Found this searching the subject : http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/22/man-fatally-shot-by-fbi-agent-in-florida/

Last edited Wed May 22, 2013, 10:19 AM - Edit history (1)

The FBI's been pushing him, 'Don't leave, don't leave.' So he decided to stay.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/22/man-fatally-shot-by-fbi-agent-in-florida/



Ibragim Todashev knew Tsarnaev and the two would talk on the phone, said the friend, Khusen Taramov. Todashev has been questioned by the FBI, and he recently canceled a trip to Chechnya that he had planned before the bombings because the FBI was pressuring not to leave.

“Me and him and my friends, we knew this was going to happen. That’s why he wanted to leave the country,” Taramov told Fox 35. “But he canceled the tickets. The FBI’s been pushing him, ‘Don’t leave, don’t leave.’ So he decided to stay.”

http://www.buzzfeed.com/hunterschwarz/man-with-ties-to-boston-bombing-suspect-shot-in-florida


What is this?

This is pretty thin on details.

n/t

Unless you're in the UK you don't actually go into our true home site. That's impossible from the US for example. From outside you don't actually get all of the news some of which is edited out for whatever reason. I realised that when I was visiting friends in OH a few years ago.

make sure you have tunnelbear. I have it and I love it, I switch the VPN over to UK and I can watch BBC or ITV, get all the UK based websites etc. You can put it on UK when you are here, and when you're there you can get US content as well. I have the paid version. $5 a month and well worth it, if only to get my channel 4 fix.

http://www.tunnelbear.com

Thanks &

I leave the VPN on UK sometimes for days and just pretend i'm in London or the Cotswolds.

that Hoover put out a memo that basically said: If you use your weapon, shoot to kill. Getting into a fight with the FBI is a losing proposition.

Treasury, Secret Service, ATF, Customs, all train the same way.

Federal Law Enforcement personnel are not trained to shoot to kill, they are trained to shoot until the threat is neutralized. Whether the perp dies or not is not part of the equation.
Matter of fact, Fed./State/Local Law Enforcement personnel are all trained the same way as far as stopping a perp.
Maybe back during Hoovers time, but not since the mid 70's.

Ask me how I know.

shooting to kill vs shooting to neutralize/incapacitate? It would seem both involve shooting at the chest/torso area multiple times.

breathing, we were trained to shoot until the perp is no longer able to present a threat to our lives. Big difference, the perp could still be alive and breathing, but no longer able to pull trigger,
Shooting to kill would mean that LE would shoot, despite the fact that the perp no longer was a threat, until the perp was no longer breathing.

We were also trained to approach the perp, once they were down, weapon trained on them, remove the weapon, and handcuff them, whether dead or alive.

Yes, I was trained to aim for the chest/torso area, but people do survive multiple hits to these areas, that's not trained to shoot to kill.

Sounds like the guy was unarmed.

which can do great damage to the human body. FBI agents don't normally carry tasers.

They knew the guy was a martial arts expert. Surely someone thought to bring a taser.

I wasn't there, I don't know what the mindset of the officers was at the time of the attack.

Not directing that toward this incident in particular or toward the FBI or law enforcement in general. It's just a fact.

You don't get the other side told in the Ballad of Jesse James every time someone is shot and killed. If any story lives on, it's that of the shooter.

We were NOT trained to shoot to kill, that is a myth that seems to live on today.

to shoot to stop someone. For example, someone running away* can be shot in the leg. On the other hand, someone repeatedly plunging a knife into someone might have to be shot to be killed.

*Better example: running toward a bystander with a weapon, but too far from law enforcement to be stopped any other way

perp's hands as he runs toward him. In real life, they miss more often than they hit, so they know to aim for the biggest chunk of the person--the torso, not some moving leg!

I am fairly sure you aren't going to tell me that shooting someone in the kneecap so they can't run away is "neutralizing a threat."

To say nothing of the fact that "shoot to kill" is bad for PR. It implies a certain bloodthirsty vibe that doesn't help community relations. Concepts of overwhelming force and "shoot to kill" are best left to armies in mortal combat.

we were not trained to "shoot to kill" we are trained to shoot until the threat is neutralized.
Whether the perp survives the shooting is not in the equation is irrelevant, the relevant part is that they are no longer a threat to us or the general public.

if someone is plunging a knife into someone else, the same training applies, we shoot to neutralize the threat, not shoot to kill, once the threat is no longer a threat, then the shooting stops, that's the way I was trained. I don't know any other way to say this.

which plenty of people survive, especially with the advances in medical technology these days.
The bottom line is that LEO is not trained in shoot to kill since I went through the course in the early 70's, it's shoot until the threat is neutralized, whether they live or die is not a factor in the shooting.

I'm sorry, I just don't know of any other way of saying this.

Welcome back.

Who the hell is Paul? (Genuinely curious)

Paul something or other was the last member to run around citing his law enforcement training nonstop.

He got banned for being a conservative shithead.

I guess you're a different member, and not a sock puppet for that asshole.

My mistake.

My law enforcement experience is 30+ years as an armed USFS Ranger, but I received the same weapons training and ROE's as any other Federal LE, ie: FBI, ATF, IRS, etc.

and anything that would reflect badly on the Bureau, thus him, was not welcome.

.
.
.

It's the American way . . .

CC

had some connection to the murder of the three men, one of whom was also a friend of the older brother.

Maybe I should be a detective.....or a psychic. I'm anxious to hear more about this strange twist.

what would it take to cause you to attack?

Apparently, he said too much. He supposedly implicated himself in three brutal murders--that's somewhat of a "no way out" situation.

Present at the interview were an FBI agent (who was ostensibly the shooter, and who sustained an injury in the altercation) and two MA state troopers.

his involvement in a triple murder, so there's that....

ETA: Please see Reply 14.

I am not saying what happened in this instance. I am simply saying I don't necessarily accept any story at face value.

A link would be helpful--I can't scroll up and down all day looking for one number in dozens of replies that are all over the place....

USA Today and other papers are saying the same thing.

you seek. I can't teach you to read.

Here:

“The investigators were working on the theory that he and Tamerlan had done the murder,”


and HERE: the official said he was being questioned about his interactions with bombing suspects Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and about the 2011 killings. ...NBC News, quoting unidentified investigators, reported that Todashev, who once lived in Boston, had confessed to the agent that he had played in a role in a brutal Waltham slayings and was about to sign a written statement when he allegedly attacked the agent.



Now, if you had clicked on the NYT cite the first time, and read the article, you also would have seen this as well:


The authorities believe that Mr. Todashev and Mr. Tsarnaev were involved in the murders and are seeking to determine whether the police missed an opportunity to thwart the marathon attacks. They have not ruled out that Mr. Tsarnaev’s younger brother, Dzhokhar, played a role in the murders.

The mother of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects said in a telephone interview that her older son knew Mr. Todashev.

The mother, Zubeidat Tsarnaeva, said Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Mr. Todashev saw each other regularly in Boston, though they were not particularly close, and that Ibragim had moved to Florida around two years ago.

Here is the link, yet again: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/us/officer-involved-in-shooting-of-man-tied-to-tsarnaev.html?_r=0

You aren't using logic.

You are looking for a quote from a dead man.

Open book, aren't you!

One thing does not negate the other.

I say wait for more information.

Without a signed confession, you're relying on hearsay. Whatever that officer says is worthless.

LE doesn't have to read you your rights. Anything he said during an interview can be used.

Here's a thought. Maybe he knew his rights, got up to leave, and that's when he was shot?
We'll never know.

if they tried to stop him then, at that point, he's considered in custody and his rights have to be read to him.
We can speculate all we want, but until other evidence comes out to the contrary, I'll chose to believe the FBI agent, who, BTW, was wounded, and 2 state troopers.

FWIW, this isn't a courtroom, and since neither you nor I are judges, we don't have to worry about hearsay.

I'm repeating what I read in the paper. Frankly, I'll take the NYT and other papers as a valid source before I take the word of "Eddie Haskell of DU" as rock solid reporting. No offense, but at least the newspapers have a traceable byline.

If only he hadn't been shot to death.

In this case, the NYT is a tool. An outlet the FBI used to bolster their case that the brothers were involved in the drug murders. In my opinion, it's evidence that wouldn't be allowed in court; but it will be used to shape a gullible publics opinion.

slice their throats like he did in Waltham.

I'm betting this interview--and the others they have done with this guy--were tape recorded.

Every newspaper, apparently, is a tool. They'd have to be, according to you. And all the TV networks, too. And the cable news shows...yeah, that's the ticket.

And you're the only one who knows the truth?

No one is saying "the brotherS" were involved--this one guy was indicating that ONE brother was involved, the older one...and the details of his involvement (or this guy's) are yet to be revealed.

You seem to be getting terribly hot-breathed over details that haven't been put forth, yet. Frankly, I can't get behind your overwrought excitement. I don't think anyone's being played here, but I do think you have quite the flair for the dramatic.

You've had to go back a ways, and name someone who is NO LONGER WORKING at NYT, and who hasn't been for EIGHT years now, to try to make something resembling a case.

I'll believe NYT--missteps and all-- before I will believe the fact-free rants of "GoneFishin of DU"--sorry. They have more credibility, even if it's not optimal, while all you've given me is angry opinion.

Not anger. Just bewilderment at how quickly authoritarian personalities gobble up whatever they are told provided it fits into their white hat vs. black hat world view. Some of these stories initially hit the news in a sanitized form, and the messy details only leak out months later, sometimes unnoticed.

People who find themselves forever stuck in paradigms, playing out old roles, are more "authoritarian" than the people they accuse of being authoritarian.

Times change. Life goes on. That buggy whip isn't needed anymore, we've got horseless carriages now.

It is, indeed, bewildering to those who want their world painted in immutable shades of black and white--
the "authorities" are bad and evil, and they are locked into that role forever and ever and always... and of course there MUST be a "secret" explanation that only "I" know--and the rest of the "sheeple" have no clue about. Because, yeah...disinformation! Conspiracies! Fight the power!

It's a bit hackneyed and formulaic, if you ask me--you've done nothing but sneer and point--you have no proof of anything save a paranoid mind, and you don't even offer a single citation that suggests that your POV is even remotely valid.

It's blather, nothing more. It's what contrarian children do. It's not convincing.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

.
.
.

Why can we not do this with humans??

CC

the same enclosed room as a grizzly.

.
.
.

Thermal imaging from a HELICOPTER.


hmmmm;

CC

He wasn't in a boat.

.
.
.

Ever consider that much of the rest of the World considers USA Americans trigger happy?

Wonder why.

CC

Doesn't mean they're right, though.

here is not making any logical sense.

The FBI agents in the same room as the guy with a knife should have shot him with a tranquilizer from a helicopter like they do with grizzly bears, and that proves that Americans are trigger happy.

There's a lot of chain jerking going on here. It doesn't seem to be in aid of casting any light on the subject, it's more, I think, about "internet sport." A childish pursuit.

And I think your choice of smilie is spot-on, as well!

Are easier to hit when they roll on their backs and grab their toes.

The story is not so sound bitey as we are first lead to believe.

He was shot by someone with law enforcement bona fides--perhaps he tried to give the FBI agent a Chechnyan necklace, like those three in Waltham got:

People all over the state are in that little business. Examples:

http://www.necn.com/02/19/13/Major-marijuana-bust-in-Canton-Mass/landing.html?blockID=831979

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2013/04/everett_traffic_stop_results_i.html

http://www.willitsnews.com/ci_22920286/7-arrested-malden-pot-bust

http://www.enterprisenews.com/bsu/x694776178/Police-bust-Bridgewater-State-student-for-marijuana-distribution



I'm sure that anyone who was busted around the time of that triple homicide was scrutinized very carefully. Massachusetts isn't like some states--we're not the Murder Capital of the World, here. When people get killed, it's a big deal and it makes the news and people talk about it.

I was stunned that I "missed" this triple murder, because I watch the local news fairly regularly, but I later realized that I was out of town when it happened, and gone for awhile afterwards--so I missed the heavy reporting on it.

I said possibly - the temptation to link these two events (triple murder and arrest for marijuana) was apparently so big that officials had to deny any relation between them.

And now this guy - what's his name, Tadoshev? - has allegedly confessed that the was "involved" in the triple murder? But before signing a prepared confession, he decides to draw a knife and attack his interrogator?

Has Tadoshev a history of dealing with marihuana?

I can tell you that if the guy attacked the three with a knife, there's a certain familiarity to that modus operandi.

They say that, according to the Waltham crime scene, the three guys wearing the Chechen Necklace didn't know what hit them, either. Perhaps this guy thought he was quick enough, and good enough, to kill three guys sitting in his condo questioning him before they could get a shot off.

This guy was in his own home when this went down--he wasn't "in custody" or "under arrest." He was on his home turf.

You can WALK from Watertown to Waltham. It's not uncommon for people who LIVE in Watertown to work in Waltham, or vice versa.

"Relation confirmed?" Please.

No, I'm not from MA. Doesn't matter.

Your logic is pretty twisted. It was YOU who suggested (using the above quote) that because Waltham is not Watertown there is no relation between the two incidents, falsely implying that Bailey grew the weed in Watertown.

Now, after I informed you about your wrong assumption, you all of a sudden, tell me it doesn't matter if he grew the weed in Waltham or in Watertown because they are adjacent communities?

By the way - do you still stand to your claim that Todashev said the older Tsarnaev was involved in the Waltham murders?

to the point that you can go from one to the next and not even realize you've left one and entered the other.

It's not like there's a quota on the number of people who are "allowed" to grow weed in Waltham, either.

The NYT said that Todashev confessed to involvement in those murders. So yeah, I believe their claim before I believe someone like you, talking ragtime on a discussion board. You don't have any proof that he didn't say that--and if you do, you had better just put up or step off.

And yes, it does matter that you aren't from MA. You don't have the lay of the land, you aren't offering any proof that this guy was related to the crime, either, save a single "one-off" speculation that happened in the immediate aftermath of the triple murder, and hasn't resulted in an indictment of the former Watertown councilman who is going to trial for growing that weed.

Don't you think, since you're the internet expert here, that they'd have charged him with the crime if he were responsible, and not just a pot dealer, like hundreds of others around the commonwealth?

So where's YOUR proof, huh? Huh? You don't have any--if you did, you'd have posted it.

MA state troopers into lying about what happened.

And I'm an astronaut.

public official has ever exaggerated, used hyperbole, or lied by omission to cover their butt.

I will say that the likelihood of a conspiracy between two staties and feeb is about as probable as my taking a trip to Mars any time soon...and I'm an astronaut. You can believe that because someone said so on DU.

It's well known that teen agers and those who are not fully emotionally mature tend to question even the most obvious and transparent accounts that are reported after a reasonable amount of investigation. It's their way of separating themselves from authority figures--by being contrarians.

For this reason, too, we see so many teen and twenty-somethings posting on the "Jahar is INNOCENT" Facebook pages. It suits an emotional narrative popular in young adult literature and films, one that is ripe with conspiracies, and is a way that young people express their independence from their parents and other adults in charge. Only 'I' know the truth, only 'I' and those like me--not you "establishment" drudges--understand.

It's a dance as old as time.

It's quite common, but it is indicative of age, often as not--particularly when people rail on about "conspiracies" that just don't pass any adult person's smell test. http://www.policymic.com/articles/38165/freejahar-fandom-why-are-teenagers-so-susceptible-to-crackpot-conspiracy-theories





When children get older, they dump these views like they do their questionable choices in hair, clothing, and other adornments that signify "rebellion" against those establishment bill payers.

Go ahead and believe whatever you're told.

Love Santa

Unless you're on the Serengeti.

We're not on the Seregeti.

Succinct.

.
.
.

CC

not the same thing, either.

Woo woo woo is for Curley of the Three Stooges.

I'm merely suggesting that when the police question a suspect, they have an agenda and will seek to find evidence to support that agenda. When an interrogation ends with a dead suspect, I don't believe that constitutes a confession.

worst.

Without a shred of evidence to back up your "suggestion," either.


It wasn't an "interrogation," though--it was an "interview."

Interrogations happen when people are in custody, this interview took place at the suspect's condo.

It is every bit as likely--if not more so--that the suspect had a belief in his ability to murder three people with a knife, quickly, based on the fact that he was able to do this once before, but his method didn't work quite so well on two staties and a feeb. He was able to cut one guy, but that's as far as he got.

in his kitchen in his condo and had a knife when he attacked the FBI agent.

Your speculation is based on "I made some stuff up and want people to buy it."

Here's a thread you might want to read--pay particular attention to this part:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014490723