Current Affairs Boston bombing

[Stevo985]

I would imagine that with the amount of footage there would be of that area via CCTV and spectators' cameras they'd be able to track the two guys' every move. 

[The_Rev]

They will.  And if not, there is the small matter of everything the guy did on Friday. 

[Stevo985]

Exactly. You don't engage in a gunfight, throwing bombs and grenades at police if you're innocent.

[snowychap]

Exactly. You don't engage in a gunfight, throwing bombs and grenades at police if you're innocent.

 

That's the dangerous step to take, I think.*

Taking it out of this specific arena into something general, might people not do all sorts of things which don't conclusively admit their guilt (or more specifically their guilt for a certain thing - people can be innocent of one thing and guilty of another, for instance we were told for a substantial time on the day that they had robbed a shop and later we were told this was not true - perhaps they did actually rob it?).

On the (general) reaction, is it that someone has fought back (or fired first, perhaps) that makes them 'not innocent' of whatever they were being pursued for?

What if they were deemed to be 'holding a firearm' (though that may later come in to question) and were taken out by the police - would that mean that they were conclusively guilty of doing what they were suspected of doing?

What if they were deemed/reported to have been running away, leaping over barriers, wearing a bulky jacket with dangling wires and so on?

 

*I'm not suggesting you're taking the view that due process and subsequent legal proceedings are mere legal niceties but I'd suggest that those who take that view (and perhaps then argue against the necessity of affording all suspects the same level of process) would first have to take the view that their actions conclusively prove their guilt (rather than the evidence of them committing the crimes).

[Stevo985]

Yeah I agree with all of that. I guess if I was extending my statement I'd say the fact that they've engaged in a gunfight throwing bombs and grenades at police would suggest that they're probably not innocent.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Any mention of that car chase and mentions of the suspects chucking bombs just puts in mind a very dangerous game of Mario Kart.

[NurembergVillan]

 

Exactly. You don't engage in a gunfight, throwing bombs and grenades at police if you're innocent.

 

What if they were deemed to be 'holding a firearm' (though that may later come in to question) and were taken out by the police - would that mean that they were conclusively guilty of doing what they were suspected of doing?

 

 

Firing a gun in the States is one thing, but I don't think the right to bear arms extends to homemade explosives.

[Kwan]

There are multiple videos you can find online recording the shootout from a distance. We likely won't see the dashcam until the trial, but even by listening to the video, they're packing long guns.

 

I suppose that they could have not been holding a gun and that the police were simply shooting dozens and dozens of rounds at them in a case of several hot trigger fingers and that the explosions are just made up hearsay by the police, but that's a big ask to have everyone and the civilians in on this

[Meath_Villan]

But a fully automatic assault rifle is ?

[Kwan]

Just a note, fully automatic assault rifles are banned in the US. I know that ignores the larger point about guns, but fully automatics haven't been legal since '84

[Meath_Villan]

Someone would want to tell the deep south then !!!

[Meath_Villan]

"The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), or Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, was a subtitle of theViolent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law in the United States that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms, so called "assault weapons".^[1] The 10-year ban was passed byCongress on September 13, 1994, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired on September 13, 2004, as part of the law's sunset provision. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban,^[2] but no bill has reached the House floor for a vote."

 

 

so does that mean fully automated assault rifles made before the ban are legal ?

[snowychap]

There are multiple videos you can find online recording the shootout from a distance. We likely won't see the dashcam until the trial, but even by listening to the video, they're packing long guns.

 

I suppose that they could have not been holding a gun and that the police were simply shooting dozens and dozens of rounds at them in a case of several hot trigger fingers and that the explosions are just made up hearsay by the police, but that's a big ask to have everyone and the civilians in on this

 

If that's a response to my post(s) then you seem to be missing the point that I am making by a country mile (and, possibly, rather reinforcing it).

 

My 'holding a firearm/gun' was a reference to Duggan (before the riots); my leaping over barriers was a reference to de Menezes.

[Kwan]

 

"The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), or Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, was a subtitle of theViolent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law in the United States that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms, so called "assault weapons".^[1] The 10-year ban was passed byCongress on September 13, 1994, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired on September 13, 2004, as part of the law's sunset provision. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban,^[2] but no bill has reached the House floor for a vote."

 

 

so does that mean fully automated assault rifles made before the ban are legal ?

 

 

Yeah that would be correct though that still only applies to specially referred "assault rifles" that are still semi-automatic

 

The one you're looking for is the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) enacted in 1986 (my mistake) that heavily restricted the sale of fully automatic machine guns to only higher law enforcement and military personnel.

 

The whole distinction between semi-automatic and fully automatic is important because a pistol is semi-automatic and does the same damage as a semi-automatic "assault rifle." One just looks scarier

Edited April 22, 2013 by Kwan

[Kwan]

 

There are multiple videos you can find online recording the shootout from a distance. We likely won't see the dashcam until the trial, but even by listening to the video, they're packing long guns.

 

I suppose that they could have not been holding a gun and that the police were simply shooting dozens and dozens of rounds at them in a case of several hot trigger fingers and that the explosions are just made up hearsay by the police, but that's a big ask to have everyone and the civilians in on this

 

If that's a response to my post(s) then you seem to be missing the point that I am making by a country mile (and, possibly, rather reinforcing it).

 

My 'holding a firearm/gun' was a reference to Duggan (before the riots); my leaping over barriers was a reference to de Menezes.

 

 

Ah, I didn't realize you were referencing a hypothetical or rather something else entirely.

[Meath_Villan]

But if you have a fully automatic registered gun before the ban ...you can keep it ?

[Kwan]

Yeah, but they didn't make a lot of fully automatic guns before 1986 that were available for wide consumption to the public. You'll probably find a spare few from the Vietnam veterans, but in general those were pretty limited

[snowychap]

Ah, I didn't realize you were referencing a hypothetical or rather something else entirely.

I did say, "Taking it out of this specific arena into something general..." though the reason for that was to make a general point that ought then to be applied back to specific situations (for instance this one in Boston).

[peterms]

This is interesting.

 

The Official Tsarnaev Story Makes No Sense

 

There are gaping holes in the official story of the Boston bombings.

 

We are asked to believe that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was identified by the Russian government as an extremist Dagestani or Chechen Islamist terrorist, and they were so concerned about it that in late 2010 they asked the US government to take action. At that time, the US and Russia did not normally have a security cooperation relationship over the Caucasus, particularly following the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008. For the Russians to ask the Americans for assistance, Tsarnaev must have been high on their list of worries.

 

In early 2011 the FBI interview Tsarnaev and trawl his papers and computers but apparently – remarkably for somebody allegedly radicalised by internet – the habitually paranoid FBI find nothing of concern.

 

So far, so weird. But now this gets utterly incredible. In 2012 Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who is of such concern to Russian security, is able to fly to Russia and pass through the airport security checks of the world’s most thoroughly and brutally efficient security services without being picked up. He is then able to proceed to Dagestan – right at the heart of the world’s heaviest military occupation and the world’s most far reaching secret police surveillance – again without being intercepted, and he is able there to go through some form of terror training or further Islamist indoctrination. He then flies out again without any intervention by the Russian security services.

 

That is the official story and I have no doubt it did not happen. I know Russia and I know the Russian security services. Whatever else they may be, they are extremely well-equipped, experienced and efficient and embedded into a social fabric accustomed to cooperation with their mastery. This scenario is simply impossible in the real world.

 

We have, by the official account, the involvement of the two Tsarnaev brothers, the FBI and the Russian security services. The FBI have a massive recent record of running agent provocateur operations to entrap gullible Muslims into terrorism. The Russian security services have form on false flag Chechen bombings. Where the truth lies may be difficult to dig out. But the above official version is not true.

 

 

[b23avfc]

But surely you can't accuse somebody of something based on what crime they comitted afterwards? Surely that's a separate heinous act.

 

Anyway, whatever happened, bag characters were at play.

 

Pity these two lads got framed first..

 

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/runners-fingered-as-bombing-suspects-875362

 

Oh sorry. They look like terrorists, so it must be a fair bet.