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

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

A Chechen man who was fatally shot by an FBI agent last week during an interview about one of the Boston bombing suspects was unarmed, law enforcement officials said Wednesday.

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. The FBI said in a news release that day that Todashev, a former Boston resident who knew bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was killed during an interview with several law enforcement officers.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
rt.com
abcnews.go.com


Mod Edit:

3). Copy and paste the EXACT headline as it appears in the original news article. Do not create or sensationalize your titles.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Wow, this is big! The fact that they're admitting it. How the heck do they explain this? Will more people finally start asking questions?

They originally said he was shot in a violent confrontation, then it came out that the FBI agent only had minor cuts and abrasions. I remember them mentioning he had a knife, but now we know that was a fabrication. Didn't make much sense in the first place - they bring an armed man in to interrogate?

Of course, the investigation is expected to take months and will be forgotten, so we'll never know. Not that I expect the truth anyway.

Just more confusion and inconsistencies.

Fake headline - the original does not say "Officials" - it says "Friend of Boston bombing suspect unarmed when killed by FBI"

The link from rt.com gives no source for the claim whatsoever.

the ABC news link is titled:
"Man Linked to Boston Bombing Suspect Was Unarmed When Shot in Violent Encounter With FBI "

It also gives no actual source for the claim.

there is no need to over-sensationalise these reports - if they are true they are already sensational enough!!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Apologies, the article I took the headline from was in Washington Post - lost the link somewhere - Here it is

Officials: Man who knew Boston bombing suspect was unarmed when shot

I did NOT sensationalize the title! Just lost the original link.
www.washingtonpost.com... 1a-1a7cdee20287_story.html

Oh geez, it's not working - here's a link to the front page, which has the story - third down on the left.
www.washingtonpost.com...

How about you actually comment on the contents - which clearly state "law enforcement officials..."

reply to post by Maluhia


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

Maybe the statement that he made to his friend about his fear of being shot was made for good reason. He was a loose end that the FBI needed to tie up. Dead men tell no tales.

reply to post by butcherguy


Yes, that's where my thinking is - he knew something alright - something the "officials" needed to "kill".

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 "breaking news" is.
It seems to be that, depending on who you talk to, there is no new information here at all.

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.

reply to post by alfa1


Given the propensity for human violence against his brother man, I consider anyone angry or unbalanced enough to kill, to be armed unless they are asleep. I nearly killed a man with my bare hands once, and I was barely the older side of puberty at that point.

However, legally speaking, the officers of the law who were present during this interveiw (which allegedly happened in the victims appartment, not an office, nor an interveiw room at a police station), had no right to draw thier weapons on the man unless he posed a significant threat to thier lives.

Heres how I see it going down. The fella who had the abrasions on his face? He probably tried to get physical during the interveiw, and got several whacks to the head for his trouble. Rather than backing off, hes tried to regain the upper hand, failed, and ended up with the victim on top of him, punching him in the head, at which point one of the officers has decided to shoot the poor unfortunate bastard, who was likely as not just trying to prevent himself becoming a victim of police brutality.

His death is probably a cover up for poor treatment at the hands of law enforcement officicals.

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 "breaking news" is.
It seems to be that, depending on who you talk to, there is no new information here at all.

Anonymous law enforcement officials being the sources before and again this time, they should well know the legal definition of armed.
It all seems a bit convenient that he is deceased now, if there is a conspiracy involved.

Originally posted by butcherguy

Anonymous law enforcement officials being the sources before and again this time, they should well know the legal definition of armed.

The legal definition is one thing, but this is clearly an officer speaking anonymously to a reporter. And we dont have a quote from the anonymous officer either, its a word thats been filtered through the mind of the reporter...

A second official also said Todashev was unarmed.

And that is it. Thats the basis of the headline.

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.

reply to post by alfa1

Yes, I'll drop it because I can see where it will go.

We'll just say that armed means having a gun, so weapons are just firearms.

reply to post by butcherguy


Armed does NOT just mean having a gun. What utter gibberish. If he had a hand grenade he would still be armed. If he had picked up a crowbar, a knife, a hammer, an axe, he would be armed. Some people are considered armed even when thier hands are empty, like martial arts experts of a certain degree and above. You dont get convicted of unarmed robbery if you hold up a bank with a bomb in your bag.

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by butcherguy

 

Armed does NOT just mean having a gun. What utter gibberish. If he had a hand grenade he would still be armed. If he had picked up a crowbar, a knife, a hammer, an axe, he would be armed. Some people are considered armed even when thier hands are empty, like martial arts experts of a certain degree and above. You dont get convicted of unarmed robbery if you hold up a bank with a bomb in your bag.

I agree with you, but I was accused of playing semantics for saying that legally, armed means having a weapon, and most definitely not limited to firearms.
Law enforcement officials, when they have killed someone while taking a statement from them in their residence would certainly be aware of the legal definition too.

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

reply to post by 23432

Sounds like he has been killed unlawfully. l

I wonder if they used a drone.

Clearly, he was charged with being armed with a table, but it was quickly overturned.

╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

Originally posted by KyrieEleison
Clearly, he was charged with being armed with a table, but it was quickly overturned.

The prosecution will not have a leg to stand on. No charges leveled at the shooter.

About 2 weeks prior this guy had a confrontation with a father and son in a parking lot at a local mall in KiIssimmee Florida. He knocked out a few teeth and beat them badly over a parking space. He was trained in MMA style fighting and surely on his visits back home, if he had connections as implied, he had additional training in self defense. An autopsy report on how many times he was shot and where would be key here. I was trained that if you pull your firearm be ready to shoot to kill. it is not the movies where they stop an attack shooting someone in the arm or such.

I am thinking he had the upper hand when he lunged at one of the officers, and based on what he could do, he was shot at. Cuts and abrasions could mean a lot of things short of a broken jaw,etc.

Again, my thought has been death by cop for this guy to kill the trail for the terrorists and not the cops. I am sure right now they are pissed as this is a lead dead.

I have to wonder about procedure here. After interrogating the guys for hours, which I would think they were working on breaking him, they leave a single person in the room alone with him.

Either it was a poor choice by agents or by design so that an accident would happen. Could be they got what they needed and he was no longer needed/