Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Spaghetti7]

Wait, according to the thread title, one SUSPECT has been killed.

Innocent until proven guilty? Or is it now guilty until proven dead?

It's innocent until you get in a shootout with the police.
If you engage in a shootout with police, you deserve what's coming to you.

[Dutchling]

Wait, according to the thread title, one SUSPECT has been killed.

Innocent until proven guilty? Or is it now guilty until proven dead?

pewpewpew

[Haspen]

TBH, not so much you deserve what's coming to you as you're probably gonna be the one worst off. It could have been some guy who just happened to have paranoia or something.

It will be interesting if it turns out that he and his brother freaked out at the police because the police approached them for routine check or something. Or just any other, unrelated cause.

[GlyphGryph]

Wait, according to the thread title, one SUSPECT has been killed.
Innocent until proven guilty? Or is it now guilty until proven dead?

We still don't know for sure that they planted the bombs, where the only ones involved, planned it or just executed it, etc. We DO know they got in a firefight with police, so its unsurprising one of them died. There's no 'suspected' there.

[Owlbread]

Apparently Tamerlan Tsarnaev was interviewed by the FBI two years ago at the request of a "foreign government" who were concerned about his Islamist tendencies and his apparent intention to leave the USA and join "underground groups".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10007327/Boston-marathon-bombs-Tamerlan-Tsarnaev-interviewed-by-FBI-in-2011.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/04/20/suspect_tamerlan_tsarnaev_was_interviewed_in_2011_at_request_of_foreign.html

This is from the FBI's statement:

    Once the FBI learned the identities of the two brothers today, the FBI reviewed its records and determined that in early 2011, a foreign government asked the FBI for information about Tamerlan Tsarnaev. The request stated that it was based on information that he was a follower of radical Islam and a strong believer, and that he had changed drastically since 2010 as he prepared to leave the United States for travel to the country’s region to join unspecified underground groups.

    In response to this 2011 request, the FBI checked U.S. government databases and other information to look for such things as derogatory telephone communications, possible use of online sites associated with the promotion of radical activity, associations with other persons of interest, travel history and plans, and education history. The FBI also interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev and family members. The FBI did not find any terrorism activity, domestic or foreign, and those results were provided to the foreign government in the summer of 2011. The FBI requested but did not receive more specific or additional information from the foreign government.

There are lots of countries that could be the anonymous "foreign government" - it could be governments in Syria, Libya, Afghanistan (he expressed admiration for Afghan Mujahideen in his youtube account, favouriting videos about fighters in "Khorasan" etc) though my personal bet is Russia or the Chechen Government in Russia. They mention "the country's region" and people generally talk about the North Caucasus region more often than, say, the "region of North Africa" or "the region of the Levant".

In other news, Dzhokhar's schoolfriends express their shock and disbelief:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/04/19/dzhokhar_tsarnaev_friends_boston_marathon_bombing_suspect_s_friends_tweet.html

He seems to have been quite a popular fellow.

[Loud Whispers]

Wait, according to the thread title, one SUSPECT has been killed.

Innocent until proven guilty? Or is it now guilty until proven dead?

It's innocent until you get in a shootout with the police.
If you engage in a shootout with police, you deserve what's coming to you.

Because the American police haven't shot at innocent people before...?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Oh wait, no they have. Many times. Including having started firefights with innocent people, as well as wounding and killing civilians sometimes out of incompetence but more chillingly on occasion out of malicious intent.
The police are not infallible. The police are not always on the right side of the law. When you chase someone, they will flee. When you shoot at them, they will fight.
All deserve a fair trial before they are assumed to be terrorists and summarily executed.

[scriver]

He was shooting back, LW. The situation is in no way comparable to the police shooting up a car because it has the same colour as the suspects. In fact, this was made clear after greatorder asked his question, so I'm not even sure why you wrote that post unless you were trying to drum up some fight.

[Loud Whispers]

He was shooting back, LW. The situation is in no way comparable to the police shooting up a car because it has the same colour as the suspects. In fact, this was made clear after greatorder asked his question, so I'm not even sure why you wrote that post unless you were trying to drum up some fight.

But it is comparable to police searching for a murder suspect shooting and killing an armed civilian who later turned out to be innocent. Which was included.

If you engage in a shootout with police, you deserve what's coming to you.

Excusing vague threats of what people deserve is inhuman.

[Flying Dice]

LW, for once... The guy grabbed a cop's gun and shot him. Even if you're paranoid, it's not that hard to understand that that's a bad fucking idea. They didn't just open fire (which is a surprising show of restraint from U.S. police). I doubt that they'd shoot one of their brothers to cover up them gunning him down in cold blood, considering how buddy-buddy they get. I'm the last one you'll find supporting the police, but if someone has already downed a cop, they're already plainly guilty of shooting someone. Pick your fights a bit better than this.

[Loud Whispers]

I'm not fighting and I'm not defending the Boston bombers. I'm against the idea of killing first and justice later and especially giving all this power to both the police and terrorists.

[misko27]

Bay12, you make me sad. To the mines with you!

Anyway, it disturbs me that the relation the elder bomber had with his younger brother is simlar to the one I have with my little sister (of course, without the psychotic tendencies.)

[Sheb]

I think we all regret he died, if only because it'll make the inquiry much less easy if he's guilty. But while the US police if famous for acting like cowboys, I think we can agree that people dying in police shootout can be expected if you shoot at the police.

[Bauglir]

I'm not fighting and I'm not defending the Boston bombers. I'm against the idea of killing first and justice later and especially giving all this power to both the police and terrorists.

Okay, but in this case the power in question is the power to shoot back at a guy who steals a gun from and kills another police officer, and proceeds to find cover and continue shooting at you. Perhaps it is just me, but that seems to me to be the textbook example of when it's acceptable to use lethal force.

Sure, it probably will be used as an example to demonstrate that police should use lethal force more often in the coming years, even though this was a bizarre one-off scenario. And worried cops will probably resort to force earlier for a few months out of nervousness. And the lockdown of the city and our collective shit-loss was excessive for the situation, and a disturbing indicator of things to come in the political landscape. These are all bad things - but for some reason, you seem to be picking out the one part of everyone's behavior in this fiasco that was unambiguously well-handled.

EDIT: At one point, I'd referred to the campus police officer as a security guard. This was silly of me.

[GlyphGryph]

Wait, I thought he was actually a campus police officer? That was killed? Was I wrong?

[Loud Whispers]

These are all bad things - but for some reason, you seem to be picking out the one part of everyone's behavior in this fiasco that was unambiguously well-handled.

The part where locking down a city was normalized? Or the part where average people were getting self-righteous about giving free reign to kill suspects? Or the part where the people who weren't scared militarized their city to prove that the actions of few could not take their freedoms?
I'm more concerned with normal people's reactions than the actions of people whose motives are unknown.