He had no gun?

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 07:54 PM
link   
OK ATS, please help me undertand what is going on here:

The authorities are reporting that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was unarmed when captured and no gun was found on the boat.

4/25 -Report: Boston bombing suspect had no gun when captured

Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev had no gun when police fired on a boat where he had been hiding Friday before his capture, federal law enforcement officials told The Washington Post. The report undercuts initial accounts that the 19-year-old university student was heavily armed, had shot at police and possibly had an explosive device.

www.usatoday.com...

Then there was this from April 19th.


"Over the course of the next hour or so we exchanged gunfire with the suspect, who was inside the boat, and ultimately the hostage rescue team of the F.B.I. made an entry into the boat and removed the suspect, who was still alive,” Mr. Davis said. He said the suspect was in “serious condition” and had apparently been wounded in the gunfight that left his brother dead.

www.nytimes.com...

They had a gun battle for an hour. That's a long time to have a shootout with a wounded guy lying in a boat with nowhere to go. What were they shooting at exactly?

I guess they were trying to kill him and not take him alive after all. The boat was destroyed from all the bullet holes and not one single bullet came from the bomber. I was wondering how a 19 year old kid was putting up such a fierce gun battle against a well-trained swat team. It smells like BS in here.


Police opened fire on a powerboat owned by Henneberry, 65, a resident of Watertown, Mass., after he called in the tip that bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, was hiding in it. Henneberry had noticed blood on the normally pristine vessel on a trailer in his back yard. After officers captured the suspect, the boat was left riddled with bullet holes.

www.onlinesentinel.com...

edit on 4/25/2013 by Erasurehead because: sp




posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Erasurehead
 


He had a gun when he left the shootout with the police in Laurel street....maybe the news reported was wrong at the time.

Would you approach someone who was heavily armed and was in possession of pipe bombs earlier that night? Or would you assume he was still armed and dangerous?

I know had i been an officer at the scene i would have took no chances and assumed him still armed. Maybe this is where the confusion lays?

Also to add from the first link you posted


One law enforcement official described the final chaotic 30 minutes as the "fog of war," saying that an accidental shot may have caused other officers to begin firing.
"Law enforcement was placed in an extraordinarily dangerous situation," FBI spokesman Paul Bresson told the Post. "They were dealing with an individual who is alleged to have been involved in the bombings at the Boston Marathon. As if that's not enough, there were indications of a carjacking, gunfire, an ambushed police officer and bombs thrown earlier. In spite of these extraordinary factors, they were able to capture this individual alive with no further harm to law enforcement. It was a tremendously effective outcome under dire circumstances."

edit on 25-4-2013 by AmberLeaf because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-4-2013 by AmberLeaf because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 08:11 PM
link   
accidental ...may have.....

I wonder how that plays out in reverse;
oh soory officer, it went off into your throat while I was cleaning it...
oooopsi

yep, nothing to see here, move along folks move along



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by AmberLeaf
 


They knew he was in boat and was trapped, he was not escaping. They said they wanted to take him alive, so why continue to fire at the boat when there was no immediate danger to them? Nobody was shooting at the police. Law enforcement officers I know are trained to fire their weapons only when there is an immediate threat to them or bystanders.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Erasurehead
 


You just answered your own questions.

If - IF - as one officer said, they thought he had shot from the boat, and other officers had returned fire, given that they were unsure if he was intent on blowing himself up or whatever, then what do you think they'd do?

Now think back to the footage of the shootout... not a lot of common sense there when they're firing shot after shot in a tit for tat shootout. Loads of ammo shot in that time frame and not a lot of accuracy.

But rather than think about it, lets all just assume he's innocent, and the bogey man was there to make sure he got killed or something. I dunno, it's being made up as we go by some people.

Oh yes and the "Lets move on nothing to see here guffaw guffaw" that we've grown to groan and love.


Poor little Chechen lads, only ever wanted to play American football and take the cheerleaders to the prom. so sad they had to pay the price for being the hated muslims.. oh dear, so heartbreaking why can't they just leave the kids alone.. boo hoo conspiracy jones kewlaids...



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 08:27 PM
link   
The eye witness video (I will have to search for it, but it was posted here and everywhere else) clearly shows the teams getting into position and unleashing a hail of gun-fire. No warning or other commands were given for the suspect to give up or come out peacefully.

It is the one part of this whole ordeal I have problems with. They exacted force without prejudice on a cornered suspect. A suspect who had no gun, yet they claimed he returned fire.

To me, either the media really mucked up the reporting by melding together the night into this culmination of events or the police are caught in a lie here. The video clearly shows about 30 seconds of firing and then they moved in.

Maybe they were not suspecting a bystander willing to video tape it from across the street?! Though it is hard to hear what the officers are saying.




posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Erasurehead
reply to post by AmberLeaf
 


They knew he was in boat and was trapped, he was not escaping. They said they wanted to take him alive, so why continue to fire at the boat when there was no immediate danger to them? Nobody was shooting at the police. Law enforcement officers I know are trained to fire their weapons only when there is an immediate threat to them or bystanders.





Authorities believed he was heavily armed when officers fired on boat where he was hiding.


He had been a threat all night, why would you assume he was no longer a threat because he was hiding?
The police threw in flash bangs to stun him...he didnt come out. Someone shot, so the police unleashed on the boat assuming it was him shooting. He showed a disregard for life since the day he and his brother planted, and blew up a crowd of people, why all of a sudden would you assume he was not a dangerous person capable of murder?

If someone shoots at a cop under normal circumstances, flees, and hides, is it normal procedure to assume they are no longer a threat and try and apprehend them unarmed? I think not




Law enforcement officers I know are trained to fire their weapons only when there is an immediate threat to them or bystanders.


You mean like this



And this



And this


edit on 25-4-2013 by AmberLeaf because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by AmberLeaf
 


True the deadly force doctrine does allow officers to utilize their discretion, but why lie and say they were fired upon?! If the case comes down to a trigger-happy officer or even a nervous one, do you think the State or department will reprimand them or will they fall upon the Los Angeles PD's line of "it was extraordinary circumstances"; similar to when they unleashed a hail of bullets into an innocent bystander's truck?

That is why many here question these things....



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by AmberLeaf
 


True the deadly force doctrine does allow officers to utilize their discretion, but why lie and say they were fired upon?! If the case comes down to a trigger-happy officer or even a nervous one, do you think the State or department will reprimand them or will they fall upon the Los Angeles PD's line of "it was extraordinary circumstances"; similar to when they unleashed a hail of bullets into an innocent bystander's truck?

That is why many here question these things....


Extraordinary circumstances do happen, just like in this instance.
Had he jumped out and killed more people, then what? Blame the Police for not doing anything.

He was heavily armed earlier, maybe it was a trigger happy cop, maybe the full story wont be released until the trial. The public are not entitled to all the ins and outs full stop.
Did the police force say they were fired upon, or was it the media?



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 08:51 PM
link   
It was the police that said they "exchanged gunfire" not the media.


The Boston police commissioner, Edward Davis, said at a news conference Friday night...
"Over the course of the next hour or so we exchanged gunfire with the suspect, who was inside the boat, and ultimately the hostage rescue team of the F.B.I. made an entry into the boat and removed the suspect, who was still alive,” Mr. Davis said

www.nytimes.com...

Over the course of an hour. They didn't figure out for a whole hour that nobody was shooting at them?
edit on 4/25/2013 by Erasurehead because: link



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Erasurehead
It was the police that said they "exchanged gunfire" not the media.


The Boston police commissioner, Edward Davis, said at a news conference Friday night...
"Over the course of the next hour or so we exchanged gunfire with the suspect, who was inside the boat, and ultimately the hostage rescue team of the F.B.I. made an entry into the boat and removed the suspect, who was still alive,” Mr. Davis said

www.nytimes.com...

Over the course of an hour. They didn't figure out for a whole hour that nobody was shooting at them?
edit on 4/25/2013 by Erasurehead because: link


People make mistakes when shoved into the spotlight, its not the first time someone has said something that may not be entirely true shortly after an event like this. It takes time to verify stories, i think its safe to assume the commissioner made a mistake, which was later withdrawn as per the links you posted.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Amber, is that what you want on YOUR tombstone?
"They made a mistake!"

People are ( and rightly so ) TERRIFIED of people who have guns and make mistakes, which makes the people who have guns, and who make mistakes, the TERRORISTS

Also these mistaken people who have guns work for the government, who wants to take away all the guns from peole who might make mistakes, using people who have guns and make mistakes

Don't you see how messed up that is?


edit on 25-4-2013 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-4-2013 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 09:16 PM
link   
This is being discussed in a couple threads already (such as here) The major networks reported it quietly, but I haven't seen much discussion about it which is wrong in my opinion.


Originally posted by lunarasparagus.

CNN reported that suspect "put up a fight in that backyard, engaging them with gunfire":


Police chief confirms this:



Now this:


edit on 25-4-2013 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by AmberLeaf
 


You can try to justify the reckless actions of the authorities all you want. The police are not executioners. There was no reason to be shooting at the boat. It seems like the intent was to shoot first without trying to negotiate with him to give up at all. They wanted him dead and that's it.

I think the guy is guilty as hell, I look forward to seeing him put to death by the courts. It's not the job of the police.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Erasurehead
reply to post by AmberLeaf
 


You can try to justify the reckless actions of the authorities all you want. The police are not executioners. There was no reason to be shooting at the boat. It seems like the intent was to shoot first without trying to negotiate with him to give up at all. They wanted him dead and that's it.

I think the guy is guilty as hell, I look forward to seeing him put to death by the courts. It's not the job of the police.




Im not justifying anything, im pointing out the obvious.
If they wanted him dead, why is he alive and well? Why not pop a bullet in his head in the ambulance or at the hospital?

We all know there are trigger happy cops, this is probably the problem in this situation. But like i say, if they wanted him dead, he would be dead.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Erasurehead
 


Well, I can tell you that there definitely was. I heard it LIVE on the radio.

Now before you go saying, . "Do you believe everything you hear on the radio?",
I am Damn Certain it wasn't a voice over. There were a few Pops which sounded like flash bangs, and then several gun shots. I heard the whole thing transpire, including the robot going into search for explosives, to the end of his capture.

One thing that was contradictory though was when I arrived at home I came in and turned on the TV to see the LIVE footage, To my surprise they were just then saying how that just found a "Body In A Boat". I thought Holy Hell, . Talk about a Propagation Delay. Then after a commercial they said that they had just taken him into custody.

So what was heard on the radio and seen on TV were nearly 2 different things.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Listening to this unfold live last Friday, Do any of you remember they were saying that the boat was on Fire also?? I even posted on a thread on ATS and mentioned this while I was listening and watching live.

I was thinking Waco at the time. The reporters mentioned it and on the police radios also. So were did that go?

Like, WTF is going on.....!!!!?



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
Amber, is that what you want on YOUR tombstone?
"They made a mistake!"


edit on 25-4-2013 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-4-2013 by Danbones because: (no reason given)


Im pretty sure i wont die from gun inflicted injuries given i dont live in the USA



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   
And, if memory serves, it was more like 10 minutes of gun fire over a 60 minute span from the ATS posts from the scanner feed and MSM.

19-4-2013 @ 05:56 PM (ATS time)
Start of shots fired when suspect is in the boat

And superiors had to step in or order the officers to hold their fire, and not to return fire.

19-4-2013 @ 06:05 PM (ATS time)
"Dummy rounds ... hold your fire"



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by PRS395
Listening to this unfold live last Friday, Do any of you remember they were saying that the boat was on Fire also?? I even posted on a thread on ATS and mentioned this while I was listening and watching live.

I was thinking Waco at the time. The reporters mentioned it and on the police radios also. So were did that go?

Like, WTF is going on.....!!!!?


I believe that was a misunderstanding. Folks were mistaking a "fire on the boat" as a "thermal fire", when in actuality, it was "fire on the boat" as in "weapons fire".




new topics
top topics
 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join