Boston bomb investigators kill Florida man

by Simon 162 Replies latest members politics

• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “Here you go Marvin, tell me this is great police work to apprehend an injured suspect needed for questioning:

  “http://www.nowthisnews.com/news/incredible-new-footage-watertown-firefight/”

  Simon,

  Has it occurred to you these officers were responding to threat of a known bomber capable of constructing and detonating devastating bombs?

  Those officers were responding to a known and real threat. I see nothing at all wrong with opening up on the man as they did. What would you have done different, and why? Remember, we’re talking about a man known to be capable of building and carrying devastating bombs.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  Simon

  We know now he was unarmed. I’m not so sure they knew prior to his capture. There were lots of items in the boat. Would you have asked your son or daughter in law enforcement to risk his or her life to go check for bombs prior to his capitulation or capture? Would you have risked the lives of people in the neighborhood?

  Pity they didn't follow the normal approach for apprehending a suspect. Whether I have asked my children to become police officers as a career course is irrelevant to the discussion. Have you asked your kids to become fireman? How dare you ever discuss fire safety in future then ...

  But I doubt they were willing to put that concern ahead of fellow police officers already in harms way.

  They put other officers at risk by dangerous fire. How do I know it was dangerous? Because they shot each other! (and watch the video - that was not 'people in control')

  Highly trained gunmen do sometimes get caught in crossfire. It’s a false bifurcation to suggest this means the shooting was unprofessional.

  No they don't and no it isn't. I guess I'm used to armed police being marksmen, not John Wayne Wannabes. But good of you to add to the argument against people having guns. I mean, if highly training police gunmen aren't safe ... well ...

  Discussions go much better when people respond to what’s actually said.

  They do. Leaping to cross off items from someone's Bumper Book of Fallacious Arguments is just weak and annoying for all concerned.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “No one is suggesting that if police are being shot or having bombs thrown at them that they shouldn't be allowed to shoot back. So your 'argument' (lets be kind and call it that) is completely irrelevant to the topic.”

  Simon,

  You suggested that policemen being shot at and having bombs thrown at them acted “ridiculous” in an undisciplined shooting of the FIRST SUSPECT. That’s what YOU said; not ME. Read your original post!

  I respond to what people actually say. Not what I speculate might be banging around between their ears.

  “What we're talking about is the complete opposite - the police shooting and using overwhelming and inordinate force when it is not justified and doing more harm than good by killing what could be people with information.”

  I’m talking about what I see other people saying. That’s how people discuss.

  As for what you say above, I do not suggest and have not suggested law enforcement officials should apply unjustified force. It’s always better to capture a suspect or known criminal rather than assert force, and in particular lethal force.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “I don't have to answer anything to you…”

  Simon,

  You don’t have to answer for anything you say. But that does not mean you don’t owe it to people to answer for things you say of them. In my world common decency compels people to answer for things they say of other folks.

  But you’re right. You don’t have to answer. On the other hand, until you change it, this forum’s guidelines do not prohibit participants from asking fellow participants to answer for things they assert, whether of a fellow participant or anything else.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  Simon

  Has it occurred to you these officers were responding to threat of a known bomber capable of constructing and detonating devastating bombs?

  Those officers were responding to a known and real threat. I see nothing at all wrong with opening up on the man as they did. What would you have done different, and why? Remember, we’re talking about a man known to be capable of building and carrying devastating bombs.

  That isn't the situation or what was happening. It wasn't someone in control and capable of planning or carrying out any sort of attack. It was someone on the run and injured.

  They were only capable of making crude homemade explosives.

  The guy who owned the boat went and checked him.

  It's a very different picture than the one you are attempting to paint.

  If they were such a danger, shouldn't we capture them so they can be questioned? You know, so we can be sure the 'devastating bombs they are capable of constructing' aren't anywhere else and they are in fact solely the ones responsible.

  This is the point. If it's just some crack dealer pointing a revolver at a cope - sure, shoot him in the face as fast as you can. If it is someone as dangerous as you are trying to make out though and you have him pinned down, you should be planning on asking some questions. And then when you're asking associates questions later, you shouldn't be messing things up so you 'have' to shoot them.

  Wouldn't you agree this is *bad* policing?
• 

  Simon

  Ok, by 'first suspect' I meant the guy in the boat, not the guy they had already shot dead previously. Sorry for my poor description.

  It’s always better to capture a suspect or known criminal rather than assert force, and in particular lethal force.

  I think we agree then. It sounded like you were arguing for the opposite.
• 

  144001

  As far as I'm concerned, the surviving Boston Bomber deserved every shot that was fired at him. He survived the barrage of bullets, so they obviously didn't fire off enough rounds. If I had any say in the matter, his end would have occurred via a flame-thrower. No punishment can atone for the harm this trash has inflicted on others.

  As for the friend who was killed for allegedly attacking an FBI agent with a knife, he has a record of violence and he is a buddy of the trash that bombed Boston. He's no loss.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “Pity they didn't follow the normal approach for apprehending a suspect.”

  Simon,

  We're talking about a bomber known to have constructed and detonated high explosives. Bullet proof vests don’t protect the life of an officer facing what was a very reasonable probability of a high explosive device.

  “Whether I have asked my children to become police officers as a career course is irrelevant to the discussion.”

  It’s not irrelevant in relation to our topic, which is of a known bomb builder threat. If we wouldn’t ask one of our own to approach the suspect then we should not ask anyone else to do so.

  “They put other officers at risk by dangerous fire.”

  Exposure to cross fire is not exposure to a high explosive.

  “No they don't and no it isn't.”

  The most highly trained gunmen in the world are in the armed forces of the United States and Israel. Have you ever heard of friendly fire?

  Because policemen are wounded in crossfire does not necessitate a conclusion that a shooting was unprofessional.

  “They do. Leaping to cross off items from someone's Bumper Book of Fallacious Arguments is just weak and annoying for all concerned.”

  Then I suggest you and other participants respond to what I say rather than assert fallacies and or fallacious responses. As I say and you agree, we should respond to what’s written. If what’s written is fallacious then I’m going to point it out. Stopping these responses from me is as easy as desisting from presenting fallacy.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  designs

  The loss is in what he could have informed about any larger network of terrorists, but the FBI may have gathered what they thought was enough intel..
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “That isn't the situation or what was happening. It wasn't someone in control and capable of planning or carrying out any sort of attack. It was someone on the run and injured.”

  Simon,

  Being on the run and injured has not stopped bombers who wanted to take others out with them. Monday morning quarterbacking does not work under threat of the moment.

  “They were only capable of making crude homemade explosives.”

  You’ve never witnessed the sort of explosives those men constructed or else you’d not say what you do as though resulting bombs were not lethal despite protective vests like the typical officer wears.

  Crude or not crude has nothing whatsoever to do with lethality.

  “The guy who owned the boat went and checked him.”

  And this guy would know a bomb from a bag, how exactly?

  And this guy would know the suspect did not have a remote detonator, how exactly?

  We are talking about a bomber who built and detonated high explosive devices.

  “If they were such a danger, shouldn't we capture them so they can be questioned?”

  Sure. But not by risking another life.

  “If it is someone as dangerous as you are trying to make out though and you have him pinned down, you should be planning on asking some questions.”

  Officers on the scene were responding to what they knew then, and what such a person is capable of.

  I don’t see anything ridiculous about what those officers did.

  Marvin Shilmer