# Boston Marathon Bombing



## Shoe City Thinker (Oct 8, 2012)

Thoughts and prayers are to those who were affected by the bombing at the Boston Marathon.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Second.


----------



## Zakk (Aug 4, 2011)

Third. Hope the scumbag is caught soon.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Fourth. Sadly, life is not as simple any more...a sad reality of our times.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Commiserations


----------



## Shoe City Thinker (Oct 8, 2012)

Bostonian AAAC Roll Call! Is everyone OK?


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Shoe City Thinker said:


> Thoughts and prayers are to those who were affected by the bombing at the Boston Marathon.


Indeed. The eight year old and his family in particular.

Also the poor souls in places where indiscriminate terror bombing is almost routine but does not feature beyond a few lines in our news reports.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Shoe City Thinker said:


> Bostonian AAAC Roll Call! Is everyone OK?


Yes I'm ok. I was home for the day so I was nowhere near what happened. It's a state holiday.

Bothers me a lot that an 8-year old boy died.

They killed a little boy...and for what - politics?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Biggest question is whether the atrocity was by home grown terrorists, of what agenda? Or a lone nutter? Unlikely to be Al Qaeda as they'd have claimed responsibility by now.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

On WHDH.com there's a video showing the duffel bag that contained one of the bombs. Also a man running from the scene
that police consider a "person of interest" - they want to talk to him.


----------



## Flairball (Dec 9, 2012)

Don't know if anyone is awake right now, but it's all jumping off in the Boston area right now. One bomber killed, another being pursued in Watertown, and a third in custody. Many IEDs have been found, and one is about to be detonated by the police. 

The unfortunate cost is the life of an MIT officer, and a Transit officer in surgery.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Yes I was awake all night and I've been following the news. One of the bombers is dead and the other is on the run. Police are hot on his trail. The name of the guy they're looking for is Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, 19, of Cambridge, MA, U.S.A. The two men are Russians from a region near Chechnya - Chechen terrorists maybe? The entire MBTA public transit system is shut down until further notice. Looks like this whole bombing affair is drawing to a close. Check WCVB.com or WHDH.com for further details.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Chouan said:


> Biggest question is whether the atrocity was by home grown terrorists, of what agenda? Or a lone nutter? Unlikely to be Al Qaeda as they'd have claimed responsibility by now.


You are probably right with your assumptions of a lack of Al Qaeda involvement, but the Taliban have certainly been scrambling to distance themselves from any association with the bombings in the event Al Qaeda were to be connected with these cowardly acts. It's never a good idea to climb into bed with the forces of evil. Those "armed drones" of ours certainly do seem to have secured the attention a fair portion of the bad guys!


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Tamerlan Tsarnaev age 26 was the guy killed in the shoot-out with police. He carried the first bomb that exploded on Marathon Day. The two men are brothers (see above). Much of Boston is now shut down - stay inside; don't go to work etc. because there's an active manhunt going on for the other guy who's armed with guns and what seems to be homemade grenades. He's already been involved in a big shoot-out with police and there's likely to be another when the cops catch up with him.

Update: Now the FAA has declared Boston a no-fly zone until further notice. Cops are going door-to-door in a massive manhunt in Watertown to find the second bomber. The first bomber was killed in the shoot-out and was taken to nearby Mt. Auburn Hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival at 1:35AM.

Update: Cops are closing in on an area - guns drawn.

Update: It's starting to look like these two brothers were acting alone in this terrorist activity. They have no known connection to the usual suspects i.e. terrorist groups.


----------



## Shoe City Thinker (Oct 8, 2012)

A close friend in Watertown lives in close vicinity to the stand down. She was asked to take cover by the police.


----------



## Shoe City Thinker (Oct 8, 2012)

Suspect #2 is in custody.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Shoe City Thinker said:


> Suspect #2 is in custody.


Yes and he's ALIVE. So we can question him and find out what this was ALL ABOUT. Why did they do all this?


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Chouan said:


> Biggest question is whether the atrocity was by home grown terrorists, of what agenda? Or a lone nutter? Unlikely to be Al Qaeda as they'd have claimed responsibility by now.


It's becoming clearer now that the two brothers were home-grown terrorists. The older brother Tamerlan was the leader and his younger brother Dzhokhar was his follower. They thought this whole thing up on their own and carried it out. Still leaves the question of why unanswered, but now that Dzhokhar is in custody and at the hospital maybe we can begin to get answers from him.


----------



## Joseph Peter (Mar 26, 2012)

Not sure about the homegrown aspect; at least one of them wasnt a citizen...but the news is "fluid" as they say. CNN said last night that the older one went back to Chechnya for six months and came back "different". But CNN is also the outfit who said an arrest happened earlier in the week. 

What's significant to me is the classiness and resoluteness of the citizens of Boston and their law enforcement departments. Bravo, Boston, bravo!


----------



## Traser (Jan 10, 2013)

Sorry to take the thread off-track.
But coming from a country with a free at point of use healthcare system, the issue that shocks me is folk having to take up a collection to pay the hospital bills of one of the victims:
https://mashable.com/2013/04/19/bos...=rss&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews

Thank goodness for the NHS (until the present Govt dis-assemble it and make us Brits all take out private healthcare insurance).


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Was it them? Or are these suspects people who look like the people the FBI wanted? Surely a trial is necessary, using evidence, before we can say "it was them"?


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Traser said:


> Sorry to take the thread off-track.
> But coming from a country with a free at point of use healthcare system, the issue that shocks me is folk having to take up a collection to pay the hospital bills of one of the victims:
> https://mashable.com/2013/04/19/bos...=rss&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews
> 
> Thank goodness for the NHS (until the present Govt dis-assemble it and make us Brits all take out private healthcare insurance).


 Yeah its a shame when people give freely rather that at gun point.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Was it them? Or are these suspects people who look like the people the FBI wanted? Surely a trial is necessary, using evidence, before we can say "it was them"?


On the contrary Chouan, we can indeed say 'it was them' in media and conversation, that is reasonable speculation and does nothing to hamper further due process.

What is it some screwy lefty thing to ignore the obvious and pretend you suspect the FBI ?


----------



## Joseph Peter (Mar 26, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Was it them? Or are these suspects people who look like the people the FBI wanted?...
> 
> Puh-leeze. I am refraining from commenting further out of respect for the folks of Boston.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Shoe City Thinker said:


> Thoughts and prayers are to those who were affected by the bombing at the Boston Marathon.


+1.

Good that the police seem to have the situation locked down so quickly.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Chouan said:


> Was it them? Or are these suspects people who look like the people the FBI wanted? Surely a trial is necessary, using evidence, before we can say "it was them"?


Yes we're certain it was them. They were positively identified from photos and videos supplied by the public to police as the two men who placed the bombs at the Marathon.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

It certainly seems to be them. However, do you not think that these assertions in the news media are likely to prejudice the trial, when it is held?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

One aspect of the case that strikes me as rather strange is the length of time it took to discover the second suspect (the one eventually found by a member of the public, hiding in a boat). Apparently there was a trail of blood, which presumably originated in the hijacked car where the first shoot-out occurred - were tracker dogs not used? Why was he not detected by infra-red camera from the helicopters that searched the area? As I'm not in possession of all the facts at the moment, no criticism of the Boston police is implied.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

I have the same questions. I also question how it's possible for the police to have lost contact with the younger brother in the firefight. How were police helicopters not overhead?


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Chouan said:


> It certainly seems to be them. However, do you not think that these assertions in the news media are likely to prejudice the trial, when it is held?


Our 'innocent until proven guilty' never has included pretending a defendant is clean, for a suspect to be brought to trial a judge must see him as 'probably guilty' by evidence brought to the pre-trial hearing process.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Chouan said:


> It certainly seems to be them. However, do you not think that these assertions in the news media are likely to prejudice the trial, when it is held?


You're probably right. Not that it will matter. You may be sure there will be a trial. The public will demand it. As to the prejudicial effects of pre-trial publicity - this was a news story given nationwide indeed worldwide coverage - who doesn't know about this or hasn't seen the pictures of the suspects?



Langham said:


> One aspect of the case that strikes me as rather strange is the length of time it took to discover the second suspect (the one eventually found by a member of the public, hiding in a boat). Apparently there was a trail of blood, which presumably originated in the hijacked car where the first shoot-out occurred - were tracker dogs not used? Why was he not detected by infra-red camera from the helicopters that searched the area? As I'm not in possession of all the facts at the moment, no criticism of the Boston police is implied.


The suspects hijacked a vehicle. There were three people in the vehicle so the smells of three people were present. Impossible to explain to the tracker dog which smell to follow. Lots of people in the area- again impossible to explain to the dog which smell to follow. Yes there was a trail of blood but it wasn't continuous so the trail was lost. The police surrounded an area i.e. established a perimeter and helicopters searched within that area. The police almost got it right - the suspect was one-and-a-half streets outside the perimeter.



CuffDaddy said:


> I have the same questions. I also question how it's possible for the police to have lost contact with the younger brother in the firefight. How were police helicopters not overhead?


Contact was lost because the suspect drove off very fast - before anyone could follow. He turned down streets and got out of sight then abandoned the vehicle running on foot. By the time the cops caught up with the vehicle he was gone.
"How were police helicopters not overhead?" - this all happened very fast; before choppers could be put on station in the air. The suspects killed an MIT campus police officer in Cambridge; left quickly; switched vehicles by hijacking another vehicle; sped into Watertown where their path was blocked by a single cop in a squad car. As cops closed in a shoot-out occurred and the vehicle sped off. The choppers showed up later.

BTW; if I may make a minor complaint. I ordered something online. It was shipped UPS. The UPS facility that delivers to my house is located in Watertown very near where all this occurred. Because of the ongoing crime scene processing; the police aren't letting any vehicles into or out of the area. So my package; which was supposed to be delivered today; is being held up in Watertown. Oh well, stuff happens.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Regillus, one article I read said that the perps were followed in their newly-carjacked car by virtue of a GPS system, and that the chase and firefight together lasted nearly 30 minutes. Is the timeline different than that? Why were more resources not ready for immediate deployment? 

Also, how many cops arrived before the younger brother "drove off very fast"? Why were the police on that scene unable to win the gunfight conclusively? Are the Watertown/Boston-area cops not equipped with the same kind of equipment (AR's and body armor) that are standard in most of the country? If not, their departments need to learn a lesson. Are they not being trained sufficiently to be able to use their weapons to decisively engage a pair of men when they have an advantage in manpower and no fortified position by the perps to deal with?

In short, the LEO's were unable to get local tactical supremacy fast enough, despite the obvious need to be on red alert. This wasn't a chance traffic stop in a sleepy down on an ordinary night. There may be good answers to all the questions, but the questions need to be answered.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> It certainly seems to be them. However, do you not think that these assertions in the news media are likely to prejudice the trial, when it is held?


The military trial at Gitmo??

I'm not worried about it.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Chouan said:


> It certainly seems to be them. However, do you not think that these assertions in the news media are likely to prejudice the trial, when it is held?


Chouan, the American court system is very used to dealing with high-publicity trials. Jurors are typically screened for any prior knowledge of the case. Where it proves difficult to find 12 ignorant people, venue is often shifted to a remote locale. All of these things are done at the request, and for the benefit, of the defendant. The only prejudice that arises is that the jurors will tend to skew, even more than is normal, towards the uneducated and ill-informed. But in a situation where the defendant is actually guilty, that works in the defendant's favor.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> Where it proves difficult to find 12 ignorant people,


Freudian slip?:devil::smile:


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Not in the least. I meant that in all possible senses of the word. At this point, the person who hasn't heard a great deal about the Boston bombings probably hasn't heard a lot about most things.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> Not in the least. I meant that in all possible senses of the word. At this point, the person who hasn't heard a great deal about the Boston bombings probably hasn't heard a lot about most things.


Splendid.:biggrin2:

Where do you place the jury system on the following spectrum?

Flawed, or

like Churchill said of democracy, the worst system, apart from all the others, or

a thoroughly good thing?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

The middle ground is the best that can possibly be said of it. When the jury of peers were truly peers who could best relate to the experiences of the defendant, imagine themselves in his/her place, understand the meaning of the facts and circumstances that the defendant faces, etc., it probably added a lot of value (versus having peasants tried by the gentry). Now, with society so diverse, a random sampling of society does not necessarily get you any greater insight into the subjective mindset/experience/intent of the defendant. I'm still not prepared to exclude the general citizenry from the process, however, so it's probably the best that can be done in criminal cases. It's value in civil cases is pretty dubious, though. JMHO, of course.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

^ No argument on the civil side - in almost all civil cases in England and Wales the judge is the tribunal of fact and law.

On the criminal side, I'm somewhere between 'flawed' and 'Churchill': If I were innocent, I would want a bench trial. If I were guilty, I would want a jury trial.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Balfour, a friend of mine who had experience as an advocate/lawyer in both the military (courts martial) and civilian court systems once said this to me: If I were guilty, I would want a trial in civilian court; if I were innocent, I would want a court martial.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Re Post #32:

"Regillus, one article I read said that the perps were followed in their newly-carjacked car by virtue of a GPS system, and that the chase and firefight together lasted nearly 30 minutes. Is the timeline different than that? Why were more resources not ready for immediate deployment?"

After the suspects dropped off the man whose car they stole; he called it in to the cops; who then identified the car and started tracking it via GPS. So the car wasn't being tracked from the moment it was stolen. The chase may have lasted nearly 30 minutes but the firefight only lasted a few seconds. "[M]ore resources not ready..." It takes time to move vehicles and people around. They were driving fast and going this way and that, so it was hard to know where they were going to be a few minutes ahead.

"Also, how many cops arrived before the younger brother 'drove off very fast'? Why were the police on that scene unable to win the gunfight conclusively?" Only a few cops were in the area when the suspects vehicle was stopped. It was one cop in one squad car that spotted the suspects and stopped their vehicle. The older brother got out of the vehicle and walked toward the cop and opened fire. By then a few more cops had shown up; they returned fire; the guy fell down; when the cops walked up to grab him the younger brother floored it and took off; running over his older brother in the process and dragging him down the street a ways. The cops scrambled to avoid being hit. So the younger brother took off before additional police vehicles arrived at the scene to block him in. This is a residential area with houses nearby, so you can't just open fire and hose the place with bullets. You have to be careful about pulling the trigger. Several residents did report that bullets came through the walls of their houses and pictures confirming that were shown online. The cops did win the gunfight but it's hard to knock out a car engine with bullets from pistols or AR-15s. That's why the younger brother was able to drive off.

"Are the Watertown/Boston-area cops not equipped with the same kind of equipment (AR's and body armor) that are standard in most of the country?" Yes they are, but takes a little time to understand what's going on and to move men and equipment into position.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Thanks, that's more information than I've been able to find. What was the police helicopter doing during the 30 minute chase? Neither Boston nor Watertown is a big area; helo has to be able to traverse the whole thing end to end in 5-10 minutes. Did they not have one on ready alert? Why not? Did the younger brother never get out of the car? If he did, why were they not able to hit him? Does the ammunition issued to the police there pass the FBI barrier penetration standards? If so, why were they not able to shoot him through the windshield? Maybe they did; is that how he got the gunshot wounds he had? If so, why were those wounds not incapacitating? 

Even if the LEO's did everything 100% right, there are some terminal ballistics questions raised. Letting the single most wanted man in America get away from a non-surprise gunfight during a time when the LEO's were (or obviously should have been) on maximum alert suggests some problem. It all worked out in the end, but there are surely lessons to be learned.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Langham said:


> *Why was he not detected by infra-red camera from the helicopters that searched the area?*


He was.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

CuffDaddy said:


> Thanks, that's more information than I've been able to find. What was the police helicopter doing during the 30 minute chase? Neither Boston nor Watertown is a big area; helo has to be able to traverse the whole thing end to end in 5-10 minutes. Did they not have one on ready alert? Why not? Did the younger brother never get out of the car? If he did, why were they not able to hit him? Does the ammunition issued to the police there pass the FBI barrier penetration standards? If so, why were they not able to shoot him through the windshield? Maybe they did; is that how he got the gunshot wounds he had? If so, why were those wounds not incapacitating?
> 
> Even if the LEO's did everything 100% right, there are some terminal ballistics questions raised. Letting the single most wanted man in America get away from a non-surprise gunfight during a time when the LEO's were (or obviously should have been) on maximum alert suggests some problem. It all worked out in the end, but there are surely lessons to be learned.


Your lack of understanding of the facts of this case are mind boggling. Go read some more about it man...you are totally off in left field on what actually went down up here.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

mrkleen said:


> He was.


That was later - it was reported that he was actually discovered by a member of the public, at a point when the police were scaling down their search. My point was why was he not detected much earlier?


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Langham said:


> That was later - it was reported that he was actually discovered by a member of the public, at a point when the police were scaling down their search. My point was why was he not detected much earlier?


That was later according to who? The police had every street in that neighborhood surrounded and they were moving in on the suspect. Who says they didnt already know where the guy was?

Love all the Monday morning quarterbacking. They got him. Situation has been resolved. Full stop.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

mrkleen said:


> That was later according to who? The police had every street in that neighborhood surrounded and they were moving in on the suspect. Who says they didnt already know where the guy was?
> 
> Love all the Monday morning quarterbacking. They got him. Situation has been resolved. Full stop.


That was later as it was reported, obviously. If they knew he was hiding there, why were they looking elsewhere? Why would they have allowed the unsuspecting householder to walk right up to the boat and look under the tarp?

I'm not aware of all the circumstances and am not necessarily criticising the Boston police or anyone else, it's just that some of the known facts, or facts as they were reported, struck me as a little strange. I am pleased they got him, whatever the circumstances.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> Your lack of understanding of the facts of this case are mind boggling. Go read some more about it man...you are totally off in left field on what actually went down up here.


Is there a source you would recommend? (BTW, competent law enforcement agencies usually have "lessons learned" analysis from any incident remotely approaching the significance of this one. Asking question and trying to learn what might be done better in the future is standard.)


----------

