Explosion at the Boston Marathon.

ANTPogo said:
True, but we have no way of knowing at this point.
Click to expand...

Sure, the story as stated (they killed the officer in order to get a second gun) is undoubtedly puzzling and raises questions. But all I've said is that it isn't obviously bogus.

It apparently isn't official, either, so we shouldn't assume it's true.
 
Belz... said:
Did you mean "none of those who were hospitalized died" or "no one was hospitalized" ?
Click to expand...

Jeez, could I have worded it more poorly? I meant that thus far (and knock on wood and all that), none among those who were hospitalized has died.
 
So, according to a JREF poster, blogger = Internet sleuth. Why didn't you just say bloggers were the problem from the begining. I thought you were attacking those fine kids at sites like reddit for trying to be helpfull.
 
Dan O. said:
So, according to a JREF poster, blogger = Internet sleuth. Why didn't you just say bloggers were the problem from the begining. I thought you were attacking those fine kids at sites like reddit for trying to be helpfull.
Click to expand...

I will ask again. What evidence do you require to conclude that the claim, "[T]he Internet sleuths explicitly named individuals and posted their portraits," is true?

(That quote isn't from me, by the way.)
 
GWCarver said:
Although I am not a fan of Infowars, it has a video shot by a resident of how the police were actually searching for the terrorist. Remember, these people were told to stay in their houses, even though the terrorist could have been in their back yard. Then the police did this to them.
Click to expand...

I believe this was dealt with earlier in this thread. It's possible/likely that in this one instance, the police had reason to believe there was something going on with this house that represented a clear and present danger. In any case, multiple reports suggest that this video very much does not represent anything like SOP for how the police searched homes that day -- apparently they otherwise tended to be very respectful and sensitive.

...Clearly, the government is far more dangerous than the terrorists in the long term.
Click to expand...

Clear to you perhaps, but not so to me. Indeed, that's quite a conclusion to draw from that one video.
 
Last edited:
phiwum said:
I will ask again. What evidence do you require to conclude that the claim, "[T]he Internet sleuths explicitly named individuals and posted their portraits," is true?

(That quote isn't from me, by the way.)
Click to expand...

Are you an Internet sleuth?

That claim is attributing the action to a group. And the group in question is not well defined. You need to define precisely who the group or groups involved are and show evidence that it was an action of the group and not just individuals in the group.
 
I'm afraid quite a few people are waking up a week later and their ears are still ringing to high heaven. :( They're wondering why it won't go away.
 
Dan O. said:
So, according to a JREF poster, blogger = Internet sleuth. Why didn't you just say bloggers were the problem from the begining. I thought you were attacking those fine kids at sites like reddit for trying to be helpfull.
Click to expand...

I was following this on Reddit, and the first time I recall seeing the guy with the blue bag's name come up was a post that mentioned his name and said he had posted on Facebook he was going down to "the court" to get it straightened out. But, those posts were coming in fast, so I certainly could have missed something, but probably not anything this big for very long because everyone starts talking about it immediately.

Most of us were watching a live police scanner once Tsarnaev was located in the boat, so we were 5 or 10 minutes ahead of what was happening on the news. When the suspect was captured, though, the news immediately announced it.
 
Last edited:
Dan O. said:
Are you an Internet sleuth?

That claim is attributing the action to a group. And the group in question is not well defined. You need to define precisely who the group or groups involved are and show evidence that it was an action of the group and not just individuals in the group.
Click to expand...

I'll let the OP stand for his own claim, but when I write "internet sleuths posted photos clearly showing people they believed were suspicious", I mean nothing more or less than that individuals did so.

Moreover, it's clear that certain sites (such as Reddit, from what I hear) supported such speculation, insofar as they provided a particular subforum for these kinds of posts.

There is no group called "internet sleuths", so I'm not sure why you think that when we say "internet sleuths did such-and-such", we mean that this fictional entity collectively did it. But, in any case, that is surely cleared up by now: I am criticizing individual behavior, not group behavior.

ETA: Specifically, when I refer to "internet sleuths", I mean those individuals who speculated online and publicly and in a non-professional capacity regarding the identity of the bombers. So, for instance, I don't have online professional journalists in mind, even though such persons may have also behaved very badly. The Post, in particular, behaved in a horribly irresponsible manner, but they aren't the sort of folk I mean when I speak of internet sleuths.

In fact, I assume that some Redditors active in the subforum were appropriately skeptical and argued that public, online speculation of suspects, complete with photos and sometimes names, is a bad thing. I'm not criticizing those Redditors.
 
Last edited:
GWCarver said:
Most of us were watching a live police scanner once Tsarnaev was located in the boat, so we were 5 or 10 minutes ahead of what was happening on the news. When the suspect was captured, though, the news immediately announced it.
Click to expand...

The live scanner feed that I know of was taken down soon after the event started the only one I could get into was time delayed.
 
Dan O. said:
The live scanner feed that I know of was taken down soon after the event started the only one I could get into was time delayed.
Click to expand...

You mean delayed by a few seconds? We were discussing everything that happened on Reddit well before the news. For example, Fox News heard the flash-bangs and didn't know what they were, but they were clearly discussed by the police on the scanner. Later, when the police said on the scanner he was in custody, the news announced that immediately.
 
GWCarver said:
You mean delayed by a few seconds? We were discussing everything that happened on Reddit well before the news. For example, Fox News heard the flash-bangs and didn't know what they were, but they were clearly discussed by the police on the scanner. Later, when the police said on the scanner he was in custody, the news announced that immediately.
Click to expand...

In respect to the bolded, the police, FBI, and ATF deserve lots of thanks.
When the FBI released picture(s) of the unidentified suspects, that action itself invited the world of social media to get actively involved. The bottom line is that action worked in allowing a swift identification and capture of the suspects.

The FBI surely had reason in this instance to invite the local population to assist in the dragnet. One reason is possibly that no credible threats/reports were received from foreign agents.

If harm is proven to come to any misidentified people as possible suspects then surely social media sites will need to require more discretion be displayed in the future. There's also the potential issue of free speech.
 
manofthesea said:
When the FBI released picture(s) of the unidentified suspects, that action itself invited the world of social media to get actively involved. The bottom line is that action worked in allowing a swift identification and capture of the suspects.
Click to expand...

The FBI released pictures of the unidentified suspects because the world of social media was already actively involved and was causing problems because they were identifying the wrong people.
 
ANTPogo said:
The FBI released pictures of the unidentified suspects because the world of social media was already actively involved and was causing problems because they were identifying the wrong people.
Click to expand...

Publishing pictures of unidentified suspects has long been standard police practice. Despite the impression one gets from watching too much CSI, investigators seldom recognize a suspect on sight. Publishing a less than clear photo, or even just a sketch often results in members of the public recognizing and identifying the suspect. Exactly what happened in this case.
 
Kestrel said:
Publishing pictures of unidentified suspects has long been standard police practice. Despite the impression one gets from watching too much CSI, investigators seldom recognize a suspect on sight. Publishing a less than clear photo, or even just a sketch often results in members of the public recognizing and identifying the suspect. Exactly what happened in this case.
Click to expand...

Who identified the suspects?

My understanding is they outed themselves when they killed the MIT cop.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Who identified the suspects?

My understanding is they outed themselves when they killed the MIT cop.
Click to expand...

After the video of the suspects was released to the public, people called in and identified them by name.

You do realize that normal everyday people who don't work for the police are able to recognize a face?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom