Look closely at the boat. It is not riddled with bullet holes is it? And there aren't many indications of bullet damage in the boat, are there?
Now look also at the location of the boat relative to the driveway and the fence and driveway next door. The article shows LEOs at the front of the house, no doubt many more were present there once they were all in place. The area behind the garage was cleared of officers early in the action to allow fire from the front of the boat. Clearly firing on the boat from both sides was possible, and even fire through the wood fence next to the boat from a concealed position, or even an armored vehicle in the neighbor's driveway.
And yet you are suggesting nobody from FBI HRT, or any other SWAT team present could hit the terrorist because he was behind the engine? Not really. It looks like they carefully fired a few rounds into the boat, maybe even with low penetration ammo. Even the bullet holes present do not seem to be matched with exit holes on the far side. I'm willing to bet that a standard 5.56mm round will go right through a fiberglass boat and its wood trim.
The search operation may have been poorly planned and a failure, but the final capture operation was very well done.
Several threads here have comments about how the boat was riddled with bullet holes and speculation about who was going to buy him a new one. You can hold any opinion you want. I don’t care one way or the other what you think. My opinion is a bunch of trigger happy cowboys with frayed nerves (justifiably so) were shooting at something they hoped was the bad guy. Carefully fired a few rounds? “I don’t care who you are that’s funny right there.” I still haven’t seen or heard any evidence that the suspect fired a single shot. I am doubting the use of the words “exchange of gunfire”. I don’t think their was any exchange. By the way, I’m still laughing about “a few carefully fired rounds”. Enjoy your fantasies.
