You haven't shown that they were in the blind. Ok? Your basic assumption here is completely unfounded. You've taken "I haven't heard anything about how they identified the suspect before they decided to shoot at him" and turned it into "They never ID'd the suspect before opening fire."
And I suppose you have info that he was properly ID'd prior to the volley of shots?
As we were glued to our TVs awaiting the capture of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev there was a report of shots fired. At first they were described as automatic fire then reduced to semi-automatic as they let us hear a recording of the shots. Then it was said that the police were told not to return fire. Now we are told that Tsarnaev was unarmed, so who fired the shots? Did the police risk the taking of Tsarnaev alive by wildly shooting into the boat, even before they knew it was him? Something is missing here and we (at least me) are apparently being kept in the dark on this. Does anyone have a link to the truth on this, and what action is being taken against the shooter?
Here's where we started before the "know-it-all"s stepped in. And I might say the truth is still missing!
Well here we are, we still have no answers. The boat owner has received $50K to replace his boat damaged in the "shootout" as the media calls it. But was it a hysterical one sided shootout rather than the inferred gunbattle? We may never know since it might prove to be an embarrassment.
With the lack of any new info, I must assume someone opened fire without identifying the suspect.
Standard procedure for some police. Years ago, a friend was getting out of his car with his rifle, at home, when a police officer pulled in. The officer yelled at him to put the gun down. He laid it on top of his car, raised his hands and backed up. He got about 3 steps away from his gun when the officer shot him through the throat. Luckily he lived. The police and prosecutor ruled it a justified shooting.