We received an anonymous submission with a link to this video posted on YouTube by user marysol torres. While we aren't able to verify the legitimacy of the video and its source yet, we were surprised to see so few views on the video after it has been public for two weeks.

What is worth discussing though is the sheer amount of gunfire unleashed by law enforcement as heard in the background of the video. Many question the tactics, and sometimes restraint, when it comes to the use of firearms by officers in the heat of the moment. We're reminded of the event that unfolded at the Empire State Building almost a year ago where NYPD wounded nine bystanders in an attempt to stop a shooter that had fired upon a coworker, were the tactics utilized by officers there justified? (Source).

Some question if law enforcement officers require additional training with regard to discharging their firearms while others feel that the use of lethal force in certain circumstances is completely necessary given the evils that on-duty officers face daily. Without adding speculation to fuel the fire, what are your thoughts on the demonstration of force by local and national law enforcement agencies during the events that followed the Boston Bombing that ultimately led to the capture of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev?

Anon2
5/26/2013 04:53:10 pm

My humble thoughts because I don't know anything about shooting, battlefield/shootout strategies but I've watched enough Hollywood movies and Discovery channel documentaries and learnt about Shaka Zulu and his war strategy when still at school...

Firstly, I feel that not much strategy was applied here because it just comes across as haphazard back and forth shooting which I feel does not speak of much training on the part of the law-enforcement agents. The fact that there are bullet holes in people's homes and also in the Kitzenberg's office chair which was on the second level does not speak much of the shooting skills of the officers. Even if this was because the bullet ricocheted, it should not have happened because of the innocent bystanders. An officer was also injured by friendly fire-why was he in the line of fire in the first place? This all speaks of lack of training and strategising.
Another strategising mishap is that the suspects were not surrounded. Why were the officers at only one end of the street and why did they not block them in? Was this a cul- de- sac?
Another thing that was missing and that I always see in the movies is the helicopter with the spotlight and the voice booming from the cockpit.

I feel that this was the second most amateurish take-down that I've ever heard of and seen (the boat shoot-out is the first and will probably hold that spot forever). I can't even discuss the tactics because as far as I'm concerned, there were none. They went in like bulls in a China shop and yes, they have to protect themselves but I feel that they totally disregarded the safety of the bystanders who could so easily have been caught in the gunfire.

Just to digress for a moment, if this was not a cul-de-sac and the suspects were not surrounded, why did they not simply drive-off in the opposite direction? Am I missing something here?

Reply
Marie
5/27/2013 03:15:54 am

It scares me to think of how many civilians could have been shot due to the unbelievable response by these officers. And that picture of the shot in the chair just goes to prove that point.

Reply
Jess
5/28/2013 04:08:23 pm

Absolutely. It's a miracle Kitzenburg was not shot.

Mariajose
5/26/2013 05:01:34 pm

All that fucking gunfire for an unarmed 19yr old? Hate is real. They tried to kill him, they failed. We fight for Jahar! #justice4jahar #seektruth

Reply
Mariajose
5/26/2013 05:09:43 pm

I just wanted to say that, you guys at WE ARE THE LION are doing an amazing job with this entire messed up, filled with inconsistencies and lies situation. Thank you for shedding light and digging for the truth.

Reply
jen
5/26/2013 05:14:02 pm

You should ask her where she got it from. This girl is not worth to trust. She used to go to Facebook groups saying she is a friend of Jahar and Junes, and then she said Junes asked for money.
She probably downloaded from someone elses channel.

Reply
marysol torres
5/26/2013 07:31:38 pm

I think, I support him, I know he is innocent. Sufficient evidence that he is innocent. How could he have shot himself in the mouth if he was unarmed?

I don't know who is "jen". But what are you talking about facebook groups? And the topic of Junes and money .. Girl, if you find out, I had planned to make a youtube channel so we can help Jahar's family. People badly interpret everything, and everything was deleted. He posted it on instagram. I here I have the picture, if you want to see.

Reply
marysol t
5/26/2013 07:44:33 pm

He had planned to make a youtube channel**

Reply
jen
5/27/2013 07:31:08 am

You said lots of times you were friends with them. We people asked you proof, you never answer. We are surrounded by liars. Be careful who you trust people.

Reply
mary
5/27/2013 10:19:20 am

there must be some misunderstanding. I dont know why people are so obsessed in knowing whether or not you're a person close. I almost dont usually answer questions or show my photos. I just said, I know that Jahar is a good person, I have my cousins ​​in the same school. They tell me that's a good boy. I dont want to hate me or to see me as a liar. You dont know who i am, I have no business telling everyone, I Jahar support with the information I can provide and so people open their eyes. And I did not know they had uploaded my video here, hope and be good and give any information.

5/27/2013 10:26:45 am

Marysol - We are interested in speaking with you regarding this video. Please reach out to us via the contact form above. Thanks.

Reply
Prudence
5/27/2013 02:02:37 am

We're here to discuss the topic at hand, not make accusations about other people. That being said, I believe that it can pretty much be agreed upon by most that the apprehension was a huge mess from the start. Guilty or innocent, I think the manpower used was most definitely overkill.

Reply
Marie
5/27/2013 03:13:39 am

I second everything you said, Prudence. Well said.

Seriously, let's focus on the bigger issue here, which is the clear overkill response of these police. Listen to those shots being fired. Close your eyes and imagine for a minute they were shooting at you. That's powerful. And to use this on a SUSPECT, not a convict, makes it that much more incredible. They wanted to apprehend him alive but seeing a video like this makes me wonder if that was truly the case.

Reply
Anonymous
5/27/2013 03:00:44 pm

just throwing a thought out, what if they were only shooting blanks? they wanted him alive, they know that there was gas in the tank and it could possibly explode, they used flash bangs, they knew he was a tired, scared injured 19 year old and were trying to scare him into giving up? If not any of the above, then it was overkill all the way

Anon 2
5/27/2013 04:26:25 pm

This is the sound that rubber bullets make. Now I'm also wondering...hmmm...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT7tqZ0HIXE

and the hull of the boat probably helped to protect him-check out the durability) lhttp://voices.yahoo.com/five-advantages-aluminum-boat-hulls-596420.html

Maybe that's the reason why he survived (I've not seen him since that day so...). ..any thought regarding this?

Reply
Marie
5/28/2013 12:48:23 am

Responding to both Anon's, that's an interesting line of thought. I hadn't considered rubber bullets before but that would make sense as you pointed out. And if they used live ammunition it was just unacceptable overkill. But if not....interesting. Point taken. Thanks for pointing that out.

Reply
Marie
5/28/2013 12:53:10 am

Question though...where did his injuries come from, assuming the shots to the throat and head came during the boat shooting? Just a thought...both Anon's have me thinking now! Also, can rubber bullets leave that much damage to a boat? I haven't had a chance to look at your link yet, so maybe that answers that question.

Shelley
5/28/2013 04:20:30 pm

I think there was much too much damage done to have been rubber bullets - both to the side of the boat and to both the interior and exterior of people's houses.
I may be wrong about this, but I thought rubber bullets were banned in Boston because Red Sox fan Victoria Snelgrove was killed by rubber bullets fired at her by Boston police following a Red Sox victory game in Oct 21, 2004. They hit her in the eye.
However, I don't think that they would go through houses.

Reply
Carrie Mathison
5/27/2013 06:24:46 pm

Dzhokhar's decision to hide on the side of the boat that was closest to the wooden fence may very well have saved his life. Looking forward to hearing his version of events and not the stories of 'confidential sources not authorized to speak about the investigation.' #seektruth

Reply
Anon2
5/28/2013 02:28:58 am

@ Marie-this is what I got from an article regarding defensive measure in the airplane cockpit.. The article points out the problem with using rubber bullets "Even though energy transfer is less than that of lead-core bullets, they are still capable of penetrating an aircraft’s fuselage"

So I'm thinking (if I may), that
1. rubber bullets, based on the above probably could leave that much damage if they were close enough to the boat

2. and if the bullets were real, then the hull could have protected him as well as the big white square box (don't know what that is) because it looks like he was behind it or/and he is very favoured by God.

3. things tend to fly around when impacted and he could have been hit by flying debris from the shooting and flash bangs while he was in the boat. It was said that the injury to his neck were of the slash-like kind, not gunshot-but we'll have to wait and hear what he has to say about that I guess...

4. I don't buy the fact that he was very injured before he climbed into the boat because there would have been a blood-trail from the abandoned SUV to the boat. The boat is also very high and he would have had to climb up and if injured, it would not have been easy to do so. There would have been a lot of blood smears on the side of the boat as well as on the tarp.

A lot of "could have's", but it beats having it swirl around inside my head... I guess we'll just have to wait to know what really happened

Reply
Marie
5/28/2013 02:33:36 am

Thanks for that information! I really appreciate it. You bring up several good points. I appreciate the way you look at this from all sides. Excellent points!

Reply
5/28/2013 06:48:16 am

As the owner of the boat said in an interview to the BBC he never saw blood, so I don't think Dzhokhar was injured before. Instead he went to hide unarmed. There is no way that the police needed to use that much force to apprehend him and if the Police did that in any other country there would be a public outcry. Also on the topic of why do Muslims feel the need to defend themselves - the reason is simple. Since the stabbing in Woolwich, attacks on Muslims have increased tenfold and we have Nazis walking the streets and petrol bombing mosques. This is a scary time to live in England.

Reply
John Baxter
5/28/2013 12:38:19 pm

I can't believe the kid survived the street onslaught and then the boat. It's obvious from the boat and injuries that the kid could have died. I am glad he survived because he can hopefully give some insight into the situation.
It really does seem like a serious amount of power on the police etc side of things. It seems to me that this was not handled very well. its amazing other people were not injured in all this. They really need to review their approach after this, it could have been a total catastrophe. I agree with the other posters, there would have been a blood trail from the abandoned car if he was injured before hand. There is so much mis-information being given out as fact that people don't know what to believe. I believe this bombing was sickening and I'm not convinced of his innocence but I do not believe the media reports either because its all over the place. I'm grateful to websites like this that provide an outlet for people to look at the information because it is important that a person gets a fair trial, it's not like people have never been falsely accused of crimes before.

Reply
Marie
5/28/2013 12:55:04 pm

I'm glad you shared your thoughts on this. I like hearing things from people that have different opinions on his innocence or guilt because I think it provides some good discussion. But like you said, information is being related so poorly and sloppily that it's really hard to discern what is true. All I know is Dzhokhar is very fortunate to have survived that onslaught of gunfire (which lasted an hour, if I remember right). I truly hope there is an investigation into the handling of the police on this matter, whether live ammunition was used or not.

Reply
Jess
5/28/2013 04:05:54 pm

I want to say one thing first so people read this before losing interest. I still find it amazing they skipped searching a neighborhood on Franklin st. (where Dzhokhar was found). A resident eight houses down from where Dzhokhar was found said that police never searched her home or garden. (bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-30/boston-manhunt-missed-the-boat-as-police-skip-street.html). I don't know if this means they didn't search David Henneberry's house or not. But if they did, they obviously would have searched his backyard, and police say there was blood on the tarp (David Henneberry said contrary to police reports he did not see the blood on the tarp), so how could they miss that? If they searched the Henneberry residence at all- this was a manhunt for a suspected terrorist so why would they NOT look inside the boat. Considering the circumstances, there is every reason to do an extensive search of everything.
This means two things to me right now: a) they searched Henneberry's home, didn't look at his yard/did a lousy job of looking around his yard. or B) they did not search Henneberry's residence as well as some surrounding neighbors. Both are troublesome thoughts, the latter also presents the bigger idea that police might have:
skipped this neighborhood, DURING THE LOCKDOWN of Watertown (neighborhood is part of Watertown, just to be clear), that was merely ~10 minutes (I believe less but don't quote me) away from the site of the shootout, on a manhunt for a suspect of a terror attack, a manhunt that lasted probably at least 12 hours- How does that happen? Excuse me for sounding like a conspiracy theorist. This is all just occurring to me and I encourage you all to correct me or throw ideas at me to help debunk or make more sense of this.

You guys have raised some really good points. I would like to counter on the idea that maybe he was't injured prior to his capture: During the boat owner's interview (David Henneberry) he said there was blood inside of the boat. He noticed the blood before he noticed the body. So there had to have been some injury. He stated contrary to the police reports he did not see blood on the tarp when he looked at his boat. But police report that there was blood on the tarp. But it seems like it must have been a small amount of it would have been noticeable. That being said, I don't see how there wouldn't be more blood on the outside of the boat as the boat owner remarked, "a good amount of blood" was in the boat.

All in all, it makes no sense. Unfortunately I feel like this is busting a new hole into the story again. One that I hadn't looked into enough, so thank you all for the awesome points.
I don't know what to think about the rubber bullet proposal yet. However, no matter the type of bullets, as anon2 said: there was no tactic in this take down. No strategy.

I understand they were in the mind set that they were arresting a terrorist suspect that could have potentially have devices with or on him, however with the technology of the thermal imaging and the robotic arm in combination with his lack of movement (I understand there was some, but minimal) - I do not see any justification for the way they proceeded.

Reply
John Baxter
5/28/2013 11:59:41 pm

What I do find strange about this whole case is the need for members of the public carry this case. The public are always great for leads and help in cases but it seems without them in this case there would have been a lot of gaps. E.g. Report that Jeff Bauman identified Tamerlan, the confession to the carjacked person, the owner of the boat. It seems that the police/special team would have missed a lot or been a lot slower in catching them otherwise, which if they were guilty could have claimed more lives. I feel bad about critiquing the police/special team. They were dealing with the possibility that there could have been bombs or getting shot themselves. The majority probably had the same info as everyone else got: that the brothers had shot the campus cop and the cop at the earlier shootout. I wouldn't like to have to do their job.
I feel these 2 brothers had no plan of escape or thoughts on getting caught, (which is weird) yet the youngest brother managed to escape for such a long period against the massive volume of people and technology searching for him. It does make me think there needs to be a lot of lessons learnt.
I may be biased somewhat as I am Irish and most of our police here don't even carry guns. We don't have a lot of gun crime as such although there is some drug related shootings of late. We do however have a huge history of bombing which is thankfully mostly unheard of now. There was no technology back then to catch people and a lot of people went to jail for committing these crimes that had nothing whatsoever to do with it, but signed confessions, later released many years later. There was a lot of guilty people not caught or released too early. Emotions run high in this type of case and the pressure is on to catch and punish those involved. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is lucky to have so much support, innocent or guilty, if people didn't question information that seemed off, then we'd all be in trouble.

Reply
Marie
5/29/2013 03:23:28 am

Jess, thank you for bringing up the fact that they skipped that entire neighborhood! That has bothered me from the start, especially considering it was so close to the site that Dzhokhar fled from.

I'm sure there was some blood inside of the boat (especially if he sustained any injuries inside), but if you look at this picture it's hard to see where there was the "pool of blood" originally reported - http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/04/22/article-2312486-196C026A000005DC-61_964x578.jpg
Also, just thought of this, wouldn't there be a trail of blood inside the boat from where he was laying to where he climbed out? Instead, you just see blood on that step where he emerged. That brings me to the whole, "Why was he bleeding so badly in the picture of him being arrested on the ground, but there's so little evidence of blood INSIDE of the boat?" Again, the picture isn't perfect quality, so I may be missing it. But that's just my two cents worth.

Great post!

Reply
Anon2
5/28/2013 06:07:57 pm

oh yes, at 0;42 or 0;43 of this video, you can hear someone saying "I'm coming out"

Reply
Marie
5/29/2013 03:18:11 am

I thought you could hear that too around 0;07 as well.

Reply
John Baxter
5/29/2013 06:00:34 am

I def thought I heard it at t he 0:07 point as well as later. I let a friend listen without telling them what it was because I had read the posts before watching the video so that can influence a person but my friend who has not any interest in the case thought the same thing. I looked at the pictures online and like others have pointed out there is no pool of blood in boat that I can see. These are pictures where you can see the blood on step and people in white forensic suits are still working. http://www.news.com.au/world-news/boston-bombing-suspect-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-scribbled-note-in-boat-blaming-attacks-on-iraq-afghanistan/story-fndir2ev-1226644854589.
Also another website that has photos of the special vehicle that removed the tarp does not really show the blood on the side of boat that is clear after his arrest, this site states the tarp was not removed by robot as previously reported. http://mashable.com/2013/04/20/aerial-images-boston-bombing/

Anonymous
5/29/2013 08:06:52 pm

well played police ... "i'm coming out" bang bang bang "we give up" bang bang "we didn't do it" bang bang bang. Real sticklers for protocol and human rights, these police guys.

Jess
5/29/2013 06:30:57 am

Just thinking here, I know the Watertown shootout occured late at night, but I don't really see how Dzhokhar got away on foot (after dumping the car) without being seen by anyone/police. I suppose it would be hard to distinguish him at night, but if that were the case don't you think he would be running? That would be suspicious.
I just used google maps to see how far Dzhokhar really went- 3 minutes driving distance, approximately 14 minutes walking distance, however if he drove some and walked directly towards Franklin (probably ran), let's just say 10 minutes walking at least. If he was injured it would take longer than that, but if he was wounded and bleeding there would be some sort of blood somewhere (and would have been noticed during the lockdown search)? Wouldn't their be blood somewhere else on Henneberry's residence other than in his boat and (as police say) on the tarp (like possibly from the direction he came from)?
But clearly is isn't likely he knew he was going to go to David Henneberry's residence so there is a good chance he was wondering around for a while or extended the walking time, not knowing where to go.
Thinking about this gives reason to believe that maybe he wasn't injured as of yet, or question it a little more.
Regardless, all reasons why I don't understand how he got away in the first place or couldn't be found earlier. Why didn't they use the thermal camera to track him running away or look for him right away?
This is all just food for thought, I just wanted to share, so pardon the jumble!

Reply
Marie
5/29/2013 06:44:32 am

@John Baxter, I'm so glad you had another person listen without telling them because you're right, it's hard to listen unobjectively especially if someone TELLS you what to listen for. So that's interesting to note that several people, including ones without knowledge of the situation, heard that. Thanks for sharing that. And I completely agree with what you said about the blood, or lack thereof.

@Jess, I just find it odd that they completely skipped the street that he was on and didn't find any sort of blood (if he indeed had been wounded). You bring up an interesting point in which you asked why didn't they use thermal imaging...I have no idea. But that's a brilliant question that I would like to see more answers to. Not a helpful response here haha, but you do have me thinking.

Reply
Anon2
5/29/2013 08:42:10 am

Based on everything that has been mentioned above regarding when he got injured, the lack of a blood trail, lack of blood inside the boat, the obvious pool of blood during his surrender, the excessive bleeding after he got caught as well as this picture of the boat ,

http://lewrockwell.com/spl5/cops-shoot-up-the-boat.html, I can't help thinking that he got injured/shot at while he was sitting and surrendering. There is some blood on the top part of the boat which means he was bleeding from the head and face area and the blood at the bottom of the boat must be from the lower leg area. There is also blood on the lowest rung of the stepladder.that could be from the facial/head/neck injuries because I'm just assuming that he was carried down in a fireman's lift...here's hoping that he was not simply yanked down by the leg and arm and fell face first onto the wheel area before hitting the ground.

It's very frustrating because there are just so many possibilities...

Reply
Marie
5/29/2013 08:55:38 am

And now I'm confused. Looking at this picture of Dzhokhar surrendering...where is that ladder? Did they put it up as he came out?
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2013/04/20/ctm_0420_DAHLER02_480x360.jpg

That seems unlikely to me because this agent just said they reached up and grabbed him/pulled him down; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NTbs2XcRYw

So did they in fact pull him off of the boat? Then why is there blood on this ladder and ONLY blood on the outside of the boat? Was he shot as he surrendered?

It had never added up to me before, but this discussion makes me even more curious...

Reply
5/29/2013 10:28:10 am

I have been scouring the web all day to find the BBC interview with David Henneberry where he talks about the discovery of Dzhokhar in his boat and Its disappeared? I remember (and so does my husband so I'm not crazy) him telling the reporter that he never looked under the tarp! He said that he noticed it had come undone and some of the protective padding had slipped. He said that he then called 911 and
the police told him to leave and go to his neighbours. He never looked under the tarp, he did not see blood and he didn't see Dzhokhar! I wish I could get the audio / video!
Also other videos have been going a miss such as the Andrew Kitzenberg shootout? I can only find the 34 second version?
If anyone could find the links I would appreciate.
I really did think that the Tsarnaevs were guilty and was interested in the case because I didn't want a 19 year old boy to get the death penalty. But now I question everything - there seems to be so many inconsistencies and a total lack of transparency.
The media has already convicted him in the court of public opinion. I pray that the truth comes out and that the jury is open minded.

Reply
Marie
5/29/2013 10:56:47 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsFk9IQZNdc

This is the only version of Kitzenberg's video that I can find.

A few things I noticed;
-You can hear gunshots ONLY from the right (or from the police side of things). So the brothers, or whoever the two in the video are, are NOT returning fire. (Hasn't it been reported they were unarmed during that now or am I completely off?)
-I can't help but notice the total lack of police sirens. I'm sure once the cars got there, they would turn them off, but there is no far off sound of approaching vehicles and you know there were hundreds in the area. Why don't you hear them? That makes this video seem...odd to me.
-Another thing, I have seen arguments about what was being lit somewhere else online and noticed a common theme. I haven't done the research, BUT I saw others saying that you don't light a pipe bomb (so, they aren't sparking one of them unlike it was reported). Also, they wouldn't be lighting the pressure cooker because they would clearly have something heavier in their arms and neither of the individuals has anything in their arms. So what exactly is it that they are lighting? A road flare?
-With regards to that, if the pressure cooker that they "threw at officers" was identical to the ones used in the marathon, why were the cars not damaged? Why were the windows not blown out on the cars nearest to them and even the cops? What about damage to nearby houses? I'm no physics expert and I really don't know anything about the subject, but those are just some questions that I thought of as I typed.

Reply
Prudence
5/30/2013 01:35:45 am

I've often wondered that about the pressure cookers myself. They seemed to have some power behind them at the marathon, but in the Watertown shootout, all they did was scorch the street a little? That makes no sense to me at all.

John Baxter
5/29/2013 10:38:28 am

http://mashable.com/2013/04/20/aerial-images-boston-bombing/

This link shows a video where David Henneberry says he saw no blood etc.

Reply
John Baxter
5/29/2013 10:41:19 am

Sorry I wasn't finished the previous post. He says he didn't see blood etc at first, the gets steps and sees 2 large pools of blood.

Reply



Leave a Reply.



    Archives

    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013