It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Man Linked to Boston Bombing Suspect Was Unarmed When Shot in Violent Encounter With FBI, Officials

page: 2
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2013 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 



So personally, I'm not going to start a debate about definitions and semantics because a/ We actually dont know what the officer said. b/ Nobody has ever claimed at any time that he ever had a gun.

perhaps these officers wish to avoid having an unfortunate training accident?

you must admit there is a huge difference between "he attacked the officers with a knife" and "he was unarmed when shot".

as for legal definitions versus common usage: there are different interpretations based on context, but in the case of police and other agents it usually boils down to them being unaware of the legal definitions. try asking the next officer you meet the meaning of some commonly used words that have drastically different meanings in legalese, they'll give you the general usage definition.




posted on May, 30 2013 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 




as for legal definitions versus common usage: there are different interpretations based on context, but in the case of police and other agents it usually boils down to them being unaware of the legal definitions. try asking the next officer you meet the meaning of some commonly used words that have drastically different meanings in legalese, they'll give you the general usage definition.

I will agree that most officers aren't up to all legal definitions, hell, most of them don't know the law.

But when it comes down to the definition of armed vs unarmed, I should hope that they know the difference for their own sake.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
you must admit there is a huge difference between "he attacked the officers with a knife" and "he was unarmed when shot".

as for legal definitions versus common usage: there are different interpretations based on context, but in the case of police and other agents it usually boils down to them being unaware of the legal definitions. try asking the next officer you meet the meaning of some commonly used words that have drastically different meanings in legalese, they'll give you the general usage definition.



Agree with it.
But all i'm saying is that this whole thread is based on a single line in the news article that reads...

A second official also said Todashev was unarmed.


We dont know what the whole quote was.
We dont know who said it.
We dont know if the "official" who said it has anything at all to do with the case.
We dont even know if the word "unarmed" was even used.

Perhaps the conversation went:
Reporter: Was the suspect armed? Did he have a gun?
Official: No, he didnt have a gun.
...at which point the reporter writes in the news article "...was unarmed."

In short, we dont know anything at all, and whats what I've said all along.

But nevertheless, some people have taken apon themselves to see this single word as some kind of definitive legal statement of certain fact that police are totally denying he had any kind of weapon at all.

Edit: Was going by what was said in a different news article.
The one at rt says...

had neither gun nor knife when he was shot by the FBI


But much the same argument applies.
Especially if the rumours of him having a SWORD are true.


edit on 30-5-2013 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 08:21 AM
link   
There you have it.
When a news reporter says the police are on the lookout for a man in black pants and a blue shirt, we must look for a woman in green pants and a red shirt.
Reporters can get things wrong, but the difference between unarmed and armed is black and white.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by 23432


Sounds like he has been killed unlawfully.
I wonder if USA justice system will prevail or fail at the end ?


Hah!! What do you think??

This will be all swept under the rug. Lawlessness for those who are above the law is the american way!!



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
There you have it.
When a news reporter says the police are on the lookout for a man in black pants and a blue shirt, we must look for a woman in green pants and a red shirt.
Reporters can get things wrong, but the difference between unarmed and armed is black and white.

i agree. they can mess things up, but they wouldn't want to risk their credibility by claiming the exact opposite of what was originally presented is true.

we really don't know anything about what happened, and i suspect they want it that way.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


In this case, unless the official was exceptionally stupid, the response should have been:

"The suspect was armed with a knife."



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by kundalini

Originally posted by Maluhia
they bring an armed man in to interrogate?


It seems you didn't read the part of the article you yourself quoted on this forum:

"An air of mystery has surrounded the FBI shooting of Ibragim Todashev, 27, since it occurred in Todashev’s apartment early on the morning of May 22."

There was no bringing in. The interrogation was in the suspects home.


If you were the FBI and you wanted him dead, where would you kill him? In the bureau or in his private home?



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   
A couple of things sound suspicious to me coming from Todashev and his friend, Tamarov.

First of all, Tamarov had already reported that Todashev feared he was going to be shot. Now, why would he think that if he had already been questioned at least two or three times before without incident? Did he know they were on to him about the triple slaying? Did he want this to happen?

Also, according to his friend Tamarov, Todashev used the excuse that he was too exhausted to come down to the FBI office for the interview and specifically requested that they come to his home.

Apparently, a Boston television station has said that a source came to them to say that when the interview got heated, Todashev turned over a table causing the FBI agent to fall backward and hit his head. Did this lead to a knee jerk reaction?

The same article also says that by the time the FBI agent realized what was going on, after hitting his head, that Todashev was wielding a samurai sword, which according to Todashev's family was a fake or a toy.

I'm sure we're going to hear many more incidents of what happened, but we can't overlook the fact that Todashev requested that the FBI come to his turf.

Sorry, for the lack of link on article. I've read so many reports, I've lost track of it.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   
the victims father spoke at a press conference today and showed pictures of his sons corpse on a slab,the wounds show he was shot about 7 times but the final bullet seemed to be to the back of the head ......that is an execution shot, suprised they did not immediately bury him at sea



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by supremecommander

Originally posted by 23432


Sounds like he has been killed unlawfully.
I wonder if USA justice system will prevail or fail at the end ?


Hah!! What do you think??

This will be all swept under the rug. Lawlessness for those who are above the law is the american way!!


The American Way wasn't always what you say it is today .

Perhaps there is a chance that the Americans will wake up one day and demand a better accountability from those who own everything .



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by 23432
 


There may be a chance, but expecting the same system that created the problem to correct itself might make it an astronomical one.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by butcherguy
Seems as though the story has changed from, he had a knife, to he was not armed.



Depends what they meant by "armed". A lot of people use that word to describe guns only.

And since it has been known from day 1 that he didnt have a gun, some would say that it has always been known that he wasnt armed.
And anyway, according to this story from a few days ago, he had a sword.

So I'm not sure what the point of this "breking news" is.
It seems to be that, depending on who you talk to, there is no new information here at all.



I'm trying to interprete this post as anything other than deliberate diisinformation, so far, no succes.

~armed~


1a : furnished with weapons ; also : using or involving a weapon


"weapon", not "gun".

www.merriam-webster.com...



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 11:25 AM
link   
You guys can go see my replies when the news first broke that this guy got killed, that myself and a few other ATS'ers were saying that "Yeah Right"

Many of us here doubted that the man attacked the agents with a knife and needed to be shot. It was a cover up killing plain and simple and now this is all coming out. FBI sure is in a pickle now.

I highly doubt the 2 agents involved with the case who died during a helicopter training. that it was an accident. That was all on purpose



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by surfin4
the victims father spoke at a press conference today and showed pictures of his sons corpse on a slab,the wounds show he was shot about 7 times but the final bullet seemed to be to the back of the head ......that is an execution shot, suprised they did not immediately bury him at sea


Now, how did that go again?!

Well, according to CAIR....


"We have confirmed through senior sources within the FBI that Ibragim was indeed unarmed when he was shot seven times in the head, what appear to be even in the back of the head," said Hassan Shibly, executive director of the CAIR Florida. "That's very disturbing."


Is there some sensation going on here or not? If this is true, that would make for a pretty short investigation, wouldn't it?

www.usatoday.com...

Would law enforcement be that stupid during an investigation that they know will be highly publicized?



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
you must admit there is a huge difference between "he attacked the officers with a knife" and "he was unarmed when shot".

as for legal definitions versus common usage: there are different interpretations based on context, but in the case of police and other agents it usually boils down to them being unaware of the legal definitions. try asking the next officer you meet the meaning of some commonly used words that have drastically different meanings in legalese, they'll give you the general usage definition.



Agree with it.
But all i'm saying is that this whole thread is based on a single line in the news article that reads...

A second official also said Todashev was unarmed.


We dont know what the whole quote was.
We dont know who said it.
We dont know if the "official" who said it has anything at all to do with the case.
We dont even know if the word "unarmed" was even used.

Perhaps the conversation went:
Reporter: Was the suspect armed? Did he have a gun?
Official: No, he didnt have a gun.
...at which point the reporter writes in the news article "...was unarmed."

In short, we dont know anything at all, and whats what I've said all along.

But nevertheless, some people have taken apon themselves to see this single word as some kind of definitive legal statement of certain fact that police are totally denying he had any kind of weapon at all.

Edit: Was going by what was said in a different news article.
The one at rt says...

had neither gun nor knife when he was shot by the FBI


But much the same argument applies.


edit on 30-5-2013 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)


More disinformation nonsense.

At what point do you find a statement official?

With that kind of logic one can weasle his way out of every situation, and that is exactly what you do.




But much the same argument applies. Especially if the rumours of him having a SWORD are true.



What? So rumours of him potentially owning a sword are more proof that he was in fact armed to you, than a statement made by an official in a serious media outlet, saying he wasn't?

It is clear that your view is based on bias, not objectivity.

Btw, I'm sure he also9 owned a kitchen knife, is that proof that he was armed too?

Just quit with the BS.




edit on 30-5-2013 by Tribunal because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   
This guy wasn't your typical unarmed guy.He was a MMA and who knows what other hand to hand training.In other words his hands could be considered weapons.Aren't black belts in karate hands still registered as lethal weapons?
edit on 30-5-2013 by TDawg61 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tribunal
At what point do you find a statement official?



When its an official statement, and not (as it was in this case) a single line written by a reporter.

But at least after the press conference in the last few hours, we now have a more definitive explanation, fuller, more context, and a more accurate description who said it, and now multiple sources.

At no stage was I ever saying he wasnt UNarmed. All I ever wanted was more than just a single line reported from an anonymous source, especially when it conflicted with another single line reported from an anomymous source.

Now we have more.


edit on 30-5-2013 by alfa1 because: typographical error



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 





When its an official statement, and not (as it was in this case) a single line written by a reporter.


Is your lack of confidence in the Washington Post's honesty and competence that big?

You only believe a statement when you can witness the official speak the words with your own eyes?

BS, you are only talking this nonsense because you somehow felt the need to discredit the statement.


edit on 30-5-2013 by Tribunal because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 11:58 AM
link   
If you were a young new FBI agent you would have shot him too.

GUARANTEED quick promotion through the FBI ranks. This poor sap just was friends with the wroooong person....he was a guaranteed promotion for the FBI agent who capped him.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join