Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Apparently the Boston bomber suspect wasn't armed when he was fired upon

I just read an article that the bomber who holed up in a parked boat was unarmed. Is that even news worthy? He appears to be a legitimate suspect that bombed a public space killing and injuring people. Does it matter that he wasn't armed when he was running from law enforcement?


Although police feared he was heavily armed, the suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings 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 triggered the gunfire.

Video

Speaking at the memorial service of slain MIT police officer Sean Collier, who was killed while pursuing the Boston bombing suspects, Vice President Biden praised Collier as "a wonderful kid" and promised, “we will not yield to fear.”

Speaking at the memorial service of slain MIT police officer Sean Collier, who was killed while pursuing the Boston bombing suspects, Vice President Biden praised Collier as "a wonderful kid" and promised, “we will not yield to fear.”

Other law enforcement officials said the shooting may have been prompted by the chaos of the moment and some action that led the officers present 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.

by on Apr. 24, 2013 at 9:51 PM
Replies (11-20):
Veni.Vidi.Vici.
by on Apr. 24, 2013 at 10:26 PM
1 mom liked this


Quoting MeAndTommyLee:

It does matter if the first reports are true that  authorities were shooting at him while in the boat if he was unarmed. 

legally? Constitutionally?

Euphoric
by Bazinga! on Apr. 24, 2013 at 10:27 PM

 No

Veni.Vidi.Vici.
by on Apr. 24, 2013 at 10:28 PM


Quoting JoshRachelsMAMA:

I am a retired cop as many of you know. I wondered this immediately. If he did not fire first then there's a problem. We are not here to execute. I could see however, a well placed shot to the neck by ONE shooter in the event they thought he was wearing a suicide vest.

But, there's no evidence either way if he was definitively armed or not. Time will tell.

His brother died while driving a car they car jacked. One or both of them appeared to be armed during that chase. Is it not prudent to assume that the one that escaped is likely armed and dangerous? Just curious about your thoughts and opinions on the matter.

stacymomof2
by Ruby Member on Apr. 24, 2013 at 10:29 PM
6 moms liked this

I think since he was already involved in a shoot out I would think the officers could assume he was armed and dangerous.  

AlekD
by Gold Member on Apr. 24, 2013 at 10:29 PM
1 mom liked this
Thats what i was thinking too. Their priority was to try to take him alive so that he could be questioned and we could find out if he was part of a larger group or had other attacks planned. When they first approached the boat they shot at it, witnesses said there was a LOT of gunfire at the beginning of the encounter in the boat. Why did they start off by shooting at him if he wasnt shooting back and they wanted to take him alive? So now we know Tsarnaev was not only unarmed, but he was barely concious He didnt even flinch when they were tossing flashbang grenades into the boat.

I was following this story on reddit where people were updating with info from the police scanners every couple of seconds, Tsarnaev didnt seem to put up a fight at all in the boat. He was in and out of conciousness due to lack of blood the whole time. The most movement he made was sitting up at one point. I dont understand why they all opened fire on a kid who was weak to the point of death and who wasnt putting up a fight, when their goal was to arrest him alive.


*shrug* like you said. Time will tell.


Quoting JoshRachelsMAMA:

I am a retired cop as many of you know. I wondered this immediately. If he did not fire first then there's a problem. We are not here to execute. I could see however, a well placed shot to the neck by ONE shooter in the event they thought he was wearing a suicide vest.



But, there's no evidence either way if he was definitively armed or not. Time will tell.
MeAndTommyLee
by Gold Member on Apr. 24, 2013 at 10:30 PM
1 mom liked this

I had no idea that you are a retired cop.  Good to have you here with us, unscathed.  Anyway...if this young man was shot in the neck/throat as most news reports are claiming, how could he have hid for a lengthy  amount of time without  succumbing to that single shot and dying?  Why do I feel it makes more sense that he was shot at while inside the boat, and unarmed?  I have a problem with that  scenario because it does not seem as if authorities wanted to take him alive at all. 


Quoting JoshRachelsMAMA:

I am a retired cop as many of you know. I wondered this immediately. If he did not fire first then there's a problem. We are not here to execute. I could see however, a well placed shot to the neck by ONE shooter in the event they thought he was wearing a suicide vest.

But, there's no evidence either way if he was definitively armed or not. Time will tell.



JoshRachelsMAMA
by JRM on Apr. 24, 2013 at 10:49 PM
1 mom liked this
It is absolutely necessary to assume that he is armed and dangerous. With that said, there is a level of force that we go by.
You can't see the suspect, can't tell if he's armed or not and have not been fired upon (assuming) - then the barrage of bullets was wrong. They are lucky that innocent bystanders (if there were any) were not hurt because of the gunfire. Or that one of those rounds didn't go through a window of a house that was occupied.

Quoting Veni.Vidi.Vici.:Quoting JoshRachelsMAMA:I am a retired cop as many of you know. I wondered this immediately. If he did not fire first then there's a problem. We are not here to execute. I could see however, a well placed shot to the neck by ONE shooter in the event they thought he was wearing a suicide vest.

But, there's no evidence either way if he was definitively armed or not. Time will tell.His brother died while driving a car they car jacked. One or both of them appeared to be armed during that chase. Is it not prudent to assume that the one that escaped is likely armed and dangerous? Just curious about your thoughts and opinions on the matter.
FromAtoZ
by AllieCat on Apr. 25, 2013 at 1:18 AM
1 mom liked this

I would like to know why they fired the way they did.


autodidact
by Platinum Member on Apr. 25, 2013 at 1:29 AM
2 moms liked this


gee, sorry you lost your buddy. 

Quoting mommy2adandykid:

Bin Ladin wasn't armed either........that's typically how this government works






FromAtoZ
by AllieCat on Apr. 25, 2013 at 1:31 AM
2 moms liked this


Quoting mommy2adandykid:

Bin Ladin wasn't armed either........that's typically how this government works

Please, do take the time to futher explain  your comment.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)