big pig peaches: He was "relieved of duty for one day".

Sounds more like an atta-boy than an actual punishment.


Hell, he gets a long weekend out of the deal.
 
2013-07-19 10:58:03 AM  

Gulper Eel: skozlaw: There's nothing inherently wrong with the cover. It's a picture of Tsarnaev that he took and posted. It has been posted elsewhere. But because it's not tinted to make him look evil or doesn't have some negative slur plastered over it in huge font people are "outraged". If it doesn't make a bad man look bad, the "thinking" goes, it must mean it makes him look good because god knows it can't just be an objective image of a person as he appeared before we became aware of him.

Here's the problem: it's one thing to do what RS did in 1970 and run a cover story on Charlie Manson, but back then Manson was the main story on the cover, with one other vague blurb about another story that you'd have to look inside to figure out. Like so.



If this had been what RS did with Tsarnaev there would've been no ethical problem, but instead they gave Tsarnaev the Tiger Beat treatment. They did tart up the photo a bit, like he's Taylor Swift or something, under the guise of improving its resolution, and then ran the sidebar trying to plug all the other stuff in their magazine. The cover treatment makes the Tsarnaev piece into just another entertainment story.

Look at it this way: how stupid would it have looked in 1970 if RS had run the Manson cover with a sidebar featuring John & Yoko talking macrobiotics, a Linda Ronstadt photo spread, and a preview of that hot new band Led Zeppelin?

/yes, linda ronstadt was unspeakably hot back in the day, but that's not the point
//and it won't be the point until i get to my bunk


"improving its resolution".. did you write for CSI?
 
2013-07-19 10:59:09 AM  

Skarekrough: Tat'dGreaser: I didn't really care about this whole outrage but a radio guy this morning made a good point, the other recent mass killers (Aurora theater, Sandy Hook) actually killed more people but they were never on the cover of Rolling Stone. Typically artists and actors are on the cover, a almost hero worship. Why does this kid get that treatment? Take away the headline and he looks like he's in an indie band. It just seems really odd that they'd choose to do so.

From what I hear though, the article is well written. I f*cking hate Rolling Stone so I'm holding my judgment until I read it myself.

This is notable because were talking about a kid who by all outward appearances was as normal and everyday as everyone else ended up radicalized without ever leaving U.S. soil.  Were not talking about someone who went to Syria or Lebanon or Afghanistan or Iraq or somewhere else and got convinced he should do this, this is someone who was by all appearances as normal as anyone else and ended up radicalized without leaving U.S. soil.

The "normalcy" of the picture drives that point home.

This is something that should terrify the living shiat out of anyone in this country and it is very worthy of a cover story.


He was born in Europe. He has definitely been outside of USA
 
2013-07-19 11:02:13 AM  
Anyone who is getting there cultural and politcal news or reporting from Rolling Stone needs to get that pony tail cut off their head and grow up.
 
2013-07-19 11:02:26 AM  

These would have been better cover photos.

And this will be the second time today I've agreed the cop did nothing wrong.

 
2013-07-19 11:03:45 AM  

Tat'dGreaser: Theaetetus: Or someone twitched as he was climbing off the boat and shot him in the throat, and rather than face any questions over whether the cops should've had their fingers off their triggers, the official story became that he tried to commit suicide on the boat.

Well if I remember correctly, the whole thing happened live on tv right?


Nope... the press was well back, about two blocks away from the yard with the boat. There were a bunch of live shots of media standing around behind a police line, looking at twitter on their phones. No one could directly see what happened in that yard.

If an officer "twitched" and shot him, other officers would respond by shooting considering how high the tension was.

Yep, and right before they said he was in custody, there were multiple shots heard on the TV feeds. At the time, we all thought they were filling the boat full of lead.

A lot of attempted suicides do not end with the person succeeding. He was probably nervous, not fully committed in doing it. Those make more sense then one round just barely hitting his throat when they fired a couple hundred rounds earlier and hit nothing.

Of course, if so, then he would've had a gun on the boat.
 
2013-07-19 11:09:11 AM  

Gulper Eel: skozlaw: There's nothing inherently wrong with the cover. It's a picture of Tsarnaev that he took and posted. It has been posted elsewhere. But because it's not tinted to make him look evil or doesn't have some negative slur plastered over it in huge font people are "outraged". If it doesn't make a bad man look bad, the "thinking" goes, it must mean it makes him look good because god knows it can't just be an objective image of a person as he appeared before we became aware of him.

Here's the problem: it's one thing to do what RS did in 1970 and run a cover story on Charlie Manson, but back then Manson was the main story on the cover, with one other vague blurb about another story that you'd have to look inside to figure out. Like so.

[www.mediabistro.com image 358x482]

If this had been what RS did with Tsarnaev there would've been no ethical problem, but instead they gave Tsarnaev the Tiger Beat treatment. They did tart up the photo a bit, like he's Taylor Swift or something, under the guise of improving its resolution, and then ran the sidebar trying to plug all the other stuff in their magazine. The cover treatment makes the Tsarnaev piece into just another entertainment story.

Look at it this way: how stupid would it have looked in 1970 if RS had run the Manson cover with a sidebar featuring John & Yoko talking macrobiotics, a Linda Ronstadt photo spread, and a preview of that hot new band Led Zeppelin?

/yes, linda ronstadt was unspeakably hot back in the day, but that's not the point
//and it won't be the point until i get to my bunk


Not to mention the Manson photo properly portrays him as a horror villain. If RS really wanted him on the cover they could have had their graphics people do something with false color to emphasize that they weren't suggesting this kid is somehow a sexy, misunderstood philosopher who was led into too-deep waters by his big brother and our cruel, cruel, Islamophobic society.
 
2013-07-19 11:10:50 AM  

skozlaw: The ridiculous poutrage over the Rolling Stone cover is an incredibly sad commentary on just how farked up most of this country has become when it comes to social and political news. There is no neutral position for facts in our media anymore. It really is the "with us or against us" mentality as applied to objective reporting and it's actually kind of scary.


This.  The only people that partisans attack harder than their opponents are the neutral and objective folks.  It's basic animal instinct; lions don't chase the antelope furthest from them, they go for the ones they think they can catch.
 
2013-07-19 11:11:18 AM  

HideAndGoFarkYourself: nekom: Publikwerks: I love how ever single photo of the bomber, you can clearly make out the laser dot on his head.

And that's just the snipers.  Had he reached for something, I have no doubt he'd have well over 100 bullets in him.

Doubt very strongly that it was snipers with lasers. The entire point of being a sniper is not to be seen, a great way to tell the bad guy he's about to have a bad time would be to put a laser on him.


Police / SWAT have sharpshooters, not snipers. Either way, they'll turn your head into a canoe ("Tombstone").
 
Displayed 50 of 187 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report