Hey, you guys remember when I got suspended from BMG last year for knocking law enforcement for the crazy shoot-out/military search/avoid the nearby boat scenario? I compared their constant self-congratulatory ad-hominem speeches to mutual oral sex.
Whatever.
Jokes on BMG because once again you lucky readers were exposed to my pioneering abilities in deep thinking and forethought.
Yes siree. Today’s Globe has an op-ed focusing on a recent JFK School report on local law enforcement’s actions during the Marathon bombing and subsequent search.
Wannabe Rambos all over the place. (How many pumped up with steroids? Take a guess)
One officer riddled a vehicle with bullets, narrowing missing two officers inside; another shot grazed a transit police officer — the second and third gunfire mistakes. Officers with guns drawn surrounded a man walking in the area. Other officers, also with guns in hand, encircled the vehicle of another passerby.
That doesn’t include Officer’s Donahue friendly fire near lethal injury.
Oh, you wanna talk discipline? Let’s talk discipline.
Once he was found hiding in a boat, a commander at the scene called for a small tactical team. Instead, officers involved in the search flocked to the scene. When Tsarnaev poked up the boat covering, the police sprayed hundreds of bullets in his direction. This was the fourth major mistake involving gunfire.
As the report concludes, “it appears that in the heat of the moment of responding, the desire to be more involved in an important event may have affected the behavior of some officers.” (emphasis mine) In other words, most surrounding that boat had no business being there.
The Honeymoon is over. Time for answers and changes.
Remember folks, the people with the badges work for us.
BTW, take a look at this google map showing the scene of the original shoot-out and the path to the backyard boat. The boat can be seen in the satellite picture. Unbelievable. From a helicopter it stands out big time. Was it checked? Of course not.
Christopher says
“Hey, you guys remember when I got suspended from BMG last year for knocking law enforcement for the crazy shoot-out/military search/avoid the nearby boat scenario? I compared their constant self-congratulatory ad-hominem speeches to mutual oral sex.”
You got suspended for the second sentence in this paragraph, not the first.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
and not the many times before?
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
is what they call it I think
fenway49 says
is what they call it, perhaps?
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
only used when I dared criticize the cops when their miscues were staring s in the face. No Harvard report necessary.
Christopher says
…his language getting quite so graphic other times.
HR's Kevin says
m/t
scout says
The car was abandoned at the corner of Spruce and Lincoln, about 200 yards for the boat, making the failure of the search in that area all the more striking.
dasox1 says
Seriously. If you want to talk about the militarization of police and whether or not that’s a good thing for society, fine. But crapping on the police for how the manhunt played out is absurd. If you had been in charge things would have been much better…………..
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
seems to me the cops want all the toys and perks but could not care less about discipline.
They blew it. Missing the boat is inexcusable.
The hundreds of negligent shots fired are scary.
JimC says
I’m not sold on your “crapping on the police” premise. How should we discuss this? The heroic officers heroically narrowly missed other heroic officers?
kirth says
I had a sarcastic comment along those lines all composed, but I decided it would bring more heat than light, and deleted it.
I do think the police action can be summed up with the statement “They missed the boat.” Why they think they are to be congratulated remains a mystery.
SomervilleTom says
Thousands of police fired hundreds of shots in an armed neighborhood, and failed to even disable the vehicle their suspects were driving. The investigation referred to in the thread-started shows that those thousands of police did, however, managed to shoot out the windows of at least one other vehicle and nearly kill one of their own.
The next day, after one of the suspects had eluded capture and was hiding in a boat just outside the police cordon. The police, after locking down the entire region (and shutting down the transportation system and closing area stores and businesses), had announced an all-clear. A citizen noticed movement in his boat, and notified authorities. What followed was ANOTHER undisciplined and un-commanded fusillade of gunfire, and NONE of those shots hit their unarmed and wounded suspect. Thankfully.
How would you suggest we discuss these things? I DO want to talk about the militarization of police. I DO want to discuss whether or not that’s a good thing for society. I DO think this orgasm of violence is a marvelously illustrative example. I think the orgy of sentimental wallowing in this episode a year later is more evidence of a social pathology in our culture that we OUGHT to be discussing.
I think if the police don’t want to be “crapped on”, they should stay out of the goddamn toilet.
Christopher says
Tom has been critical of the police actions in this episode all along, but he didn’t get suspended, and hasn’t used graphic sexual imagery in the process.
SomervilleTom says
n/m
dasox1 says
I think it’s bad for society and I’m not in favor of it. And, yes, what’s being done is crapping on the police, and it’s the worst form of “Monday morning quarterbacking.” Why are they in the “toilet?” You might put yourself back in the situation that existed a year ago before being so negative and instead of riding your high horse looking backwards…………
SomervilleTom says
I said the same thing about the police action while it was happening, no “hindsight” was required.
My view at the time was that our authorities were completely out of control. I was appalled and frightened by the enormous show of force — a show of force that was unnecessary and ineffective.
In my view, we had a terrorist episode that killed 3 and wounded 264. That was tragic. Every terrorist attack is tragic. Like it or not, it was not an extreme event by world standards, although I grant you that the number of injuries was high in comparison to published statistics.
When tragic events like this happen in the UK, in Germany, and elsewhere in Europe, authorities in those places do NOT respond in the extreme and authoritarian way we saw a year ago in Watertown.
After the hundreds of millions of dollars we’ve spent on “security” — especially in training first responders — I expect a MUCH more restrained, much more focused, much more effective, and much more professional response than we saw.
What you call “Monday morning quarterbacking” I call a much-needed post-mortem analysis — one that has barely been done. So long as we’re throwing around sports metaphors, EVERY professional football team reviews game-day films the following week. Every play is analyzed. Every fumble, turnover, and interception is looked at particularly closely. This episode might have been a “victory”, but it was a game filled with blunders pitting what is supposed to be a professional team against a sand-lot collection of amateurs. The game should have been decided on the first sequence of downs, and the pros should have been able to run out the clock and go home. That is NOT what happened.
I have a right to a realistic expectation that the police to which I as a citizen delegate authority to handle situations like this will ALWAYS respond appropriately, professionally, and with appropriate restraint. That, in my view, is what “insure domestic tranquility” means.
The response a year ago in Watertown failed that test. Whether that constitutes “crapping on the police” or not is apparently matter on which we disagree. I stand by my view, however.
dasox1 says
You’re right, NFL teams carefully watch film after the game, as I am sure the FBI, BPD, MSP, etc., and law enforcement experts have done with respect to the post-bombing response. If something like this happens again, maybe the film study will result in a different response. Sure, everyone has a right to criticize, but not everyone is an expert. A lot of the response was driven by fear of the unknown. I’m sure the experts who made the decisions would not make all the same decisions if they had it to do over again. When people criticize NFL playing calling, I frequently tell that they have no idea what they’re talking about. Maybe you know a lot about law enforcement.
SomervilleTom says
I claim no expertise in law enforcement.
I observe, instead, that reviews by law enforcement of episodes like this nearly always conclude (at least publicly) that authorities acted, by and large, appropriately (with a few “minor mistakes” tossed in to appease critics).
We saw this both times local police killed celebrants after local sports victories. We saw this when Cambridge police terrorized a Harvard professor. We see this in the reviews of the most recent FBI killing in Florida. I’d like to see reviews like these start to err on the side of being too harsh on police, rather than continue what to me appears to be whitewashes combined with lots of rah-rah back-slapping.
If the New England Patriots nearly lost a football game played against Somerville High School, with the Patriots making a half-dozen turnovers, the outcome in doubt until the two-minute warning in the second half, and the winning score finally coming from an interception return with 10 seconds left in the game, I don’t think I need to know very much about football to know that something was wrong with the preparation of the Patriots.
I don’t hate cops, I especially don’t hate good cops. It’s a tough job that I could never do. I do, however, think that anytime civilians give great power and overwhelming weaponry to any military (whether we call them “police” or not), we have an obligation to ensure that the resulting force remains firmly under the control of the civilians it protects.
I suspect that if we were having this conversation face-to-face, we’d figure out in about thirty seconds that we are in violent agreement.
SomervilleTom says
I find the combination of heavy weaponry and apparent incompetence at the top of my concerns about where we are today.
A badly trained, undisciplined or unpracticed cop with a nightstick is a danger, but only to those within an arm’s reach. A brigade of them, armed with automatic weapons and tanks, is a disaster waiting to happen.
johnk says
thanks.
Please seek help.
johnk says
Highly recommend. They should be replaying it.
JimC says
johnk, you recommend that we watch ESPN. OK.
I recommend that you ask yourself how you’d feel about this incident if it took place in, say, Texas.
The authorities put the city (and several neighboring cities) on lockdown. Granted, the circumstances were extraordinary. But there were pictures of the suspects all over the media. They were traveling together, and Dzhokhar had distinct, wavy hair. We knew their approximate height.
Even if we assume that the lockdown was justified, doesn’t it make sense to evaluate it after the fact? Isn’t it relevant that one cop got shot by other cops, and two others nearly got shot? That every house on one street was hit by stray bullets? According to the Globe’s account, 250 shots were fired on that street. (TWO-HUNDRED AND FIFTY — think about that number for a second.)
How would you have us ask these questions? If the answer is, “Not at all,” sorry, I can’t live with that answer. This is a democracy.
johnk says
I do not think that anyone is above review. This post, not so much.
On the 250 shots, let me frame the scenario for you. I’m guessing you are talking about Laurel St. The guys who just days earlier bombed the marathon just went on a kidnapping and shooting spree in Cambridge they track them down and chased them to a stop on a side street. Shots are being fired, and another bomb device similar to the one used at the marathon is used. In your opinion, the police should have not fired their weapons, what should they have done? Hold hands and do sing-a-longs?
I don’t know if you missed this, but there was a fire fight on the street and police were being shot at. This was not one sided. What was obvious to everyone involved at the time was that these guys were going out in a blaze of glory. Their actions in Cambridge told every officer that they were going to attack until they died. Well, it does look like the younger one changed his mind mid-way through.
So I thought about the 250 bullets. Maybe you should think about it a little more.
JimC says
You’re halfway there; you agree it should be discussed, but you want to ask absurd questions like:
The options are not all or nothing, and furthermore this was not the set of Heat; this was a crowded suburban street. The threshold for firing should be really, defensibly high.
If there 50 were cops on the scene (I have no idea how many there were), then they fired five times each. So three possibilities:
1. They can’t shoot.
2. They were firing like crazy.
3. Some combination thereof.
… and all of those things need to be considered in the review. I don’t expert marine sharpshooter consistency, but they shouldn’t fire AT ALL unless they are confident about their targets. I repeat, every house on the street was hit.
Now would you like to discuss this (I mean this rhetorically, you don’t have to discuss it with me), or do you want to keep acting like it’s a silly discussion?
johnk says
This post should be mocked and ridiculed, not recommended.
When did i say this should never be reviewed, you made that up, “I’m half way there” ? What? The entire premise of you comment is complete made up nonsense.
JimC says
But I don’t know where you get the made-up nonsense bit. I have sources for everything I said.
I’m not here to fight you, my friend. If you think it’s not worth discussing, I can live with that.
kirth says
Police Juice Up on Steroids to Get ‘Edge’ on Criminals
Steroids and adrenaline are not a mixture conducive to calm, rational decision-making.
SomervilleTom says
“Shots are being fired”? By whom? At what?
The perpetrators were in a vehicle, a LARGE vehicle.
What were these 50 officers shooting AT? How do 50 officers firing 5 rounds each not disable that vehicle?
How do you know what was going through the mind of the perpetrators? One of them is dead and the other has not, to my knowledge, said ANYTHING about his state of mind that night. Their actions in Cambridge told ME that they were desperate. No more, no less.
I think ONE officer, maybe ten, who knew how use the high-performance military-grade weapons they were issued should have been able to take out the tires and glass of the target vehicle. The fact that the perpetrators of an act like this would use a vehicle MUST have been part of the extensive and expensive training we’ve been funding since 9/11. Surely techniques for disabling that vehicle are known. Why weren’t they used?
As you observe, shooting guns could kill people. If the suspect’s vehicle is immobilized with no glass and no tires, please explain how even ONE burst of correctly aimed automatic weapons fire sprayed across the interior doesn’t kill both occupants.
I think those fifty cops had NO CLUE about what their target was. I think each of them was shooting as many rounds as he or she could fire wherever the muzzle of his or her weapon happened to be pointing. In other words, pure, uncontrolled, undisciplined, and exceedingly dangerous chaos.
It sounds to me as though you’re projecting a whole lot of action movies onto this scene. The two suspects were NOT Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid facing down the Mexican army.
I’m with JimC on this — in my view, the police response made an already volatile situation many times worse.
dasox1 says
Something we can all agree on.
danfromwaltham says
First of all, it would not surprise me if many of the younger aged police served in Afghanistan and/or Iraq, so they are real Rambos (I happen to know a vet on Watertown PD).
What should they have done, blown the terrorists some kisses as they were being shot at? Put flowers in their guns like the 60’s? Let them escape so they can kill more people? At least they fired on terrorists. Now we have police in Nevada confronting American Patriots and harassing a cattle farmer over a turtle. I would write a diary about it but have lost access.
dasox1 says
(1) Bombing response, and (2) Clive’s cows. I didn’t want to pay the IRS what I owed on Monday, but I did. Clive needs to pay what he owes. Are we a nation of laws, or not?
JimC says
Whatever systems we build will be used.
The NSA ties in as well. I don’t want to sound paranoid, but I do feel like the government has been expanding its power in a lot of areas. And Obama has not slowed down this process one bit.
danfromwaltham says
The BLM got involved in the 90’s with a rouse to protect a desert turtle. The fact is, the Fed’s wanted to run the cattle ranchers off the land, so they reduced the # of cattle to a max 150 and hiked the fees (power to tax is the power to destroy). Of course, if one of Reid’s solar energy donors wanted the land, just make turtle soup and pop up the panels. It was the Feds that changed the rule of the game, and Clive Bundy is having none of it, not after generations of his family have worked the land, building roads and water ways. Where is his compensation?
When only certain laws are enforced and others blatantly ignored, then we get a showdown in a desert. Appears many on BMG are concerned with the rights of the Boston Bombers and the way they were treated or shot at, but no concern for a old farmer who pays taxes and is a productive citizen.
I would write a diary on this topic but I have been suspended from doing so.
kirth says
A Defiant Rancher Savors the Audience That Rallied to His Side
JimC says
But, the stunning racism of the rancher isn’t really relevant to the issue.
And to be clear, I think Bundy is a tempest in a teapot. But his story resonates on the right (and a little bit on the left) because government IS becoming more oppressive.
SomervilleTom says
I think Mr. Bundy’s story resonates on the right because a great many right-wingers share Mr. Bundy’s racial attitudes (and some on the left).
I don’t think government — oppressive or not — has much to do with it at all.
JimC says
It’s not his racism, that is incidental. It’s his middle finger to Obama’s government.
SomervilleTom says
I think the middle finger to Mr. Obama is part of the same pattern, and resonates with the attitudes I cite.
JimC says
Yes, hatred of the black president will resonate with racists. But by the same token, we can’t just assume everyone who hates the government is a racist. Glenn Greenwald hates the government.
jconway says
Glenn Greenwald is a big Paultard who has defended people with racist views in the past
kirth says
He does seem to have a blind spot WRT Paul’s racism.
JimC says
Really, jconway, “Paultard?”
You know as well as I do that Rand Paul (and Ron Paul) have talked SOME sense on a FEW important issues over the years. I would never vote for either of them, but people who defend them are not … that term you used.
kirth says
The anti-Federal “states’ rights” attitudes are a racist dog-whistle that appeals to Confederate sympathizers everywhere. Bundy’s racism is not a side issue; it’s part of the package.
kbusch says
jimc you are trying too hard to be nice here.
Mr Bundy is not a unique precious snowflake of ideology that has drifted down on Nevada’s ranges. He is a product of entertainment conservatism and can be expected to have entirely predictable views on Benghazi, the Affordable Care Act, climate change, immigration, and tax policy. This prepackaged collection of views includes a gigantic dose of racism. He just got caught confessing to it.
Yes, yes, I know you really want to treat him as an individual, to hold out hope that he’s not some kind of ditto head. Your hopes in others must make you an excellent friend, parent, and partner. but I believe that they have blinded you to what we have in Mr Bundy because you’re just being too nice.
JimC says
I certainly agree that there is quite a bit of racism, veiled, partially unveiled, and downright overt in Republican rhetoric.
But I just can’t assume that everyone who fits a piece of that narrative is absolutely a racist. Bundy clearly is, but I can’t think that all of them or even most of them are. I just can’t function with that, I would despair.
danfromwaltham says
So Tom, are you suggesting there would be a different reaction from small government folks if the confrontation occurred under Bush?
mike_cote says
and here you are, once again, running to the defense of some racist POS who is now the darling of Fox News. This is exactly why most people jump to the conclusion that you are, yourself, like the dogs you lie down with.
danfromwaltham says
What happened to Bundy reminds me of the Kelo vs New London court case. Big government land grabbing from private citizens.
When I served as a juror on a case having to do with illegal gun possession, I never heard of the defendants personal beliefs and nor would it have mattered to me. His life (jail time if found guilty) was on the line. The law, the constitution, the bill of rights, all that good stuff, protects everyone, even to those who we vehemently disagree with on issues.
jconway says
mike_cote says
Not even close. The land in Connecticut was privately owned land, the land in Nevada is Federal Land, whose use requires Grazing Fees. You know Fees. Fees are the way Reagan-Type Republicans get around raising revenue.
mike_cote says
The clock is ticking. It is even Friday, “Take the out the trash day”. If you ever want to have an credibility on the Racist front, you need to denounce him and soon. Hannity did already.
danfromwaltham says
“The law, the constitution, the bill of rights, all that good stuff, protects everyone, even to those who we vehemently disagree with on issues.”
mike_cote says
All you have done is quote Mike Stivic from “All in the Family”. “The Bill of Rights protects everyone, including those who we vehemently disagree with on issues”, does not equate to “I vehemently disagree with Bundy”. In the Venn Diagram World, your outermost circle includes “Everyone” and you inner circle may or may not include Bundy.
danfromwaltham says
I vehemently disagree with Bundy and find what he said about black people racist, unadulterated ignorance, and really hurtful. In fact, there was a time in our history where black people were forced from the land they owned, their property stolen from them by whites and our government but Bundy is too stupid to know this. Oh by the way, I am in favor of reparations, when the US slaves were promised 40 acres and a mule by the US Govt. and Gen. Sherman. Their descendants deserve the equivalent value in cash. No, I would not rely on family lore either as evidence, like our senator did.
mike_cote says
I agree with you on the reparations. I think the “family lore” reference was a “bridge too far” and unnecessary, but otherwise, I agree and appreciate your being specific (up until the last bit).
kbusch says
Just stop.
What DFW thinks doesn’t matter. You just feed his sense of grandeur by responding.
mike_cote says
For Reals.
kbusch says
You don’t need “call out” DFW. He has shown himself immune to shame and eager for attention. You are giving him the latter with no possibility of subjecting him to the former.
kbusch says
The conservative narrative, from radio to Romney, has recently played a lot off the idea that Those People favor liberals because Those People are dependent on government. If “they” weren’t dependent on government, they’d love freedom just as much as Sarah Palin. This whole line of thinking is packed with racist thinking, whether consciously or not. People who believe such things tell themselves that they don’t think such stuff out of racial bias but because they’re just observing reality — even if it is politically incorrect.
Mr Bundy’s embrace of and by the right-wing talk radio world of entertainment conservatism has to include this kind of racism because it’s central to that world view.
*
As a kind of amusing emphasis of this deep connection, a number of conservatives have complained that Mr. Bundy is not “media savvy”. That’s just the point, isn’t it? He’s being explicit because he hasn’t been taught yet how to dog whistle.
jconway says
According to WCVB and I look forward to seeing what it concludes.
http://m.wcvb.com/news/state-contracts-for-review-of-response-to-marathon-bombings/25518074
fenway49 says
one might almost think there is no possible course of police action falling between firing hundreds of shots on a residential suburban street and “hold[ing] hands and do[ing] sing-a-longs” while “blow[ing] the terrorists kisses.”
JimC says
And this, which I find a little odd.
Christopher says
Was it ever determined what the bombers’ motives were? I vaguely remember something about a Chechnyan connection, but I’m not sure what that has to do with us. Whatever the answer is won’t excuse their actions of course, but I am curious.
methuenprogressive says
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/24/us/boston-marathon-bombing-developments.html?hp&pagewanted=all&_r=0
SomervilleTom says
The cited piece quotes “law enforcement officials”. There was no defense attorney present, and nobody was under oath.
The unraveling of a multitude of FBI stories over the course of the Bulger investigation should, in my opinion, makes very cautious about how much credibility we put in such assertions by anonymous “law enforcement officials”.
Christopher says
If so on what actual evidence and do you have a better theory?
SomervilleTom says
“Lying” is a strong word.
I’m saying that third-hand reports from unidentified sources are not necessarily credible.
methuenprogressive says
You have no way of knowing this.
SomervilleTom says
The article you cited was dated April 24, 2013. That’s a Wednesday. Its own date says “April 23, 2013”. Mr. Tsarnaev was charged on April 21st. His first defense attorney, Judy Clarke, was appointed when he was charged — no sooner than April 21. The NYT piece you cited says (emphasis mine):
The “Tuesday” cited in your piece was April 23, 2013.
Mr. Tzarnaev had no attorneys at the time the reported conversations took place. I note that, according to a July LATimes piece, he may not have even received his Miranda warning:
Sounds like Mr. Davis objected to even THAT — in any case, police don’t generally give a Miranda warning when an attorney is present.
Sorry, I think it’s clear that Mr. Tsarnaev did NOT have an attorney present (he didn’t have an attorney to be present), and there is no indication that any exchanges were under oath.
I stand by my comment.
methuenprogressive says
You’re really stretching in your defense of surviving terrorist.
SomervilleTom says
I see. So suggesting that judgement about an accused be deferred until that accused has legal representation and the charges against him are made under oath is “stretching” for you. Apparently all you need is a vague reference to anonymous “law enforcement officials”.
I think the attitude you so eloquently convey in these comments epitomizes how the “jihadists” have won the holy war. A key differentiator between the Muslim theocracy sought by jihadists and traditional American values is America’s steadfast commitment to the fundamental premises of its legal system.
The jihadists have apparently won you over to their point of view.
methuenprogressive says
you’re defending the surviving terrorist because you’re wicked progressive?
That’s very sweet of you.
kirth says
Tom is not defending any terrorist. He is defending our right to doubt the veracity of unnamed authority figures. You, on the other hand are now throwing around sarcastic innuendo having no basis in fact. Stop.
methuenprogressive says
I”m defending the right to draw a reasonable conclusion.
The motive was Jihad.
You and Somerville can shed tears over exactly when the surviving terrorist was read the Miranda all you want, but still – Jihad.
JimC says
So effing what?
Our laws mean nothing to you, apparently. You’re right about everything because the motive was Jihad. Who’s holier than thou again?
methuenprogressive says
“So effing what?”
The attack by somerville for my use of that word was… weird.
And, to be honest, so is your attack.
Someone asked:
And I cited a published report in response.
“Our laws” meant nothing to the two terrorists, by the way.
Where was your outrage then?
SomervilleTom says
@methuenprogressive: If you think my saying “Careful, please” is an “attack”, then you must have microscopically thin skin.
When jimc or I attack you, you’ll know it. It hasn’t happened yet.
SomervilleTom says
You’ve done a marvelous job of demonstrating your values and attitudes, especially about tolerance, constitutional rights, the rule of law, attitudes towards police, and a number of other things.
Please tell us again which of the gubernatorial candidates you support.
SomervilleTom says
n/m
SomervilleTom says
You are the one who claims “progressive” as part of your handle, not me. I’m saying that your comments betray the implied values of the name “methuenprogressive”.
I’m defending principles like “innocent until proven guilty”.
jconway says
And I would be careful calling him a jihadist or implying he was part of a larger network. He was aimed like McVeigh and should be treated like McVeigh-a citizen with due process under the law and a media that treats him like a deranged criminal and not some existential threat to America. And I really hate hearing how “terror has come home to boston”. Boston was the brothers home and they attacked their own hometown and own home country. Same as McVeigh.
And I’m actually with Tom on this one-we are better than the black and white prisms of Islamist that separate the world into saved or infidel. We presume innocence, we provide defense at the taxpayers dollar, and we enforce civil and human rights. We haven’t always done this in the course of our endlessly “long” war but we should make sure to do so here or Patriots Day loses it’s meaning.