Posted on 06/03/2015 12:51:40 PM PDT by tcrlaf
A terror suspect killed by police in Boston was not shot in the back as his family claimed, community leaders said Wednesday after police took the unusual step of showing them footage of the encounter.
Usaamah Rahim, 26, was killed Tuesday morning after he was stopped for questioning in a terror investigation. Police said that he threatened them with a military-style knife as officers ordered him to stand down.
Rahim's family later claimed that he was on the phone when he was shot, and that he was hit in the back. Police said they showed the surveillance footage to community leaders, including Muslim leaders, in the name of transparency.
Darnell Williams, head of the Urban League of Eastern Massachusetts, said that the video "150 percent" corroborates the police account. Other leaders stopped short of calling the shooting justified, saying they wanted to know more.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
"Rahim's brother, Ibrahim Rahim, claimed on social media after the shooting that his brother was struck three times in the back and stayed on the phone with their father because he wanted a witness. "
“Even the police’s version of events, if believed, raises all sorts of questions. They say Rahim was under “24-hour surveillance” by the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force, and were monitoring him for at least two years. When they approached him, they had no arrest or search warrant, but instead simply wanted to question him. When they did so, he pulled out his knife, and when he refused to put it away and walked toward them, they shot and killed him.
There are numerous questions raised by all of this. If Rahim was so dangerous, why didn’t the constant surveillance result in any charges? If — as the media spent all day claiming — he was on the verge of executing a horrific terror attack, why didn’t law enforcement agents have an arrest warrant or even search warrant? What was their intention in approaching him this way? Were they wearing uniforms, and — supposedly believing he was an ISIS operative eager to kill police — did they do anything to make him feel threatened?”
“Rahim’s brother, Ibrahim Rahim, claimed...”
You mean the Imam brother lied about the circumstances?
I believe their unholy koran allows that.
Police have every right to question someone.
If someone talks about blowing something up and then buys bomb making materials the police have a case. Otherwise it is just talk.
If someone talks about removing someones head it is pretty darn hard to make a case that they were actually going to do it. If questioning him pushed his buttons enough to act on his intentions well good for the police.
I guess you wanted him to behead the police officer first? Then there’d be cause to stop and question him?
If there was evidence of a specific attack, I would expect there to be an arrest warrant issued and the FBI/BPD show up with overwhelming force and take him down. That is how law enforcement is supposed to work according to the Constitution.
The FBI does not operate in a manner to show up and question a guy at 7 AM. They arrest the guy at 4 AM and show up with 25 agents to take him down, therefore preventing this.
I am smelling something fishy from LEO on this one
Yes, police have every right to question someone.
If Rahim was so dangerous, why didn’t the constant surveillance result in any charges? If — as the media spent all day claiming — he was on the verge of executing a horrific terror attack, why didn’t law enforcement agents have an arrest warrant or even search warrant?
This method doesn’t match up with how the FBI conducts business with someone this “dangerous”
“The FBI does not operate in a manner to show up and question a guy at 7 AM. They arrest the guy at 4 AM and show up with 25 agents to take him down, therefore preventing this.”
Yeah, I think it’s pretty clear that you have never been questioned by the FBI if this is what you think always happens.
Like I said, it is hard to make a case that someone is going to cut someone else’s head off based on private talk alone. Knives are common. In most terrorist cases, the would be terrorist has to go purchase components of their terror and a case can be built on that showing actual intent.
And if the police provoke him into acting badly by talking to him, good for the police. Case closed.
I would say I have far more access to the FBI then most on this website, through multiple avenues.
Doesn’t sound like it. I’ve known multiple people interviewed by the FBI, and just a couple of agents showing up on their doorstep is pretty standard procedure when they just want to question someone.
Congratulations. I am proud of you
Related...
Jihadist Shot Dead Trying to Hijack Plane in OHIO Had Four Knives Strapped to His Leg
http://defund.com/jihadist-shot-dead-trying-to-hijack-plane-in-ohio-had-four-knives-strapped-to-his-leg/?utm_source=fnot1&utm_medium=facebook
Didn’t the Boston PD also take out one of the Tsarnaev’s friends the same way? You know, during questioning..
Well that will put a wet towel on the lawsuit lottery.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.