Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Was Unarmed During Hour and a Half Long Stand-Off in Backyard Boat, Shots Fired Anyway

on a boatMassachusetts State PoliceThe FBI’s not saying what led police to fire on the boat where Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was hiding, as they reveal he was unarmed while hiding in the boat during a stand-off that lasted an hour and a half. His older brother, who officials say said he wanted to die for Islam, died after a firefight with police. Officials say he may have been run over by his own brother, Dzhokhar, who they say fingered him as the mastermind of the bombing. During the initial chase, cops also fired on a state police vehicle they thought the suspect was driving.

The hunt for a suspected bomber may have been something new for the media, but the indiscriminate shootings shouldn’t be. In Ohio late last year, cops fired 137 shots in about 20 seconds into a car after a chase that started because one cop thought he heard a gunshot. No guns were recovered and the driver and passenger were both killed. And in February, during another manhunt, for ex-cop Christopher Dorner, the LAPD fired more than a hundred times into a truck that was a different make and model than Dorner’s. The two women in the car, a mother and daughter aged 71 and 47, weren’t seriously injured. The LAPD settled for $4.2 million earlier this week, an uncharacteristically quick resolution for the department.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    "During the initial chase, cops also fired on a state police vehicle they thought the suspect was driving."

    They thought it was C. Dorner?

  • CE||

    It was the right color and make of vehicle, so they're up one on the LAPD.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    +1 bowl of chowdah

  • Ska||

    It's shau-dere.

  • SugarFree||

    Say it right, Frenchie!

  • Pro Libertate||

    To be honest, I was surprised they didn't shoot him dead in the boat, given the concern (and a legitimate one) that he was wired to go boom.

  • db||

    Were they concerned he had a deadman switch?

  • sloopyinca||

    I think so. Didn't they say his brother had one on him when they went to cuff him and the youner brother ran over him?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Did he really? Then why didn't he explode?

  • sloopyinca||

    IIRC, they found the trigger and it had been disabled or wasn't yet armed.

    But as someone else mentioned on here, the story changes about every 30 minutes and I've been tuned out on this story for about 5 days now because I know the real story has been lost to the sands of time by now.

  • Pro Libertate||

    One of my complaints about this existence is the difficulty in obtaining truthful and accurate information. That and the problem of evil.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    And lint. I hate lint.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Okay, let's see, issues with epistemology, the question of evil, and lint.

  • ||

    And spiders! Don't forget spiders!

  • Pro Libertate||

    Sigh. Issues with epistemology, the question of evil, lint, and spiders. Are we done now?

  • Loki||

    Don't forget about the snakes!

  • Pro Libertate||

    Issues with epistemology, the question of evil, lint, spiders, and snakes.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Who knows? Of course, I say the opposite below, after thinking about it for a second. Firing on someone who might blow himself up but is young enough that he might not isn't a good strategy. Because if he thinks he's been fatally wounded, any reluctance to explode is likely to fade.

  • WomSom||

    I think the dude is a hero. Period!

    www.GotzMyAnon.tk

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    umm

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Sufficiently vague, yes? Maybe anonybot has gone Zen.

  • $park¥||

    Don't mind the anonbot, it hasn't been the same since Lisa started making $21,472 a month on Google.

  • tarran||

    I want to like the anonobot, but comments like this, and his statement that little girls are sexy make it really really difficult.

  • $park¥||

    So much for the shot in the throat being self-inflicted then.

  • UnCivilServant||

    A little hard to do, but not impossible if it's a Magic bullet! But alas, self-firing bullets aren't easy to come by these days.

  • Pro Libertate||

    When did that happen? Was it from the earlier encounter like they were saying or from the boat-gutting?

  • sloopyinca||

    Was it from the earlier encounter like they were saying or from the boat-gutting?

    Neither. They're just letting people conjecture about it so they don't have to answer any questions.

    Hell, that's what they've done all along. As more and more conjecture occurs, the cops are painted in a better and more heroic light. That facade only breaks down when the actual details of the case and/or video of them ignoring the 4A comes about. I figure in a week or so, they'll credit the cops for going out of their way to paint a silhouette of bullets around him in the boat based off the thermal imaging just so they could bring him in alive.

  • Pro Libertate||

    They could've been providing ventilation for the kid/terrorist. You know, with the cover on, he might've had trouble breathing.

  • CE||

    Anyone notice how the story about the first shootout (where the younger bomber got away) now says the older bomber "died after the shootout" instead of saying he was shot by police. I read one version where he ran out of ammo and the cops were trying to cuff him when his younger brother ran him over with the SUV and escaped.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    This story changes every friggin 30 minutes. I read reports where he fired at the police and even shot himself while in that boat.

    And now we're supposed to believe:
    "...had no firearms when he came under a barrage of police gunfire that struck the boat where he was hiding, according to multiple federal law enforcement officials"

    Fuck it. If an "official" can't be named then I don't believe any of this shit anymore.

  • tarran||

    And you wonder why he didn't surrender when they called upon him to show himself.

  • $park¥||

    *BLAM BLAM* Show yourself! *BLAM BLAM* We want to take you in! *BLAM BLAM*

  • ||

    France: tell your tanks to retreat from Benghazi
    Qaddaffi: okay
    F: Sorry too late - bombs away we must protect your country from its leader
    Q: but my tanks were retreating - why did you bomb?
    F: Your tanks were moving

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Maybe he couldn't move and apparently somewhere along the way he couldn't speak.

  • I Dug It||

    "GET YOUR STINKING PAWS OFF ME, YOU DAMNED DIRTY APE!"

  • John||

    And maybe the fact that he had planted a bomb at the Boston marathon, had thrown bombs at the police and had professed to die for Islam made the police none to keen to go up to that boat and find out what he was doing?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yeah, on this one, I'd have been an asshole cop, too. It's not just that the kid murdered and maimed some innocent people but that explosives were in the mix. And it's not like they had perfect information about what the kid's capabilities were while in that boat.

    The one question is why all of the gunfire, which doesn't sound at all warranted by the circumstances, especially when fatally wounding the kid would've given him more encouragement to blow himself up, if he'd been wired.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Isn't this the kind of situation we're paying for all those fancy bomb squad robots for?

  • Pro Libertate||

    They sent in the robot. I watched live while that was going on, though, of course, I couldn't see shit but the backs of some cops.

    The robot spoke to the guy, reassuring him that he'd have his day in court, and showed him pictures of the maimed and dead victims. They cried together, then the suspect tearfully agreed to surrender.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Then they recinded the offer made by the robot (saying it had no authority to promise anything) and tried to have him declared an enemy combatant.

  • Pro Libertate||

    That's right. The robot's current whereabouts are unknown.

  • wwhorton||

    Man, ten years ago I would've agreed with you. After over a decade of security theater and civil liberties becoming privileges afforded by the government when convenient, I've got to say I'm just too skeptical of the entire situation, including the conduct of Boston's Finest.

    I know "Boston Strong" and yay Boston PD and all that shit, but before people were figuring out what color ribbon to put on their cars for these fuckers they had a well-deserved reputation for being little more than well-armed thugs. And, maybe I'm paranoid, but this kid is still a suspect in my mind. All the "facts" we've heard so far have been filtered through the FBI and BPD, and I'm just a little too paranoid to believe without some unbiased proof.

    And lets not lose the context, here. These guys were moving through the neighborhood like a paramilitary operation. They were pulling people out of their homes to search for ONE DUDE like they were an army of occupation, not police officers. So, it's not like two beat cops came upon a gun-wielding turrst hiding out in an alley and panicked. These fuckers had the latest military-grade tech, APCs, and body armor. Panicked, my ass. More like a little too enthusiastic to use the toys before they have to put them away.

  • tarran||

    Dude, don't go all wobbly on me. You were contemptuous of the cops for allowing him to get away, when in fact it was understandable.

    Now you are defending the cops on their biggest fuckup.

    They opened fire for no reason.

    Not wanting to approach the boat, sending a robot, all that malarky is fine. Filling the boat full of lead is insane, particularly if they do kill him, and now you have a guy lying in a boat with a possible suicide vest who isn't responding to commands. It makes the problem of officer safety worse.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Could be they were shooting at a dog, you know.

  • John||

    That wasn't their biggest fuck up. If this guy had been shot, he would have had only himself to blame.

  • tarran||

    OK, you're right. Sending an SUV as an unguided missile down the road during the initial fire fight was their biggest fuckup.

    But, again, there was no reason to open fire. Some undisciplined lout started shooting and they all got their freak on.

    And, as you pointed out earlier, had they killed him, all sorts of conspiracy theories would have been fertilized on that act.

    LAst but not least, unlike the dynamic fire fight the night before, here was a situation that was static, where senior officers had good command and control and situational awareness. So, I am less willing to charitably forgive them for their missteps.

  • John||

    Pretty much. They were a bunch of undisciplined yokels who stumbled onto the guy and were terrified.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Do law enforcement officers practice panic fire, or does it come naturally?

  • Restoras||

    +7 Rounds

  • UnCivilServant||

    That's New York, I think Mass. cops still get 17.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    When one shoots, they all shoot. That way, the death can't be pinned on any one of them. Call it professional courtesy.

  • UnCivilServant||

    I thought it was a Pavlovian reaction to loud noises.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Or just a desire to get in on the action before it's over.

  • Loki||

    That way, the death can't be pinned on any one of them. Call it professional courtesy.

    Or they can all take credit for firing the fatal shot.

    "Fuck yeah, I took down that terrorist SOB! I'm sure it was a bullet from my gun that fired the fatal shot, even though there were about a hundred of us all unloading at once, but... FUCK YEAH!!!"

  • John||

    In fairness to the police, there is a reasonable chance that he had on some kind of suicide vest and was waiting for the police to come up so he could detonate it. It is not like Islamic nuts haven't done that before in other places. If I were a cop, I wouldn't be too keen to go up there either. In the end, so what if he was unarmed? That just means he managed to bluff the cops, which given how dangerous the guy was wasn't too hard. They had him caught. He wasn't going anywhere. Why go up and risk getting blown up? If he bled to death in the mean time, that is his fault for not coming out.

  • $park¥||

    If the idea really was to capture the guy, the police shouldn't have been firing shots all over the damn place. Especially in a thickly settled neighborhood, especially if he was wired.

    Other than that, the fact that he was unarmed isn't that relevant.

  • tarran||

    John,

    I think there's a good chance that the guy was too weak to do much of anything.

    He'd been shot. He had been bleeding for 16 hours (or so). If he'd been shot in the throat, he couldn't answer when they called to him.

    The question is why did the cops start firing? Send the robot, look him over, and pull him out if he's a mess.

    Hell, lay siege to the area and let him die like they did with Jose Guerena, if they didn't want to risk their lives.

    The cops really were pathetic animals after Thursday night.

  • John||

    I didn't realize they had fired at the boat. That is pretty stupid. But not as stupid as firing at the SUV. As police sins in this go, it is not the greatest.

  • tarran||

    There's a lovely picture of the boat. The cops ventillated the damn thing.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    He's comin' right at us!

  • Pro Libertate||

    Holy cow. I wasn't sure what they had shot at. I'd say it was the boat.

  • Restoras||

    Funny. They could have hooked the trailer up to one of thier vehicls and towed it away.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Say, who is paying for that boat? It's got an ex-hull now.

  • ||

    A group was formed to donate to the man who "discovered" the guy hiding in his boat so that he could replace his boat, but he said he wanted that money to go to one of the relief groups instead.

    So I'm sure somehow taxpayers will end up footing the bill for this.

  • sloopyinca||

    I wonder if his insurance company will pay for it? Or will force majeure apply since cops are superhuman?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Insurance usually covers negligence or damage from natural events, but I don't know about government action. Maybe it would cover it--not really sure.

  • db||

    Where do bullets go when you fire them at a fiberglass boat in A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD?

  • Pro Libertate||

    That's another one of those good questions. Did they do all that shooting knowing the good citizens of the neighborhood were out of harm's way?

  • UnCivilServant||

    What regard have cops for mere "civilians"? We're just collateral damage they can pin on the suspect.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Not sure how easy that would be with half the country's media right there and other witnesses.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Felony Murder - any deaths during the commission of a felony are murder charges for the charged criminal - even if they didn't cause them.

  • Pro Libertate||

    That's true, but it doesn't actually transfer away any criminal negligence or intentional action of the cops. If they weren't entitled to shoot, they can be held liable, too. And if one of the cops opened fire to intentionally kill a neighbor on the other side, he still goes away for murder, even if the kid gets nailed for it, too.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    any deaths during the commission of a felony are murder charges for the charged criminal

    I hate that crap. Free reign for the authorities to go apeshit is what it amounts to.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Like I said, felony-murder doesn't absolve the cops if they act recklessly or with intentional malice. I'm leaving aside the issue of whether cops will actually be found guilt of such things.

  • UnCivilServant||

    I point you to a dozen other Hit and Run articles in the past few weeks about the police violence standard.

    They never get prosecuted.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Sure. That's the problem. But that's not because of the felony-murder rule.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Okay, true, two problems, same event. Both contribute to police disregard, but the immunity from repercussions is probably a whole lot bigger.

  • Pro Libertate||

    No clue why people tolerate that. Less accountability mean more abuse.

  • Libertymike||

    Jose Guerena was murdered.

  • thom||

    Why is there a "reasonable chance" of this? Has there been any serious signs that he was fanatical or suicidal? At this point all signs seem to point to a dumb kid who got suckered into a conspiracy to commit murder by his crazy older brother.

    Realistically, if there was a "reasonable chance" that he was a potential suicide bomber, it's highly unlikely that they would have found him hiding under a boat, instead of making an all out last stand to position himself in a heavily populated place.

  • John||

    Has there been any serious signs that he was fanatical or suicidal?

    I would say throwing bombs at the cops and running over your own brother in your escape is pretty good evidence of that.

    At this point all signs seem to point to a dumb kid who got suckered into a conspiracy to commit murder by his crazy older brother.

    After he was caught, sure that is what you think. But before then, how do you know that? And I am not totally convinced of the dumb kid story anyway. It is possible the dead one was the real mastermind. Or it is also possible that that is a bunch of horseshit and this guy was even more crazy and violent than his brother, just not as smart or dominant in the relationship. Who knows?

    Realistically, if there was a "reasonable chance" that he was a potential suicide bomber, it's highly unlikely that they would have found him hiding under a boat, instead of making an all out last stand to position himself in a heavily populated place.

    I don't think so. You don't know that. He could also have hid hoping to figure out what to do but had a vest on in case he was found. You just don't know at the time and I don't blame the cops for not being willing to bet their life on speculation what this guy might be doing.

  • Nazdrakke||

    Has there been any serious signs that he was fanatical or suicidal?

    I would say throwing bombs at the cops and running over your own brother in your escape is pretty good evidence of that.

    Just making sure I have this right. Trying to escape, rather than going down in a blaze of glory is evidence he was suicidal?

  • John||

    When it involves trying to kill the people attempting to capture you, yes.

  • tarran||

    Did he though?

    The only nasty thing he did after his brother started his suicidal charge was to drive through the police blockade.... and over his brother.

    It's possible that he just ran for his life. Certainly he abandoned all the ordnance in the car he escaped in. I think he left a couple of pipe bombs behind.

    Don't get me wrong, he's a murderous bastard and I don't see him as some innocent lamb. I just question whether we can conclusively say he was suicidal.

  • Nazdrakke||

    I just question whether we can conclusively say he was suicidal.

    I'd have to say that given that he tried to escape and hide indicates that dying wasn't at the top of his bucketlist at the time.

  • John||

    The only nasty thing he did after his brother started his suicidal charge was to drive through the police blockade.... and over his brother.

    How do you know that? Everyone is assuming here that this guy wasn't a threat. I call bullshit. This guy was and is a lunatic. And anyone who thinks they at the time would have just known he wasn't a danger and would have walked up to that boat is talking out of their ass.

  • tarran||

    John,

    I think you are misunderstanding me.

    I'm arguing that we can't say definitively that he was suicidal. I am not arguing that he definitely wasn't suicidal. Rather, I am saying it's not clear one way or the other.

  • Nazdrakke||

    When it involves trying to kill the people attempting to capture you, yes.

    Seriously, John, you're just being fucking obstinately stupid here.

  • John||

    You are telling me a guy who was running from the cops after planting two bombs at the Boston Marathon and getting in a shootout with police couldn't possibly have been suicidal.

    Stupid would be a weak word for what you are claiming. You are talking out of your ass. There is no way in hell you or anyone else would have just sauntered up to that boat because you just knew he was a scared kid looking to surrender.

  • Irish||

    Okay, I agree with you downthread about the other example people are using, but I don't know how you can be justifying police action in the Boston Bombing situation.

    They opened fire in a residential neighborhood at a suspect they needed to answer questions. They did this without a shred of evidence that he had a gun, a bomb or any other weapon.

    This was straight up panic fire from a group of people that are being treated as heroes by the media. It's inexcusable.

  • Nazdrakke||

    You are telling me a guy who was running from the cops after planting two bombs at the Boston Marathon and getting in a shootout with police couldn't possibly have been suicidal.

    I know it's a stretch sometimes, but try using logic. Was he a murderous criminal intent on evading capture? Yes. Is this evidence that he was suicidal? No. In fact his observable behavior strongly suggest he was not suicidal, but was instead interested in prolonging his life.

  • wwhorton||

    Wait a tic. How does it follow, logically speaking, that trying to kill people who are trying to capture you for a crime that would almost certainly result in life in prison is a suicidal act? You're trying to prevent your own capture, presumably to go off and not be caught. The implication is that you're going to go away and NOT kill yourself. Otherwise, he would have just killed himself, or "suicided by cop", or tried to take a bunch of the PD with him.

    I mean, really, any number of criminals open fire on police in pursuit. Are you saying that they're suicidal?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Let's not go overboard. I don't think shooting the boat up was a smart idea, but getting all psychological about the kid while he's possibly wired to explode or armed is silly. He participated in a heinous crime and didn't deserve a whole lot of the benefit of the doubt. My little brother and I are close, but I couldn't get him to do something like this (assuming I totally lost my mind) in a hundred years.

    That said, why all the bullets? I just can't figure that out.

  • T||

    Spray and pray, ProL, spray and pray.

  • Pro Libertate||

    What's even worse about that, leaving aside the practical consequence of him blowing up, is that we really needed him alive to see if this was connected to a larger plot, which was and is a legitimate concern. Not much use to us dead.

  • CatoTheElder||

    In fairness to the police, you are correct: whether the guy still posed a lethal threat was anything but clear, and it reasonable to assume the worst.

    That said, there are far better ways to handle this. For example, the guy was in a boat behind a house. Why not just bring a Fire Department ladder truck to the front of the house and flood the boat. There's no way the guy could have got an aimed shot off and less able to self-detonate if he was wired to explode if he was being doused with fire hoses; all LE and FD personnel would have cover; and he'd have nowhere to escape or hide. Further, there would be a greater probability of getting information out of the SOB. But I suppose it was quicker and more exciting to fire into the boat.

  • Agammamon||

    In fairness to fuck all - that's why we have the ablity to cantain the scene and negotiate a surrender.

    Oh and camera wielding bomb robots who can go up for a peek.

    It looks like the SOP for police all over the country is - if your crime gets on national news they're going to try to take you in dead.

  • ||

    Shots Fired Anyway

    It was in a backyard. There may have been a dog.

  • I Dug It||

    You can't be too careful.

  • CE||

    Don't forget this LAPD shooting last year: 120 bullets when he reached for his cellphone, on a major freeway:

    http://www.dailynews.com/ci_20.....01-freeway

    The family is suing for 120 million dollars, a million dollars a bullet.

  • John||

    Arian was killed late Wednesday by police after a confrontation with officers that began when he sped from a traffic stop in Northridge. Arian led officers on a chase through the Valley to Woodland Hills that ended on the 101 shortly before 10 p.m.

    He jumped out of his car on the freeway, fled on foot and appeared to be gesturing or pointing an object at officers shortly before they opened fire. No gun was found at the scene, and his family said the only object he held was a cellphone.

    I am as down on cops as anyone. But that guy is pretty far down on the list of most victimized by the police. When you lead cops on a high speed chase and then get out of your car and make them chase you on foot, you can't really complain when the cops chasing you think you are armed and dangerous.

  • T||

    Umm, wait, what? Running away is now sufficient to believe you're armed and dangerous?

  • tarran||

    Running away, then turning and waving an object in your hand would be.

  • T||

    No. This isn't a fucking free-fire zone in a war. You can't positively ID a gun, you don't get to shoot. If that means more cops get shot, too bad for them. Either man up and accept the risks that come with chasing bad people or go be a mall security guard. You don't get to execute a guy because he was holding 'something', any more than I would.

  • John||

    You can't positively ID a gun, you don't get to shoot.

    Sure it is not. And in any other circumstance I would agree with you. But when the person leads the police on a high speed chase like this, it is incumbent on them to make sure the cops know they do not mean any harm.

    The cop has no right to assume someone who doesn't run away means them harm. But when someone runs and then turns, the cop has every right to assume they mean them harm.

  • tarran||

    But when someone runs and then turns, the cop has every right to assume they mean them harm.

    After all, how often does a running person turn around to argue peacably?

  • John||

    I don't know. But if they want to do that, I don't think it is too much to ask that they do so in a way that the cop won't think they are going for a gun. I am not saying they should shoot anyone who runs and then stops. But if you run and then decide not to, don't reach for shit the cop might think is a gun. It is not hard.

  • T||

    No. The cops don't get the benefit of the doubt. They pissed that away years ago, especially in LA.

  • SugarFree||

    We have nothing but the word of the police that he went for his cellphone, or pointed with his cellphone or did anything at all to warrant having between 90 and 150 rounds fired at him. (Of which on 8 to 10 hit him; dat's some good shootin', Tex.)

    Police have given me no reason to give their version of events--any events--benefit of the doubt.

  • tarran||

    Point taken.

  • John||

    Then you are saying the police are lying and just shot him for fun. Maybe so. But we have no evidence of that. When there is, come talk to me. But that is a different argument than saying that the police had no right to shoot if he turned and reached in his pocket.

  • Loki||

    If that means more cops get shot, too bad for them

    "NO MORE DEAD COPS!" /idiot pig in the Dark Knight /sarc

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Fleeing from the cops is the same thing as threatening them. You are threatening harm to their egos, which is punishable by summary execution.

  • John||

    Come on. Put yourself in the cop's position. This guy takes off. Then he gets out of his car and runs. Then he turns around and reaches for something. You think that only some murderous ego bruised cop is going to think he might mean them harm?

    The cops have a bit of a leg to stand on here. This isn't the Diallo case where some poor bastard is minding his own business and the cops walk up and shooting or that case in San Fransisco where the poor bastard was whittling and the cop shot him. You lead the police on a high speed chase, you are creating the dangerous situation.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I think what rankles is that cops can do this all day, even to great excess, but if a little person did the same thing, off to prison.

  • John||

    That is true, but that is a different issue. I look at this case as analogous to if someone broke in my house and I confronted them and they reached for something and I shot them and that something turned out to be a cell phone. It sucks that the guy just got shot for reaching for a cell phone. But if he hadn't been breaking into my house, it wouldn't have happened to him. Same thing here. When you run from cops and then turn and confront them, you really can't complain when they assume you mean them harm.

  • Pro Libertate||

    That's a little different, though, because the act of breaking into your house is an act of violence in itself, which could put you in reasonable fear of harm. And it's not like you can easily (or should) flee.

    Personally, if I were to flip out and run from the cops for some reason, unless I was strangely suicidal, if I decided to surrender, I'd do so in the least possible threatening manner.

  • Irish||

    Personally, if I were to flip out and run from the cops for some reason, unless I was strangely suicidal, if I decided to surrender, I'd do so in the least possible threatening manner.

    Yeah, if the guy was going to surrender, he should have stopped, put his hands on his head and went to his knees.

    If you turn towards pursuing cops and wave something at them, I can't blame them for assuming the worst.

  • T||

    If we're supposed to accept the fact these guys are trained professionals, they need to act like trained professionals, not scared little bitches. Oooo, he has something in his hand! It could be dangerous! Shoot him quick!

    Really? You've got a bullet proof vest and all your buddies. Act like the hero you claim to be and accept some risk instead of being a scared little wuss and shooting first and thinking later.

    Seriously, did the guy go into a firing stance holding a cell phone? I really, really fucking doubt it. What you guys are arguing here is that the cops get to shoot you for having something in your hand when you turn around because OMG! it might be a weapon! Fuck that noise. That's complete horseshit.

  • John||

    No what we are arguing T is that if you lead cops on a high speed chase and then turn around and confront them, you can't expect them to assume anything you do is going to be benign. Turn around and don't reach in your pockets. What do you think the cops are going to think you are reaching for? You just ran from them.

    Of all the hills to die on, the hill of the dumb ass who runs from the cops and then is shocked when they assume he is reaching for a gun after he turns and confronts them is about the dumbest one.

  • Irish||

    Of all the hills to die on, the hill of the dumb ass who runs from the cops and then is shocked when they assume he is reaching for a gun after he turns and confronts them is about the dumbest one.

    Not only that, but when people see libertarians talking about their disdain for the police, it will come off as just being anti-cop bias if you try to use examples like this as proof of terrible policing.

    There are hundreds of examples of legitimately awful policing in which people are shot for literally doing nothing wrong. I can easily see a reasonable person in the situation the cops were in behaving this way, so this isn't a great example of awful policing when compared to the examples we see on this board every day.

  • CatoTheElder||

    "hundreds of examples of legitimately awful policing"

    Do you really think awful policing is ever legitimate?

  • T||

    It is either okay for the cops to shoot unarmed men on the thinnest of pretexts or it isn't. I'm gonna go with it isn't.

    Again, the cops are the 'trained professionals' who accept the risk of dealing with dirtbags. If I'm unreasonable for thinking they should be a little less trigger happy (120 rounds! That's more than a full belt out of a machine gun.) then I guess I'm unreasonable. Everybody is all quick to blame fucktard and say he should have not turned around with something in his hand and he should have known better. How about the trained professionals of the LAPD? Shouldn't they know better? Why do they get a pass? What, they can't wait a second or two to see if he's really dangerous before turning him into swiss cheese?

    Officer safety means shit to me because it's an excuse to put cop lives ahead of everybody else's and it should be the other way around.

  • Irish||

    It is either okay for the cops to shoot unarmed men on the thinnest of pretexts or it isn't.

    This is hardly the thinnest of pretexts. The guy brought them on a high speed chase.

    If I'm unreasonable for thinking they should be a little less trigger happy (120 rounds! That's more than a full belt out of a machine gun.) then I guess I'm unreasonable.

    Yes, but how many cops were there? If you're taught to empty your clip and there were 10-12 cops there, then we can expect that 120 rounds would have been fired. It's not like one cop emptied his gun 120 times. The number of bullets used is therefore irrelevant. If there were one cop, 12 bullets would have been fired. Two cops? You could have expected 24. It's not like anyone stopped to reload.

  • Irish||

    I agree with John on this one. He took cops on a high speed chase, jumped out of the car, and took of running. He then turned around and waved a cell phone at them.

    If you want to surrender and you're getting chased by cops, you do not make any sudden movements or wave something in their direction.

    Normally the 'officer safety' excuse is ridiculous. There will be four police officers, and some guy will come at them with a golf club and they'll shoot him instead of tackling and disarming him, for example.

    In this instance though, an officer fearing for his safety seems pretty reasonable.

  • Julant||

    The second part of your statement just completely negated the first part.

    As you pointed out, there were indeed multiple officers, 8 in fact, so it wasn't just a one-on-one situation. They had him covered many times over, and could have better assessed the situation before panic firing.

    Also, while he may have turned around (remember, this is all coming from involved officer statements, so grains of salt and all that), they do not report that he actually attempted to charge or attack. How do we know that his hand movements were really done in a threatening manner? He very well could have been putting his hands up to surrender.

    Every single detail of this story outside of the testimony by involved cops seems to indicate the kid was trying to run away, not kill cops. He didn't try to run them over, he didn't shoot at them, hell, he didn't even try to fight with them.

    Every angle of this story smacks of cops hiding behind 'officer safety' for a dirty killing of a scared kid.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    They really don't if you take past cop actions into account. Remember Remarley Graham who the cops declared had a gun, even though he was bent over his toilet and had no gun?

    Hold an object? Get shot. Stand funny/assume an aggressive shooting stance? Get shot. Reach for your waistband/adjust your pants? Get shot.

    Second, they discharged 120 rounds at him. So between 8 and 10 cops emptied their guns into this kid.

    It always stinks of pretext.

  • Pro Libertate||

    There is that. Testilying is a sad reality.

  • Irish||

    So between 8 and 10 cops emptied their guns into this kid.

    Isn't that what you're taught to do? I believe that police officers are told 'If you have to fire, you put the guy down.' If there were 10 cops chasing the guy, it's reasonable that they would all empty their guns at him, since that's what officers are told to do.

    I agree that cops often use ridiculous arguments of 'officer safety' when they shoot somebody. If this happened the way they say it did though, this wasn't such a situation.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    If this happened the way they say it did though, this wasn't such a situation.

    Quick reminder that this is the LAPD we're talking about, the same LAPD which is the only police department in America that has ever been sued under the RICO statutes.

  • Irish||

    Clearly my argument is based on their version of events, and they could be lying. That's why I point out that it depends on whether or not it happened as they claim. If they're lying, that would obviously change my opinion.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    What pisses me off the most is the treatment that anyone else would receive in the same situation. If you completely unloaded your gun into a person, that would be used against you in a court of law as an indication of intent and malice. When the cops do it, they're just protecting themselves and trying to avoid getting hurt in the line of duty, because they're heroes.

  • John||

    AC,

    If the cops are lying here, that is a different story. But assuming what is in the article is true, I am having a hard time siding with the dead guy.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    If the cops are lying here, that is a different story. But assuming what is in the article is true, I am having a hard time siding with the dead guy.

    I may be one of the evil "cop-haters" Dunphy claims rules Reason, but I almost never assume for good faith from the police.

    It's strange that the police offer to let the family hear the 911 call Abdul Arian made, then withdraw the offer tell the family to get a subpeona.

  • MJGreen||

    Yes, we can all sympathize with the cops' situation, and we can all shake our heads at the stupid behavior of the suspect. That doesn't excuse the cops' response.

    Acting stupidly (especially when hopped up on adrenaline) is not a crime punishable by death.

  • John||

    MJGreen

    Breaking into my house and then reaching into your pocket with a cell phone when I confront you with a gun is most definitely acting stupidly. But if I shot you thinking you meant me harm, I would be totally justified.

    Same thing here. When your stupidity creates the dangerous situation and the belief in the other person you mean them harm, tough shit when they shoot you.

  • Irish||

    Acting stupidly (especially when hopped up on adrenaline) is not a crime punishable by death.

    Yes, but he wasn't being 'punished.' It was an accident resulting from his stupidity, not police officer intent. The cops were also hopped up on adrenaline, and in such a situation, it is expected that an accident can happen.

    Tragic? Yes. An example of terrible police officers? If it happened the way they say it did, then no.

  • Agammamon||

    Yes, yes you can.

    John I do not get where you are coming from with this idea that anyone who doesn't immediately surrender to the cops should be treated like a violent maniac.

    If anyone should know how difficult it is to get an accurate shot off in stressful circumstances its police - contain the scene, talk the guy down, and don't shoot until you're abso-fucking-lutely sure he's a threat.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Lights the Dunphy-signal

    Da-na-na-na-na-na-na-na...DUNPHY!

  • Gladstone||

    Fun Fact: Watertown was where the revolutionary Massaschussetts Congress met in the early days of the Revolution.

  • UnCivilServant||

    But that started as a debate over taxation, the whole Amendment Protected Rights stuff came later. I think they were already arguing further south then.

  • ||

    Isn't this the same police force that's afraid of Ignignokt?

  • ||

    He pointed the quad laser at them! What did you want them to do?

  • ||

    It occurs to me that if you're in a tense situation with police and behind suitably bulletproof cover, you could cause an awful lot of carnage, of the friendly fire variety, with a digital recorder and the gunfire track from an action movie.

    Michael Winslow might be able to encourage a SWAT team to take itself out entirely on his own...

  • ||

    I've been around people that have smoked it and the smell is so foul I knew I did not want. I also have no real desire to engage in any sort of mind altering activities to the point that I even hate taking pain medications. You like it, you smoke it. It's not going to ruin my day.

    I award you the sobriety merit badge. Good for you! [golf-clap]

  • UnCivilServant||

    That's so out of context I think you may have gotten lost on your way to another thread.

  • CatoTheElder||

    "The FBI’s not saying what led police to fire on the boat..."

    Mental retardation.

    Oops, that's not very sensitive. Make that learning-disabled cops.

  • Adamsmith1776||

    Gotta stick up for the cops on this one. Jokar had been throwing bombs about the street and either he or his brother had been shooting at teh police with a (gasp) "illegal" handgun after they got in their carjacked vehicle (with a coexist sticker). The cops have the same right of self-defense as normal citizens, but their job puts them in dangerous places sometimes. While there are certainly some abuses, the call on this one needs to go to the cops--especially given the fact that the brothers had already shot one cop who had been guilty of nothing more than sitting in his cruiser.

  • Agammamon||

    Uh, allegedly shot a cop who was guilty of nothing more than sitting in his cruiser.

    In any case - shooting an armed suspect when he's actually shooting at you is one thing, filling his hiding place full of holes hours later when *AT THAT TIME* he had done nothing hostile is not - especially when you've got the scene locked down and remotely operated cameras available to check on this *possible* explosive vest he *may* have but no-one had actually seen him with, only supposed that he might be wearing one because suicide bombers do. Suicide bombers with an entirely different MO than these guys.

    If the prior attack on police was enough to justify killing him then the bombing itself would have been enough justification to kill him on the spot.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement