MIT Shooting/Bombing Suspect Manhunt - Suspect 1: DEAD, Suspect 2: In Custody

• OSH

  

  gut;1430844 wrote:Forget all the other bull**** you're trying to debate - ID to Capture in less than 1 day. That's actually pretty damn tough to criticize.

  Unless you are reclegend22. He's got it all figured out.
• gut

  OSH;1430841 wrote: But, what perimeter will be set by 6 police officers (2 off-duty)?

  Are you repeating what I said, or saw the same news report? Because I've not been able to confirm that, and some witnesses (which are often mistaken) reported as many as a dozen cars in pursuit before the shootout started.
  
  Based on what I've been able to piece together, that Watertown Police Chief may have actually been referring to his guys joining the chase. Although it sounded like his guy spotted the two cars (at that time they were just looking for the stolen SUV) and started the pursuit.
• reclegend22

  

  OSH - You didn't shut shit up. You added nothing and were wrong about pretty much everything you said with regard to my posts. I stopped responding because I DGAF.
• Mulva

  

  OSH;1430841 wrote:GOOD! Because you sound ridiculous. Your claims and criticisms are too much. At least, I hope I did the job of shutting you up because many people are probably tired of your know-it-all attitude of law enforcement. I hope this thread can go back to positive contributions of information surrounding this whole tragedy.
  
  Start up your own Law Enforcement 101 thread so you, Mulva, and Ender can inform the rest of the ignorant society (and law enforcement agencies) of proper protocol.
  
  
  
  It does suck he got away from the initial shootout. I agree with you there.
  
  But, what perimeter will be set by 6 police officers (2 off-duty)? The MIT campus officer was shot 5+ miles away. How big of a perimeter should there be? When police come up on the suspects, how much time should the suspects give the [6] officers to set up a perimeter?
  
  Time of events there: MIT campus officer was shot around April 18 10:30pm; police locate SUV around 1:30am on April 19 in Watertown; sometime around 2:00am Suspect 1 dies in the shootout; 4:30am has a statement that all Watertown residents remain indoors; 5:50am states that Suspect 2 is the surviving suspect from the shootout; and 8:45pm Suspect 2 is captured.

  Please stop putting me in Ender's category. It's making me depressed. I'm completely aware that I don't know it all and I'm not pretending I do.
  
  They had 10,000 officers from numerous departments in the city by early afternoon. I'm pretty sure they could have had at least a couple dozen in the area of a shootout within 10 minutes. It should have taken maybe 5 cop cars to track a suspect who was fleeing on foot 3 blocks later.
  
  I'm happy everything worked out. But if the suspect wasn't seriously wounded the person who went out to check his/her boat could have easily been killed. To act like the situation couldn't have been handled better is crazy in my opinion. And again, its just my opinion. I don't mean to be disrespectful, which I think I have been in a couple of previous posts so I'm sorry for that.
  
  I'm sure we both have our reasons for believing what we do, and it doesn't seem like we're going to agree on this one.
• OSH

  

  gut;1430846 wrote:Are you repeating what I said, or saw the same news report? Because I've not been able to confirm that, and some witnesses (which are often mistaken) reported as many as a dozen cars in pursuit before the shootout started.
  
  Based on what I've been able to piece together, that Watertown Police Chief may have actually been referring to his guys joining the chase. Although it sounded like his guy spotted the two cars (at that time they were just looking for the stolen SUV) and started the pursuit.

  No, I cited a source (for reclegend22) that said there were 6 officers, 2 of which may have been off-duty, involved in the shootout. Maybe the pursuit before had more, I don't know.
  
  After the shootout, yes, there was a perimeter set. We only know a short timeline, and we don't know anything about how many law enforcement agents, size of perimeter, location of perimeter, time the perimeter was established, etc. Who knows how long it took for a perimeter to get established and officers to continue tracking Suspect 2 post-shootout.
• Mulva

  

  gut;1430844 wrote:No, you're criticizing the job they did in capturing him. And you're hung up on this civilian - like I said, it's highly unlikely he was going anywhere, or getting far on foot even if he's not injured. He would have been spotted. It's not so much they lost him as he was pinned down, and suffering from life threatening injuries. You're whole "without the civilian..." argument is a strawman.
  
  I'm saying from getting an initial tip on a stolen car, they had these guys within 24 hours. Forget all the other bullshit you're trying to debate - ID to Capture in less than 1 day. That's actually pretty damn tough to criticize.

  That's a fair point. He almost definitely wasn't getting out of the boat. But I don't think it negates the point that the perimeter established was too small. If he wasn't injured so severely he likely would have been well outside of the perimeter. And I don't think it negates that he shouldn't have been able to escape the initial shootout.
  
  Terrorist or not, I kind of feel like its the cops jobs to make sure that doesn't happen. If a suspect engages a firefight with police, they shouldn't escape the scene. If it was a random gangbanger who eluded police I would be saying the same thing. There's just a lot more focus on this situation.
• reclegend22

  

  Mulva;1430850 wrote:That's a fair point. He almost definitely wasn't getting out of the boat. But I don't think it negates the point that the perimeter established was too small. If he wasn't injured so severely he likely would have been well outside of the perimeter. And I don't think it negates that he shouldn't have been able to escape the initial shootout.
  
  Terrorist or not, I kind of feel like its the cops jobs to make sure that doesn't happen. If a suspect engages a firefight with police, they shouldn't escape the scene. If it was a random gangbanger who eluded police I would be saying the same thing. There's just a lot more focus on this situation.

  This. End of story.
  
  But again, I'm glad he is in custody. It all worked out eventually.
• OSH

  

  reclegend22;1430847 wrote:OSH - You didn't shut **** up. You added nothing and were wrong about pretty much everything you said with regard to my posts. I stopped responding because I DGAF.

  
  I thought you stopped responding? You just did...again...
  
  I think it's clearly evident who was wrong, but let's not let facts disrupt your knowledge of law enforcement protocols and procedures.
  

  Mulva;1430848 wrote:Please stop putting me in Ender's category. It's making me depressed. I'm completely aware that I don't know it all and I'm not pretending I do.
  
  They had 10,000 officers from numerous departments in the city by early afternoon. I'm pretty sure they could have had at least a couple dozen in the area of a shootout within 10 minutes. It should have taken maybe 5 cop cars to track a suspect who was fleeing on foot 3 blocks later.
  
  I'm happy everything worked out. But if the suspect wasn't seriously wounded the person who went out to check his/her boat could have easily been killed. To act like the situation couldn't have been handled better is crazy in my opinion. And again, its just my opinion. I don't mean to be disrespectful, which I think I have been in a couple of previous posts so I'm sorry for that.
  
  I'm sure we both have our reasons for believing what we do, and it doesn't seem like we're going to agree on this one.

  I enjoy your most recent posts more than what you were saying earlier.
  
  I simply do not think criticizing a scenario that we have no idea about is the best way to go about this thread. Like gut said, and I have been, from IDing the suspects to apprehension/death, it took a day. That's pretty good. And, at the same time, NO ONE was killed (depending on if you count the MIT campus officer who may/not have known the suspects' ID yet). The only injuries were to police officer(s) involved in a shootout.
  
  We don't know how it could've been handled better. I am sure the authorities will iron out some mistakes they may have figured out. They are much more qualified than anyone on here to do such. Being an armchair police expert isn't the best way to do it, in my opinion. I am not about to criticize these men and women for what they did because I do not know the whole story. I only know what is reported (sometimes wrongly reported). I certainly won't agree or follow reclegend22's analysis either, since it is proven flawed.
  
  There's just so much more to this, we have no idea what was discussed or strategized.
• gut

  OSH;1430849 wrote:No, I cited a source (for reclegend22) that said there were 6 officers, 2 of which may have been off-duty, involved in the shootout. Maybe the pursuit before had more, I don't know.
  .

  No, I heard that from the Watertown Chief. But what wasn't clear to me, and what I couldn't confirm, is if it was only his guys in the shootout (initially or otherwise).
  
  But I did see in the Washington Post one of the officers said they did not have enough resources in the chase of Suspect 2 to establish a proper perimeter. And following it all live they were moving the perimeter out through the night in what seemed to be a reactionary manner.
• OSH

  

  gut;1430854 wrote:No, I heard that from the Watertown Chief. But what wasn't clear to me, and what I couldn't confirm, is if it was only his guys in the shootout (initially or otherwise).
  
  But I did see in the Washington Post one of the officers said they did not have enough resources in the chase of Suspect 2 to establish a proper perimeter. And following it all live they were moving the perimeter out through the night in what seemed to be a reactionary manner.

  I was completely oblivious to most of this ordeal. I was in the process of traveling halfway across the country and back. Then, I was in a location where I am completely away from most news and/or cell service. I woke up Friday morning finding out about all the events that took place on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday.
  
  Most of everything I have found tonight is due to certain poster(s) inability to respect the decisions law enforcement made while also thinking he/she could do better. I watched the news on Friday morning about most of the perimeter stuff, but was still traveling when Suspect 2 was eventually apprehended. Reading all of it, and from numerous sources, it seems that the job was done well. I especially think this since the whole IDing of the suspects wasn't done until Thursday and it was all over on Friday night.
• gut

  Mulva;1430850 wrote:That's a fair point. He almost definitely wasn't getting out of the boat. But I don't think it negates the point that the perimeter established was too small. If he wasn't injured so severely he likely would have been well outside of the perimeter. And I don't think it negates that he shouldn't have been able to escape the initial shootout.

  Two different points. It's fair, I just don't think we have the facts to criticize what did or didn't happen. Maybe we'll be privy to a review and analysis, but probably not.
  
  The shootout who knows. If there's only 6 guys and a couple ran out of ammo, escaping that isn't some major indictment. Heck, they took 1 down and severely injured the other (and from what I've heard from buddies on the police force, cops aren't great shots). The Watertown Chief had nothing but praise for them, rightly so. They didn't screw up - they're heroes.
  
  The perimeter is a much dicier debate. You can only expand it as you get the resources, and you have to talk to dozens of officers to try to guess how far he might have gone. You're really trying to create a margin of error around where you think he is, and then there's a trade-off between how the size of the search area and how thoroughly you can search.
  
  I'm not sure he was really at risk of getting away. He's on foot and the city is shutdown, transportation is shut down. It's really only a question of picking up his trail again.
  
  Perhaps there is literally only 1 or 2 cops to point a finger at. That house was searched, and they missed him. So your criticism of the perimeter may be moot - it didn't fail the officers searching did.
• gut

  OSH;1430855 wrote:I especially think this since the whole IDing of the suspects wasn't done until Thursday and it was all over on Friday night.

  I don't know if they just got lucky on the car, but actually spotting a stolen vehicle on the move is something well less than 50/50. Which, curiously enough, if that hijack victim doesn't run away...
• Mulva

  

  OSH;1430852 wrote:I simply do not think criticizing a scenario that we have no idea about is the best way to go about this thread. Like gut said, and I have been, from IDing the suspects to apprehension/death, it took a day. That's pretty good. And, at the same time, NO ONE was killed (depending on if you count the MIT campus officer who may/not have known the suspects' ID yet). The only injuries were to police officer(s) involved in a shootout.
  
  We don't know how it could've been handled better. I am sure the authorities will iron out some mistakes they may have figured out. They are much more qualified than anyone on here to do such. Being an armchair police expert isn't the best way to do it, in my opinion.

  I understand where you're coming from. I personally disagree. Obviously I'm not criticizing the law enforcement effort. Just the result. And the comments on this thread aren't going to have any impact on how anything is/will be handled. Boston Police and the FBI aren't reading the chatter for tips. It's just a debate. On a very political and emotional topic.
  
  100% agree with you on the time from ID to capture. Incredible how it's done these days. It seriously makes me amazed that criminals ever got caught decades ago. No surveillance everywhere, internet, DNA evidence, etc. I just disagree on the effectiveness of how it was accomplished.
• Glory Days

  

  Mulva;1430784 wrote:Right. Because every local and federal law enforcement resource available can't reasonably be expected to hold 1 (yes, 1) 19 year old terrorist suspect in check within a known area after a firefight with other cops. That's a strategy that could only be made after the fact.
  
  What are you saying about the situation? "Kudos to law enforcement for following up on call from civilian outside of their perimeter saying 'Hey! terrorist is in my boat!'"

  yeah, they did their job. they restricted the kid's freedom of movement. at that point it was just a matter of time. textbook.
• Mulva

  

  Glory Days;1430860 wrote:yeah, they did their job. they restricted the kid's freedom of movement. at that point it was just a matter of time. textbook.

  They limited it to everywhere outside of their perimeter. Which is where he was. Luckily he was wounded.
• gut

  Mulva;1430863 wrote:They limited it to everywhere outside of their perimeter. Which is where he was. Luckily he was wounded.

  What's he going to do? Walk to Canada, unseen?
• Glory Days

  

  Mulva;1430850 wrote:
  Terrorist or not, I kind of feel like its the cops jobs to make sure that doesn't happen. If a suspect engages a firefight with police, they shouldn't escape the scene. If it was a random gangbanger who eluded police I would be saying the same thing. There's just a lot more focus on this situation.

  you ever been in a shoot out?
• Glory Days

  

  Mulva;1430863 wrote:They limited it to everywhere outside of their perimeter. Which is where he was. Luckily he was wounded.

  you do know that a perimeters take more than a few seconds to establish correctly...especially within a large neighborhood area right?
• Mulva

  

  gut;1430864 wrote:What's he going to do? Walk to Canada, unseen?

  Would have still been caught. Could have taken out more civilians before that point.
  

  Glory Days;1430865 wrote:you ever been in a shoot out?

  No. Relevancy?
• Mulva

  

  Glory Days;1430866 wrote:you do know that a perimeters take more than a few seconds to establish correctly...especially within a large neighborhood area right?

  You do know what a perimeter is supposed to be, right?
• gut

  Mulva;1430867 wrote:Would have still been caught. Could have taken out more civilians before that point.

  Then he could have taken out more civilians at any point. But if civilians taken out is your measure, then why are you criticizing?
• Mulva

  

  gut;1430870 wrote:Then he could have taken out more civilians at any point. But if civilians taken out is your measure, then why are you criticizing?

  One of the planes on 9/11 was crashed into a field. Should security not be criticized because it didn't end up taking out any buildings?
  
  The point (for I feel like the thousandth time) is he never should he made it past the initial shootout.
• Glory Days

  

  Mulva;1430867 wrote:
  
  No. Relevancy?

  of course its relevant. how can you say what the cops should have been doing if you dont know what its like to be in one? your perception of how a shoot out should end has been skewed by Michael Bay and Call of Duty.
• Mulva

  

  Glory Days;1430872 wrote:of course its relevant. how can you say what the cops should have been doing if you dont know what its like to be in one? your perception of how a shoot out should end has been skewed by Michael Bay and Call of Duty.

  You're probably right. I'm naive to the fact that sometimes shootouts should end with wanted terrorists escaping on foot and disappearing into the night.
• Glory Days

  

  Mulva;1430868 wrote:You do know what a perimeter is supposed to be, right?

  yes, and to do one correctly takes time. especially with many different agencies involved using different radios etc.