Boston Marathon Bombers Spark Overnight Shootout

Boston Marathon Bombers Spark Overnight Shootout
Suspect #1 Dead After Shootout

Suspect #1 in the Boston Marathon Bombings has been shot and killed after a shootout trail erupted from Cambridge to Watertown.

A Massachusetts Institute of Technology Policeman was shot and killed after apparently identifying the two suspects involved in the Boston Marathon Bombing. The suspects then highjacked a car and headed towards Watertown as they were throwing explosive devices behind them. A major shootout then erupted in Watertown, eight miles from Boston.

Suspect #1 (with the black hat) has been shot and killed by authorities (in addition to suffering explosive injuries to the trunk). Meanwhile, the 2nd suspect originally wearing the lighter hat remains at-large with authorities launching a massive manhunt. Residents have been told to stay indoors and not answer their doors unless it is the police seeking information while going door to door.

Ironically, a little after midnight (e.s.t), the Federal Bureau of Investigation issued super-enhanced images of the suspects and it is believed that the officer who gave his life may have identified them approximately two miles from the Boston Marathon Finish Line.

That set off a sequence of events that included the highjacking of a vehicle and a shootout with police. A transit cop was also wounded and the extent of his injuries are unknown.

The hostage, meanwhile, was initially ordered to be stripped by authorities to make sure he wasn't wired. Apparently the hostage was subjected to a total of three separate interrogations and being photographed by authorities. He was then released and permitted to go home.

The remaining suspect (#2), however, is considered extremely dangerous and armed. The manhunt continues but authorities are concerned that he may be wired with explosives. Residents have been told to contact authorities via the emergency number and asked that they not answer their doors unless they are policeman.

The situation remains fluid and on-going.

Why the suspects have remained in the immediate area is unknown. News media have theorized they may not be sophisticated and might live in the area. No doubt that more detailed information will come out in due time. Whether or not these suspects were simply two lone wolfs or part of a larger domestic terrorist organization is still unknown but according to MSNBC News "the suspects are Chechen brothers with the last name Tsarnaev, law enforcement officials told NBC News. The suspect at large, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, is 19, was born in Kyrgyzstan and has a Massachusetts driver’s license, they said. The dead suspect was identified as Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, born in Russia."


Leave a comment
  • This started the morning too confusing for me (they have him cornered in Watertown wearing a suicide vest; they have him cornered in Cambridge, he's in a car heading to Connecticut, etc.), but several things make one scratch one's head.

    1. I figured that at least the side picture of the one in the white hat was clear enough to identify him, which might have flushed the two out.

    2. But then why did they go all Bonnie and Clyde with the robberies, carjackings, murders, etc.? They had 3 days to sneak out of sight.

    3. Saying that they are Chechnyans [or whatever the term is] at least at one time put them in a center of terrorism, although I'm sure the federal intelligence agents will have to work on whether they had terrorist connections and conspirators.

    4. Apparently #2 went to a public school in Cambridge, but I don't buy how everyone but the father is here,all the good student stories, etc. Daddy saying he is a second year med student doesn't make sense for a 19 year old. In any event, the two seem to have acquired quite an arsenal without being sooner detected, and I'm sure more was involved than going to the local kitchen store to get a couple of pressure cookers and the hobby store (which is pretty nonexistent these days) to get some radio control model cars for the circuit boards.

  • In reply to jack:

    There will, no doubt, be many questions that need to be answered when things are said and done. Even the US is going back over every shred of intel to see if they missed something.

    The Bonnie and Clyde act, though, seems to reflect that these two didn't have the means to get out of town ergo the robbery of a convenience store after it became clear that the images released were getting "clearer" and would soon be identified.

    But you are raising some powerful questions Jack, but looks as if we will just have to wait and see how it shakes out.

  • In reply to Michael Ciric:

    At the moment it isn't clear if they robbed a 7-11 or a gas station, and someone else supposedly robbed the 7-11. Sounds like Apu and Snake on The Simpsons.

    And there are reports that #2 showed up calm and cool at his college yesterday.

    At least the report on the CR-V was cleared up quick, although there is now supposedly a lookout for a Honda Odyssey. Some NBC reporter had a claim that he saw a dead person on the street in Watertown and the press was told to clear the area, but the only thing definitive is that the police had a news conference saying no one was apprehended, and that there would be controlled explosions at their Cambridge apartment.

    I guess that's what happens with "News Raw."

  • In reply to jack:

    And now the official statement was that there wasn't a robbery. just that they were picked up on a surveillance camera.

  • In reply to jack:

    Well the saga is over and hopefully the authorities will get some answers, provided the suspect in custody doesn't die from injuries.

    Yes, I heard that the robbery at the convenience store was a matter of happenstance; apparently there to boost a car while a robbery was in progress - go figure. I am still trying to figure who is responsible for MIT Policeman Colliers death.

    As for "raw news" I think we have to expect that there will be conflicting reports as events meld - luckily Boston authorities have been pretty good with their regular updates as some thing got cleared-up along the way.

    Now, though, we will have to let the process play out. The Boston Globe website has been pretty good and suggest that those interested go there first as they seem to have a better relationship with authorities and getting timely information.

  • In reply to Michael Ciric:

    Yes, it is a good thing that it appears that things are under control.

    The robbery at the convenience store still isn't clear--at the press conference it was indicated that the only robbery was the carjacking.

    The Press Conference also indicated that Colliers was just assassinated for being a cop.

    The last bit of confusion (at least on ABC) was whether the police withdrawing was a ruse, but it does seem as though it was the proximate cause of the homeowner checking his boat. He sure exhibited a lot of guts in pulling open the cover and seeing someone inside, given that the hostage team then took fire.

    Finally, the boat should have been obvious to the helicopters, but the police said it was outside the perimeter.

  • In reply to jack:

    For sure but you know this manhunt kind of resembled something our soldiers are confronted with and invariably there is always a "fog" attached to it.

    I do have some thoughts though.

    I basically followed CNN and the Boston Globe during the episode and from what I gather is that there was in fact a robbery (by others) and that the hostage ran into it before the two bombers grabbed him and the car. So two episodes intertwined from the onset but once the car was boosted that triggered the chase, the throwing of IED's and the eventual shootout. After which suspect #2 ran over his brother to elude police. Now I am not sure if that killed him as the video I provided showed him alive hands outstretched but there is a question to an explosive charge going off under him as he lost consciousness because the doctor said there were multiple traumas the examiner would have to sort out.

    Colliers? Still confused because CNN said he was responding to a "disturbance" but was found slumped over in his vehicle so that would appear to go with your assessment. But was it the robbers or the bombers? So I am still not sure and will keep digging through reports.

    Ruse? Hmm good point but unknown as to motive since it appears the suspect got just outside the so-called perimeter and found the boat as a place to hide. Of course, I think they suspected that after finding blood at a nearby house within the perimeter. So I don't know what the cops were thinking after locking down the area all day.

    But yeah, the guy that found him in the boat was gutsy for sure but then again the bombers had no intention of hurting the hostage either. Seems their main beef, or one of them anyway, was with authority figures or symbolic institutions of freedom. Then again he was probably exhausted by this time and he was hurt which probably slowly gave him the second wind to engage cops after they threw a concussion grenade.

    At this point I would just let the fog recede - I am sure details will be reconciled fast enough for the public. Besides we must now wait on what the bomber's condition is and if he is willing to talk since he can be classified as an enemy combatant and am sure that is why they did not issue a Miranda. So government has many avenues of punishment and am sure will factor in this kid's willingness to talk or not.

    It will be interesting but like I said the Boston Media is still probably the best source to follow either on the internet or their live radio link....

  • In reply to Michael Ciric:

    Doing some digging through other than legal research sources comes up with New York v. Quarles, where the "public safety" exception was announced. That only involved an officer asking "where's the gun" after the complainant said that the suspect had a gun, and the suspect's holster was empty.

    So, it doesn't have to do with being an enemy combatant, which this defendant legally cannot be, since he is a U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil. Thus, he is entitled to Due Process. He's just a much bigger public safety threat than Quarles was. I'm sure the scope of the non-Miranda questioning will be limited to other weapons and conspirators.

    In any event, the ABC legal analyst said that even if the prosecution can't use at trial what they get out of him, there is certainly plenty of other evidence.

  • I see Jack. However I am still bewildered as to why the media is reporting that Lindsey Graham and another in Congress are demanding he be classified as an enemy combatant and that that would probably only buy the prosecution 48 hours but that would allow a group of Feds to interrogate him without an attorney present or charges made. I think even Time's website reported that. Screwy.

  • In reply to Michael Ciric:

    Lindsay Graham can demand anything, for the sake of publicity, but it doesn't mean he'll get it. I believe that NBC News is correct in saying, "Administration officials see that [enemy combatant] scenario as a non-starter..., particularly given the fact that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is an American citizen, naturalized last September."

    As far as the 48 hours, NBC says "The rule waiving the Miranda warning does not set a precise limit on how long a suspect can be interrogated before being advised of his rights, but it likely buys authorities no more than 48 hours." The support for that in the Quarles case would be the "immediate necessity" involving "public safety." One also has to take into consideration that anyone arrested on a federal charge must be taken before a magistrate "without unnecessary delay," when the magistrate reads the defendant his rights {Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5}. Although I have heard some lawyers on the radio saying 72 hours, Riverside County v. McLaughlin indicates 48 hours, so that's probably where the 48 hour statement came from. In any event this also supports that they may not keep Tsarnaev incommunicado in Guantanamo, or at least that the Obama Justice Dept. sure doesn't think so.

    And, as I noted above, the Quarles exception only applies to whether anything Tsarnaev says can be used against him in court, and while the U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts might be concerned about that, I doubt that very many others are.

  • In reply to jack:

    Jack, thank you for the legal explanation. I am always grateful having you as my site's legal eagle and you taking the time to make it easier for us lay people to understand the process.

Leave a comment