4 ms·

> I find it nothing short of miraculous that the Tsarnaev brother was taken alive I mean, there is an obvious reason.

tyingq 7y ago
Now I'm curious. They did shoot quite a lot of rounds[1] into the boat he was hiding in. I can't think of any reason other than luck. [1]https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2013/04/22/22-watertown-boat.w700.h700.jpg https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2013/04/22/...
- credit_guy 7y ago
  To me the obvious reason is the null hypothesis: in the US law enforcement officers don't actually have the standard operating procedure of "putting a few bullets" in people for "resisting arrest". The alternative hypothesis is a double conspiracy theory, that they are generally cold blooded killers, but in this case for some whatever reasons, they didn't shoot the Boston bomber, but rather they kept him alive to make an example out of him? I don't know, this doesn't pass any type of smell test to me.
  - tyingq 7y ago
    "they didn't shoot the Boston bomber, but rather they kept him alive to make an example out of him" Yeah, doesn't pass the smell test for me either. 110+ bullets in that boat, and the guy wasn't far from dead when they brought him to the hospital.
- imtringued 7y ago
  No the reason is basically that he didn't move. If SWAT is on your front lawn and you walk out the front door expect a swift death even if you are innocent and completely unarmed. Curl down and hide in a way that makes you completely defenseless? Well first of all they don't have 5 marksmen pointing their gun at you in anticipation because they have to find you first and second they actually have an opportunity to arrest you because you're not running away from them.
  - tyingq 7y ago
    I was citing "reason" as in "reason he was taken alive". I said luck, because not much beyond plain luck allows you to survive 110+ rounds fired into the relatively small fiberglass boat you are hiding in. Not moving might have helped, but there's still quite a but of luck there. He had at least three serious bullet wounds.
umanwizard 7y ago
Can you elaborate, instead of making other people guess at what you think is obvious?
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  That reason is simply failure. They peppered a house trying to shoot him then shot up the boat he was in yet failed to actually shoot him. The reputation police have for poor marksmanship and giving zero fucks for what is behind their target (I can't stress enough how irresponsible this is for a civilian police force operating in urban environments) is well deserved.
  - stirfrykitty 7y ago
    My guess is that because the Russians actually warned of him and his family, yet the US failed to act upon that intel means that perhaps we wanted a favor in return or to use him for something else politically. Happens all the time.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    Very interesting to see that this was up-voted (+8) during the hours where only the east coast was online but now that the west coast (the other timezone with a bunch of HN users) is online it is down-voted. I guess the national news only covered the "we got'em boys" official statements.
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>I mean, there is an obvious reason. That "obvious reason" is a level of marksmanship and organizational competency that makes cell phone video coming out of Syria look like a documentary about an elite fighting force. The previous time they tried to shoot him all they did was pepper a house in an upscale neighborhood. Then there was the friendly fire thing. They also peppered the boat pretty good. It's not like they didn't try. They tried to shoot him several times and they failed. And that's just the tip of the stupidity iceberg when it comes to the Boston bombing. The worst part is they basically proclaimed victory on something that was a textbook failure at every step and the people of MA are so devoid of critical thinking skills that they mostly bought it. Edit: replaced "brainwashed" with "devoid of critical thinking skills" because the former gives the government too much credit.

Now I'm curious. They did shoot quite a lot of rounds[1] into the boat he was hiding in. I can't think of any reason other than luck. [1]https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2013/04/22/22-watertown-boat.w700.h700.jpg https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2013/04/22/...

credit_guy 7y ago
To me the obvious reason is the null hypothesis: in the US law enforcement officers don't actually have the standard operating procedure of "putting a few bullets" in people for "resisting arrest". The alternative hypothesis is a double conspiracy theory, that they are generally cold blooded killers, but in this case for some whatever reasons, they didn't shoot the Boston bomber, but rather they kept him alive to make an example out of him? I don't know, this doesn't pass any type of smell test to me.
- tyingq 7y ago
  "they didn't shoot the Boston bomber, but rather they kept him alive to make an example out of him" Yeah, doesn't pass the smell test for me either. 110+ bullets in that boat, and the guy wasn't far from dead when they brought him to the hospital.
imtringued 7y ago
No the reason is basically that he didn't move. If SWAT is on your front lawn and you walk out the front door expect a swift death even if you are innocent and completely unarmed. Curl down and hide in a way that makes you completely defenseless? Well first of all they don't have 5 marksmen pointing their gun at you in anticipation because they have to find you first and second they actually have an opportunity to arrest you because you're not running away from them.
- tyingq 7y ago
  I was citing "reason" as in "reason he was taken alive". I said luck, because not much beyond plain luck allows you to survive 110+ rounds fired into the relatively small fiberglass boat you are hiding in. Not moving might have helped, but there's still quite a but of luck there. He had at least three serious bullet wounds.

umanwizard 7y ago

Can you elaborate, instead of making other people guess at what you think is obvious?

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
That reason is simply failure. They peppered a house trying to shoot him then shot up the boat he was in yet failed to actually shoot him. The reputation police have for poor marksmanship and giving zero fucks for what is behind their target (I can't stress enough how irresponsible this is for a civilian police force operating in urban environments) is well deserved.
- stirfrykitty 7y ago
  My guess is that because the Russians actually warned of him and his family, yet the US failed to act upon that intel means that perhaps we wanted a favor in return or to use him for something else politically. Happens all the time.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  Very interesting to see that this was up-voted (+8) during the hours where only the east coast was online but now that the west coast (the other timezone with a bunch of HN users) is online it is down-voted. I guess the national news only covered the "we got'em boys" official statements.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

>I mean, there is an obvious reason. That "obvious reason" is a level of marksmanship and organizational competency that makes cell phone video coming out of Syria look like a documentary about an elite fighting force. The previous time they tried to shoot him all they did was pepper a house in an upscale neighborhood. Then there was the friendly fire thing. They also peppered the boat pretty good. It's not like they didn't try. They tried to shoot him several times and they failed. And that's just the tip of the stupidity iceberg when it comes to the Boston bombing. The worst part is they basically proclaimed victory on something that was a textbook failure at every step and the people of MA are so devoid of critical thinking skills that they mostly bought it. Edit: replaced "brainwashed" with "devoid of critical thinking skills" because the former gives the government too much credit.