Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
When there are explosives involve, shooting someone seven times...even in the back...could, in some cases be justified.
Hold on sec...I'm not saying that is what happen, I'm saying I could see, under some VERY limited circumstances, where an agent, or agents, could believe their lives were in danger from a subject in an unsearched and unsecured location, like the suspects abode, where there was a possibility that the suspect was involved in a bombing, that the suspect made a sudden and rapid attempt to move away from the agents...even with his back to the agents AND unarmed...could be deemed a justifiable threat.
Again, I am only postulating and acceptable circumstance...not presuming to speculate that this scenario occurred.
Sure Missourian, but lets give the guy the benefit of the doubt here. The kid had virtually zero connection to the bombers besides sparring with the dude a few times and exchanging numbers.
Why the heck would he want to mess around by provoking three Federal Agents? No one wants to die, and no one wants to go to jail.
To me, it's clear he had some sort of piece of info incriminating the Gov't and they wanted him to keep quiet for the long term.
Something went wrong...I don't know what.
I don't have all the fact.
But see my post to above...this guy was no altar boy.
In this instance, I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the agents until all the facts are known.
If the FBI stonewalls an investigation, that presumption will quickly evaporate.
Sure Missourian, but lets give the guy the benefit of the doubt here. The kid had virtually zero connection to the bombers besides sparring with the dude a few times and exchanging numbers.
Why the heck would he want to mess around by provoking three Federal Agents? No one wants to die, and no one wants to go to jail.
To me, it's clear he had some sort of piece of info incriminating the Gov't and they wanted him to keep quiet for the long term.
Something went wrong...I don't know what.
I don't have all the fact.
But see my post to above...this guy was no altar boy.
In this instance, I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the agents until all the facts are known.
If the FBI stonewalls an investigation, that presumption will quickly evaporate.
Sure, but 7 shots? One to the back of the head?
And now the agents are saying he was unarmed?
Maybe if the kid had explosives, or had a weapon I could tolerate a kill shot. Maybe even 3 firearm wounds.
But 7 and he was unarmed? And the story is continually changing?
That's why I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt...
.
Something went wrong...I don't know what.
I don't have all the fact.
But see my post to above...this guy was no altar boy.
In this instance, I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the agents until all the facts are known.
If the FBI stonewalls an investigation, that presumption will quickly evaporate.
Sure, but 7 shots? One to the back of the head?
And now the agents are saying he was unarmed?
Maybe if the kid had explosives, or had a weapon I could tolerate a kill shot. Maybe even 3 firearm wounds.
But 7 and he was unarmed? And the story is continually changing?
That's why I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt...
.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your points Kevin...they are good one.
But I put myself in the position of the agent.
They don't have the facts that we have today at their decision point.
They have many unknown factors.
Here is the $64,000 question for me...and I'll pose it to you.
Assuming all the statements released by the FBI are factual.
If, at the decision point where the agent could either fire or not fire...if you had the following information, what life or death decision would you make?
You know the suspect is violent.
You know the suspect is a murderer.
You know the suspect has ties to a known bomb maker.
The suspect just confessed to a triple homicide, killings carried out to cover up a violent drug crime.
You know the suspect understands his future is, at a minimum, going to be prison for life, but could be lethal injection.
Fresh in your mind are the gruesome images of the Boston Bombing.
-----------------------------------------------------
Suddenly and unexpectedly, the suspect becomes violent...he jumps up and attacks you , then turns to run.
Your life, other agents lives, civilians in or near the buildings lives are all are risk.
What do you do?
Err on the side of caution?
I wouldn't. The risk would be too great.
I saw this a while back, interestingly enough, on the Rachel Maddow show.
.
Question, I know this guy was a fighter. Was he trained in the martial arts? ANyone know?
Nothing about this incident felt right from the start.
The NSA knows what brand of toilet paper I use, but they can't track these guys down even after Putin dropped a dime on them?
Seriously?
I saw this a while back, interestingly enough, on the Rachel Maddow show.
.
Why am I not surprised you're a fan of Madcow.....HAHAHAHAHAHHA!!
Question, I know this guy was a fighter. Was he trained in the martial arts? ANyone know?
He was a boxer....boxing is a martial art. I boxed at Kronk Gym, Detroit....anybody in there not wearing gloves could kill a man with 4 or 5 punches. I don't give a crap what happened to this guy but to finish him with a head-shot?....that's murder.
Question, I know this guy was a fighter. Was he trained in the martial arts? ANyone know?
He was a boxer....boxing is a martial art. I boxed at Kronk Gym, Detroit....anybody in there not wearing gloves could kill a man with 4 or 5 punches. I don't give a crap what happened to this guy but to finish him with a head-shot?....that's murder.
my point was, if he came at the officer with a round house that could have been the reason for the shot to the back of the head.
I try to analyze from every angle I can. Personally, in the beginning I questioned what actually happened. I still don't know what to think. We will have to hope a thorough, clean investigation occurrs.
I don't get when people say this, that because someone is a trained law enforcement officer they should have only taken x number of shots instead of y to bring someone down.7 shots though? And one to the head? Just way, way too excessive for a highly trained agent.
I don't get when people say this, that because someone is a trained law enforcement officer they should have only taken x number of shots instead of y to bring someone down.7 shots though? And one to the head? Just way, way too excessive for a highly trained agent.
If you bring out your weapon and fire at a person your goal is to take out someone you consider to be a deadly threat. You are going to squeeze the trigger as fast as you can until you are sure that dude isn't getting back up, and 10 shots can be fired in a few seconds. You ever seen videos where someone gets into a sudden confrontation with police and they fire? There isn't one or two shots, it sounds almost like a string of firecrackers going off.
Furthermore everyone keeps saying back of the head execution style, but from those autopsy photos I see one to the top of this head almost aligned with his ears.
The FBI has been doing this kind of excessive force fuckup all the way back to Little Bohemia!
(Look that reference up for fun.)
I agree, especially given the lack of details on such a high profile event.Sorry buddy.
The whole thing is pretty fishy.
my point was, if he came at the officer with a round house that could have been the reason for the shot to the back of the head.
I try to analyze from every angle I can. Personally, in the beginning I questioned what actually happened. I still don't know what to think. We will have to hope a thorough, clean investigation occurrs.
