Student wrongly tied to Boston bombings found dead

He was probably killed by the older bombing brother.
Wasn't there was an unsolved murder a year involving a close friend ?

They thought a missing, water-logged corpse detonated bombs at a marathon? Interesting theory.

What a crock....almost too too trite for the national enquirer.....
the implicated scenario never took place because he was already dead.
Sensationalism knows no depths.....there isnt a bottom deep enough they cant plumb it.

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by davespanners

 

The MSM's new habit of picking up tidbits of info from social media and then reporting it as fact is equally as disturbing and needs to be looked at too,

Not equally as disturbing...far MORE disturbing. Unlike social media, THEY are tasked with reporting the truth, and have the responsibility of professional journalism practices. We on the web have no such responsibility.

^ This

People on the internet are allowed to say whatever they want about anything. It's called freedom of speech. The MSM has to comply by various ethics and rules though. It's their responsibility to check their facts before releasing any information. This is just another case of the news media being lazy and using the internet to gather information to get their story out asap and not double checking the info first.

reply to post by davespanners


He disappeared from his residence without even taking any spare underwear from what I understand.

This has nothing to do with the bombings, he was probably linked to it by the MSM (since that's where I heard the claims first, at CNN about Sunil), because since he was missing it seemed sorta suspicious.

I think he was kidnapped and murdered for something we haven't a clue about.
Organized crime related possibly.

I don't know why anyone is trying to blame the Internet though.
Because a real murderer is on the lose.

reply to post by Agit8dChop


And if someone is phoning you at 3am and making death threats towards you and the rest of your family because some idiot on the net has suggested that your missing son that you are grieving for is connected to a terrorist act and they've dug out your phone number and home address... then what?

Originally posted by davespanners


If this does turn out to be someone killing themselves as the result of an internet vigilante campaign where people clamored to find and identify publicly anyone they could through blurry low res photographs then I think we may have just seen the Internets darkest day so far.

The event has also seen some of the people that were part of the rush to identify suspects now themselves being vilified and blamed in another kind of witch hunt.

I wonder if we as internet users could collectively agree that this should never happen again (no matter what the cause of this persons death turns out to be) and that we should leave the business of identifying suspects in murder cases to the professionals?

www.usatoday.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

It is the result of the insane notion of "Freedom of Speech" which for some is a ticket to spout the foulest and the most unfounded rubbish.

This is used by news outlets and individuals alike in a most disturbing way.

It is also supported extensively by sites like ATS that seemingly allows for almost any dribble under the guise of Free Exchange of views. All you have to do is use civil language and you'll be OK.

Unfortuantely ATS is now used to create inane stupidity rather than exposing it.

Hooray for ATS. Not only the breeding ground for extremists but also responsible for innocent people commiting suicide.
And in true ATS tradition I don't have to prove this. It is possbible isn't it? If you don't think so - prove it.

As it is now a site owner can hide behind the free Exchange of opinions. Have we come to a point where responsibility is to be commended and encouraged?

Originally posted by Xaphan
***snip***
People on the internet are allowed to say whatever they want about anything. It's called freedom of speech. ***snip***

Another intellectually challenged person who can't understand the difference between lies and truth.

The only reason it "seems as if" people are allowed to say anything they like is first the difficulty in policing it and secondly the money gained from site hits.

ATS (for example) is run by Money mostly or solely gained from advertising. The more site hits the more Money. People are attracted to controversial content and there are therefore more traffic on ATS for being controversial than if every second thread is promptly closed for being offending, lies, stupid or just wrong.

Thus we don't do anything about the problem of the consequences of a faulty notion of "free speech".

Originally posted by Xaphan

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by davespanners

 

The MSM's new habit of picking up tidbits of info from social media and then reporting it as fact is equally as disturbing and needs to be looked at too,

Not equally as disturbing...far MORE disturbing. Unlike social media, THEY are tasked with reporting the truth, and have the responsibility of professional journalism practices. We on the web have no such responsibility.

^ This

People on the internet are allowed to say whatever they want about anything. It's called freedom of speech. The MSM has to comply by various ethics and rules though. It's their responsibility to check their facts before releasing any information. This is just another case of the news media being lazy and using the internet to gather information to get their story out asap and not double checking the info first.

I'm watching an Australian show called Planet America which is a half-hourly program that is solely devoted to discussion of US politics (it's probably on You Tube, if you're interested). Tonight they were talking to an American media commentator of some description (unsure of his bona fides) and mentioned how unbelievable it was that the New York Post had incorrectly named Sunil as a terrorist and the guest agreed that it's inexplicable and that he couldn't even begin to imagine how that editorial decision would have been taken [of course, it could have had something to do with a phone call from someone in a high place that started, "We're having this drill"...]. He believes it'll take the paper many years to get past it. So, even in the wicked world of journalism, this was a move that shocked lot of people in the business. I hope Murdoch gets sued. He could stand to lose a few million.

Reports that the first mention came from police chatter the night of the Watertown action are mushrooming. Somebody earlier in this thread said this is false, that he was never mentioned. I'm not sure there is a way of being absolutely sure of that. I'm getting the impression more than one person heard it. Time to check the logs, if they're still up.

R.I.P. Sunil Tripathi

This debate is interesting, because people seem to be making a strange distinction between "suspect" and "criminal" and are also not really making a distinction between citizen journalists and media or paparazzi.

Why is it acceptable - or not - for people to be named or accused on the net by complete strangers, and then the opposite is said about the press, or the paparazzi?

We've had this debate in the UK now for a few years thanks to the disgusting behaviour of our tabloid gutter press, hacking phones of dead children, harassing relatives, bullying people to death in their papers for nothing more than entertainment...

My opinion is, why is it deemed okay for paparazzi to LITERALLY HUNT completely innocent people just living their lives, publishing all kinds of things about them for nothing more than entertainment, but absolutely terrible for someone on the net to identify a potential suspect at a crime scene, who can then come forward and say "it wasn't me"?

I think a lot of people's opinions and perceptions on all of this are a little warped. I have no doubt that a lot of you who are screaming about "internet vigilantes" are also consumers of pop culture, tabloid journalism, the stalking nature of paparazzi... so how do you justify supporting innocent people being chased down the street by photographers and often goaded into reacting, while also complaining about this?

If you read celeb gossip, trashy celeb media, gossip blogs and so on, you have no place criticizing anyone in this case.

Originally posted by Alxandro
He was probably killed by the older bombing brother.
Wasn't there was an unsolved murder a year involving a close friend ?

That Is quite a speculation! So you think a missing young man suffering from depression, who has turned up drowned in no suspicious curcumstances and who in all likely hood never met Tsarnaeve in his life was 'probably' killed by him

reply to post by HolgerTheDane2


Hooray for ATS. Not only the breeding ground for extremists but also responsible for innocent people commiting suicide.


You just accused an inanimate object (ATS) for innocent people commiting suicide.
The next two sentences describe this kind of thinking.
Irrational and emotional reasoning, Used to be labeled hysteria, and later is a hysterical personality disorder.


First of all the op was only talking about ONE (1) person, and for you to expand that to PEOPLE.

This sentence describes this kind of thought process.
Exaggerations to prove a point are called lies. The individual exaggerating is commonly called a liar.

Originally posted by Xaphan
The MSM has to comply by various ethics and rules though.

You would think that, but in the US it doesn't. It is seen as any such law or regulation would infringe on freedom of the press. So here the media can lie, get it wrong or even slant the news and the worse that will happen is fines or a civil law suit. And even civil suits have been overturned because there are no laws against lying in the media.

I do agree the media should hold themselves to an ethics code, but that is self-policing. And the FCC has a policy that broadcasters can not intentionally distort news, but those claims have to be back up with evidence. And as I said before even with evidence, it's a policy not a law so.....

In a way it sucks, but it's one of the freedoms we have to keep regardless of the abuses of the MSM.

i don't get it...if he was missing before the bombings...how the hell did he even get on the "suspect" list. He was obviously not even at the event ??

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
i don't get it...if he was missing before the bombings...how the hell did he even get on the "suspect" list. He was obviously not even at the event ??

He was never on a real "suspect list", just the one created by the online community.

It started on Reddit (he was brown and missing so that made him a candidate in their eyes), then it spilled over into twitter. From there someone hoaxed the internet by tweeting he was named on the police scanner broadcast (he wasn't). That then lead to it ending up on the MSM.

reply to post by OneisOne


Well, if it was a hoax and the Twitter stock market loss was due to a hoax, definitely expect a crack down on social media and internet use. Perhaps something along the lines of what the Australian government is currently setting up: government enforced data retention and tracking of all users by ISPs with info to be made available on request by government agencies for up to one year. And guess who's helping Australia put this together? Yep, the good ol' US Government. This isn't a conspiracy, this is legit - see thread below (Australian computer forum),

forums.whirlpool.net.au...

And then, of course, there's the voluntary internet filter they're about to try and implement here (because the mandatory one did not fly with the electorate when it was proposed:

www.zdnet.com...

reply to post by davespanners


That is nonsense. If people off themselves after pressure from virtual peers that they have no physical relation then there is something already wrong with them. The only exception is with known peers that engage in defamation and mental torture and that is already covered by criminal and civil law...

Hooo the Internet, the root of all evils is a failed campaign, even more nonsensical than the campaign against guns, the Internet does no kill people, people kill people and they have done so very well even when reduced to jungle drums for communication...

Originally posted by Archie
reply to post by OneisOne

 

Well, if it was a hoax and the Twitter stock market loss was due to a hoax, definitely expect a crack down on social media and internet use. Perhaps something along the lines of what the Australian government is currently setting up: government enforced data retention and tracking of all users by ISPs with info to be made available on request by government agencies for up to one year. And guess who's helping Australia put this together? Yep, the good ol' US Government. This isn't a conspiracy, this is legit -

Does not surprise me one bit. I've told people for years anything done electronically can be archived and (in my opinion) already is. And now we have the NSA building a $1.5 billion data center. But that is a different discussion all together.

What this event DOES highlight - and I know this will be unpopular - is inherent racial profiling bought about by media attitudes following 9/11, Afghanistan and the Iraq debacle.

This guy was singled out because of his skin colour, and his inherited nationality and his assumed religion, and thats the ONLY reason. That, in itself is very disturbing, and it appears to be a growing trend. Indeed, following the attacks the BBC did a few reports saying that muslim communities were scared (and praying in a lot of cases) that the perpetrators of the bombings weren't muslim, for fear of reprisals from idiots who can't distinguish between extremists and normal people who just want to go about their daily business.

Sound like this kids family have been the victims of exactly that.

Originally posted by OneisOne

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
i don't get it...if he was missing before the bombings...how the hell did he even get on the "suspect" list. He was obviously not even at the event ??

He was never on a real "suspect list", just the one created by the online community.

It started on Reddit (he was brown and missing so that made him a candidate in their eyes), then it spilled over into twitter. From there someone hoaxed the internet by tweeting he was named on the police scanner broadcast (he wasn't). That then lead to it ending up on the MSM.

In all fairness, there most definitely was some minor similarities between him and the images of the suspect at the scene. It's not simply that he was "foreign looking". There was reason to consider a link, whether you like it or not. How many other students went missing in the months before? That in itself is reason to at least be a little suspicious. Unless disappearing young people is so common in Boston as to be irrelevant.

I agree the way some handled all of this is very questionable, but no more questionable than anything else that happens on the internet (including conspiracy theorists here who scream about innocent victims who have been seriously maimed being actors!)

The bigger problem is seeing the media publishing false information, unfounded accusations and completely baseless opinions as though it is news. The US media is a joke around the world for all the sensationalism and basic false information they spew out every hour of the day. But for them to actually be reporting nationally on something that is completely unfounded like this was, well that should at least have someone high up in the USA demanding something be done about the unrestrained hacks on the TV claiming what they are saying is "news".

Just as you we have shows that have to add a disclaimer at the start saying that some things are dramatized, the US news media should now have a disclaimer at the start of every segment, stating that some of what you'll see is opinion, speculation, accusation and actually NOT accurate news.