Who Fired the Shots?

[Eddie_T]

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?

[rivalarrival]

The guy had previously thrown IEDs at cops and bystanders, so whether he actually had a gun or not, he was known to be armed with lethal weapons and demonstrated a willingness to use them to commit violent felonies. If he did anything other than immediately surrender, I would have to consider this a legitimate use of force.

[Eddie_T]

Originally Posted by rivalarrival

The guy had previously thrown IEDs at cops and bystanders, so whether he actually had a gun or not, he was known to be armed with lethal weapons and demonstrated a willingness to use them to commit violent felonies. If he did anything other than immediately surrender, I would have to consider this a legitimate use of force.

How did they know conclusively that it was him in the boat?

Such police action could make the right to counsel a moot point!

[samfloor]

Originally Posted by Eddie_T

How did they know conclusively that it was him in the boat?

The boat owner saw a man covered with blood, hiding in the boat.

[Eddie_T]

Originally Posted by samfloor

The boat owner saw a man covered with blood, hiding in the boat.

. . . and being covered in blood is enough to justify an undisclosed policeman shooting him?

[samfloor]

Originally Posted by Eddie_T

. . . and being covered in blood is enough to justify an undisclosed policeman shooting him?

Where did you read that a policeman shot him? I have not read that.

[havasu]

I believe if allowed enough time, all the facts surrounding the capture of the Boston Bomber will go public. At this point in time, anything said would only be speculation.

[Eddie_T]

Originally Posted by samfloor

Where did you read that a policeman shot him? I have not read that.

I guess RA's implication, I don't know thus the title of the thread. I am wondering why the media is not seeking answers, unless there is a coverup.

[Eddie_T]

I don't think the truth is coming, the media just doesn't ask questions. The media still refers to it as a shootout never mind that it was a bit one sided and that the suspect hadn't been clearly identified. The shooter or shooters is fortunate that it wasn't a runaway teen hiding in the boat, no heroes in Watertown that night.

[rivalarrival]

Originally Posted by Eddie_T

I don't think the truth is coming, the media just doesn't ask questions. The media still refers to it as a shootout never mind that it was a bit one sided and that the suspect hadn't been clearly identified. The shooter or shooters is fortunate that it wasn't a runaway teen hiding in the boat, no heroes in Watertown that night.

OK, let me explain this to you: If you make a reasonable person believe that you represent a credible threat of causing grievous bodily harm, anyone can shoot you.

Jackass was known to use explosive devices when confronted by law enforcement officers. In this situation, anything other than immediate compliance with officer instructions justified use of lethal force against jackass.