Boston bomb investigators kill Florida man (page 9)

sammielee24

A guy is believed to be involved in a 2 year old crime and apparently knew one of the Boston bombers.

He is interrogated in the presence of at least 6 armed officers - perhaps more. FBI; State and local police just 2 days before he was to fly out of the country.

He reportedly had pen in hand ready to sign a declaration of his guilt to the two year old crime when he attacked one of the guys with a knife.

He was shot and killed.

Hmmmmmmmm......not buying it whatsoever.

A suspect is put in a submissive position when 'questioned'....they are ususally sitting and would have been checked for any weapons. If there was a knife used one has to ask - was it the victim that actually used it or someone else in order to cover up the fact the victim was shot first? Too many open doors in this one - most importantly, the fact that you had at least half a dozen armed police with a guy you were interrogating for past murders and you a) let your suspect keep his knife b) you didn't check for weapons and c) you were so lazy and inept you didn't have your tazer or baton ready to strike if he moved?

Something doesn't sound right...sammieswife

Marvin Shilmer

-

“The cops didn't know if the guy in the boat had a bomb? They should've just asked the guy who owned the boat - after all, he walked up, lifted the tarp and oh my goodness! He looked inside.”

sammieswife,

The guy who looked under the tarp is not said to have inspected the boat. How was he to know whether there was a bomb under the suspect, or somewhere else inside or outside the boat? How was he to know whether the known bomber had a remote detonator?

They guy who looked under the tarp could only tell law enforcement what he observed. I don’t think he was in a position to know whether there were bombs inside or outside the boat he had not observed. As far as I can tell, the guy did not hang around and make a thorough inspection.

“He did it without firing 100 rounds into the boat first.”

He was lucky he was not killed. A good guess is that had he known the perp was in his boat he’d never have risked walking up to it as he did, and for the very reason of danger from high explosives.

“From what the boat owner said - there was blood on the boat. This indicates an injury.”

So what? Injured people kill other folks all the time.

“The man was lying prone in the boat - he didnt' rise up and shoot, or scream, or beg or plead.”

And what position does a person take if they want to take others out by surprise with high explosives?

“He was obviously out of it and injured.”

Soldiers waiting in ambush have been known to fall asleep. Apparently you haven’t considered that possibility.

“If you wanted to take a guy alive - you wouldn't shoot 100 rounds into a boat with an injured guy was lying.”

Taking a known bomber alive was not the only priority. A higher priority was keeping law enforcement officials alive.

“Then if you really wanted to tell the truth - you wouldn't go on national television and say the suspect shot himself in the throat trying to avoid capture - and then come out and acknowledge in public that there was no gun in the boat and thus the suspect could not have shot himself in the throat.”

I don’t know anything about when the bomber was shot specifically in the throat. My understanding is that he was initially wounded in the earlier shootout when his brother was killed. Whether this was intentionally or accidentally self-inflicted, or whether he was wounded by police fire I have no idea.

“Any wonder why nobody is buying so many statements made by officials?”

You’d have to ask those folks about that. It’s fallacious to decide a matter based on the number of skeptics.

Marvin Shilmer

minimus

C'mon folks, you know the government would never say or do anything underhanded . If there's any monkey business, we can be assured that President Obama will get to the bottom of it.

soontobe

We have a nice little conspiracy theory mushrooming up on this thread, don't we?

It could be right, it could be wrong. All I am saying is that if the reported events are accurate, then law enforcement was justified in using deadly force.

Notice I said "IF".

However, if the reports aren't painting the whole truth, it is a totally different ballgame.

You folks should know me by now. Like you, I don't trust the U.S. government either. Look at the IRS and Benghazi scandals.

Simon you have locked down these threads but the rot is deep in the Federal government. I wonder why you take such a dim view of criticism of government's inolvement with the IRS/Benghazi conspiracies (and they WERE a conspiracies, they meet the textbook definition of the word) but not of a possible conspiracy to make the individuals and the accessories alleged to be behind the Boston massacre unable to talk? Hmmm? That seems awful selective to me. Maybe you can clarify if you feel so inclined.

Simon

Because the IRS/Benghazi rabble don't really give a shit about the incidents themselves, they just want to use them as a way to continue partisanship and they are interspersed with birther nonsense so get locked.

Things like this are much more insidious to me - how law enforcement can treat anyone in their home is core to the US surely? If they can effectively enter anyone's home and assassinate someone with no enquiry (oh, the FBI get to investigate the FBI ... I'm sure they'll say they have done an outstanding job) and then a media blitz to paint them how they want and assign them to crimes we haven't been given any evidence they are linked to. Confessions are the weakest of 'evidence' and shouldn't be admissible IMO.

That some political groups took longer to get passed for charitable status? The only outrage there is that they ever get charitable status. But that's just taxation, nothing worth having a revolution for.

soontobe

Because the IRS/Benghazi rabble don't really give a shit about the incidents themselves, they just want to use them as a way to continue partisanship and they are interspersed with birther nonsense so get locked.

Doesn't matter Simon. If the party in power abuses that power, of course their political opponents are going to use that. It doesn't change what they did however. It doesn't change how screwed up it is. And lying to the country and using the tax collection agency is seriously screwed up.

And if birthers come on and start talking about that, why ruin the thread for everyone else? Those are off topic comments.

That some political groups took longer to get passed for charitable status? The only outrage there is that they ever get charitable status.

But the law states that charitable status can be given. You may disagree with that, and that is fine, but that is the law. And the law is supposed to be fairly applied to all. Not applied only to some and not to others. And that is what the scandal consists of.

But that's just taxation, nothing worth having a revolution for.

Lulz. Tweaking the American Revolution Simon?

Marvin Shilmer

-

“If they can effectively enter anyone's home and assassinate someone with no enquiry…”

Simon,

Hold the phone!

- Who says there’s been an assassination, as though that's the issue in need of discussion?

- Who says there is no inquiry other than by FBI authorities, as though that's the issue in need of discussion?

Otherwise, I’ve not read anyone in this discussion holding a view that law enforcement should be able to assassinate citizens in their homes without external investigation. Have you?

Marvin Shilmer

-

“Confessions are the weakest of 'evidence' and shouldn't be admissible IMO.”

Simon,

Shouldn't be admissable? Are you kidding!?

In my world anything said to law enforcement officials by individuals during the course of an investigation is evidence that if relevant and legally obtained should be produced for whatever it is.

The idea that confessions are the weakest of evidence is, I think, a patently absurd notion.

Marvin Shilmer

minimus

When I read Simon's opinions, all I can say is that he should be happy that nobody can censor the drivel. So opionated and clearly without all the facts!

Like I said, Yes, they killed a Florida man who was said to be involved in murders. And???? YOU can't prove they didn't have just cause. So, what's the point of your thread?

sammielee24

Like I said - people don't believe all they hear any more...the boat suspect never returned any fire. He couldn't have. He didn't have a gun in the boat with him. The police however told the public that they had a gun battle with the suspect - never happened. So when a group of 6-10 armed officers tell me that one guy being questioned by them has just suddenly found a knife and went for a cop - I would have to think back to believing the original story of a gunfight that was later acknowledged as impossible. sammieswife

---

Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis told reporters that they were notified about the possible presence of the suspect by a man who stepped outside after staying inside all day. The man walked outside and saw blood on the boat. He then opened the tarp and saw a man inside covered in blood, Davis said.

"He retreated and called us," Davis told reporters at a news conference after the announcement that the suspect was in custody. He said police set up a perimeter around the boat, and "over the course of the next hour or so, we exchanged gunfire with the suspect who was inside the boat."

Davis said he didn't know if the suspect had been wounded in the gunfire exchange or the night earlier.

Boston bomb investigators kill Florida man

Share this