Thursday, June 20, 2013

GUEST BLOGGER POST: Gun Control in America – 50 Years of Shooting Blanks By Eric Frost-Barnes


Gun Control in America – 50 Years of Shooting Blanks

By Eric Frost-Barnes

          I love our nation, and I believe in the 2nd Amendment.  I also believe in the 1st Amendment, as well as the 13th and 19th Amendments.  Truth is, I’m a big fan of nearly all our Amendments, with the notable exception of that self-righteous 18th one (but since the 21st Amendment got it drunk and rolled it under our national porch, it’s remained relatively mellow).  But I digress – back to focusing my sights on the 2nd Amendment.  I firmly believe in an individual’s right to bear arms with that right being a vital aspect toward maintaining the security of a free state.  And that is exactly what the 2nd Amendment says: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

           Personally, I think anyone debating gun control, regardless of their position, needs to fully understand exactly what the 2nd Amendment states.  The words “well regulated” are right there at the very beginning, and the amendment ends with the final four words, “shall not be infringed.”  The word “infringed” means violated, and given the fact the 2nd Amendment begins with the term “well regulated,” it seems more than safe to surmise that our nation’s Founding Fathers recognized that guns, much like government itself, should not be allowed to get out of control – for it would be the nation’s citizens who would likely suffer the most.  I also believe it’s safe to say that history has repeatedly proven our Founding Fathers to be extremely intelligent, forward-thinking men.  They weren’t only interested in their own rights and safety, but the rights and safety of future generations (except maybe for Founding Father Pierce Butler of South Carolina – 18th Century rumors have him painted as kind of a selfish tool).

          This November marks the 50th Anniversary of the assassination of President John Kennedy.  It’s been half a century since he was murdered by a man with a rifle.  And in between 1963 and the present, we’ve witnessed the fatal shootings of Medgar Evers, Martin Luther King, Jr., Robert Kennedy, and Malcolm X, as well as failed assassination attempts directed at Presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan, Alabama Governor George Wallace, and U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords. 

·       In that same fifty-year time span the American people have seen the horror of the University of Texas (1966) massacre that left 17 fellow citizens dead.
 
·       We witnessed 21 Americans die at a McDonald’s in San Ysidro, California (1984), and another 14 innocent civilians die at a post office barely two years later (1986) in Edmond, Oklahoma. 

·       23 more Americans died in a cafeteria shooting (1991) in Killeen, Texas. 

·       We watched as 13 students and teachers were killed in a mass shooting at Columbine High School (1999) in Littleton, Colorado. 

·       32 students were shot to death at Virginia Tech (2007) in Blacksburg, Virginia. 

·       We witnessed two horrific shooting sprees (2009) where 13 innocent Americans died in each: first at an Immigration center in Binghamton, New York, and then again at a soldier readiness processing center in Fort Hood, Texas. 

·       Our nation grieved for 12 more Americans killed while watching a midnight movie at a theatre (2012) in Aurora, Colorado, as well as the terrible mass murder of 26 faculty and young children at Sandy Hook Elementary School (2012) in Newtown, Connecticut.

That final grim statistic of twenty-six Americans killed at Sandy Hook coincidentally matches the number of Constitutional Amendments dismissed and left for dead by your more wild-eyed vocal opponents of any kind of common-sense gun laws; even as those same zealots rant and rave about the sanctity of our Constitution when it comes to the absolute protection of their favorite Amendment: the 2nd.  But again, I digress.    

          As stated above, nine of the ten deadliest shootings in U.S. history have occurred since the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963.  And yet, over the past fifty years the level of regulation of gun ownership in America has seemingly remained as lax as ever.  Sure, there are laws on the books, but there are an equal amount of loopholes to get around those laws, and many of these regulations differ from state to state.  And as rhetoric from gun-control opponents increases and becomes even less rational, that very loud minority seems to be standing their ground quite well – even as more and more Americans die or are injured due to gun-related violence.  And again, the ability to purchase firearms remains as easy as ever, regardless of an individual’s background or mental state. Anyone over the age of eighteen, and with enough cash, can purchase a gun without so much as showing a single piece of identification.  And that’s at many gun shows, within the light of day.  Greater scrutiny – or regulation – is used when a citizen is applying for a driver’s license or a fishing permit.

          Vocal opponents of common sense gun regulation, such as universal background checks, claim that regulation could lead to a path where Americans’ firearms will be taken away.  First off, that is nonsense.  We have approximately 11.5 million illegal immigrants living here at least part time and we cannot even decide on the most effective way to decrease those numbers.  How in the wide world of sports is the U.S. government ever going to confiscate the more than 300-million firearms within our nation’s borders?  Here’s a hint: they aren’t.  But having would-be buyers go through background checks and day-long firearm certification courses (not to mention owning insurance policies for their firearms) before we add to that already insanely high number might just make it a little trickier for the next murderous thug to get his hands on an AR15 or Bushmaster XM-15.    At the very least, these small hurdles might help people take gun ownership more seriously and the safety courses would increase owner’s knowledge of their firearms and how to manage those weapons with a healthier respect.   

          Opponents also claim that regulating firearms like the Bushmaster XM-15 or ZM LR-300 will lead to a slippery-slope where The Government can take any type of weapon from its citizens.  It’s already illegal, due to governmental regulation, to own a rocket launcher or a tank, not to mention a mere silencer (in some states), yet Americans are not freaking out about their tank-driving rights being suppressed and crushed by those who hate freedom.  Point is, reasonable regulation for some lethal weapons does not, nor ever has, equate to the unreasonable regulation of all lethal weapons.

          Opponents of common sense gun control also use one of their favorite sayings when debating this combustible subject matter; they will claim that “guns don’t kill people,” but rather, “It is people who kill people.”  And while it’s safe to say none of us has ever heard a nightly news story about an AK-47 walking down Main Street by itself randomly shooting folks, it is equally likely that the news has never reported on an individual going on a murderous rampage where the weapon of choice was an X-Box console or an Oliver Stone DVD.  Because certain firearms can fire so many rounds in such a short time – through the use of ammunition magazines that carry dozens of rounds – it allows these madmen an easier, more effective way to carry out their crimes.  Yes, an individual can commit unspeakable evil with a knife or other type of non-firearm, but the automatic weapon allows for a lethal efficiency that most knives, hammers, Chinese stars, or plastic bags cannot.

“What about cars?”  Gun control opponents point out that every year thousands of Americans die in auto accidents.  “Why not focus your regulations there?”  Fortunately, for us, the government has.  Over the last half-century, the U.S. government has increased the level of safety when it comes to automobiles.  From improving our nation’s roadways to enforcing the now mandatory installation of lap and shoulder safety belts in all vehicles manufactured in the U.S., successful efforts have been made to protect both drivers and passengers; and yet we don’t hear too many Americans clamoring about their driving rights being jeopardized.  It seems that most Americans have “evolved” when it comes to safety behind the wheel.  Would it honestly be so controversial to apply this mindset to guns?   

Finally, opponents of sensible gun control laws argue that further regulation only punishes the law-abiding citizen, and that criminals will still be able to get their hands on firearms of all kinds.  Not if certain types of automatic weapons were completely off the market – across the board.  If gun manufacturers would simply put an end to making some of the weapons that are mentioned above, then no new ones would fall into the wrong hands.  And the models out there could slowly be removed from the market (save for those registered in private collections).  As for law-abiding citizens, well here’s a little inconvenient truth to remember: a lot of these mass-murderers were law-abiding citizens before they decided that life was too much for them.  Not every mass shooting is done by some masked man clad in black and running through the streets cackling like The Joker.  These terrible crimes, as well as thousands of hand-gun related shootings, occur when a so-called law-abiding citizen snaps over losing his job, or when he believes his taxes are higher than what he thinks fair, or when his favorite football team suffers a shellacking on a Sunday afternoon.

If our nation can mature on this particular subject, then surely we as a society can begin to take real steps toward keeping more Americans safer when it comes to both the attaining and usage of firearms.  Yet for many opponents, evolving on gun rights is as terrifying for them as the idea of a full, tyrannical governmental takeover (where the only thing between Freedom and Communism is a forty-round clip).  And speaking of make-believe, how is it that a very outspoken minority – who at times vocalizes an unsettling amount of paranoia about The Government – is retaining control of the majority of power and “say-so” in D.C. when it comes to suppressing gun-control and the safety and peace-of-mind of the vast majority of Americans?  Why do our elected politicians ignore the facts, the will of the people, and piles of bodies in favor of the gun-manufacturing and NRA lobbies?  Is K Street that much more valuable than American children?

None of the facts stated above are new, and a good argument can be made that this entire piece brings no new data or viewpoints to the gun-control debate – but that’s the point.  There are already enough facts to justify real action.  There is already an abundance of American support for more basic common-sense laws when it comes to gun-control.  And yet, still nothing is done by our so-called leaders and inevitably the press fades away from this subject until the next school massacre; when it once-again becomes fashionable to cover the loss of American lives due to the irrational needs of a powerful few.  It seems the only thing being “well regulated” is the effort to protect our citizens from the more extreme aspects of our gun culture.   

Our Constitutional rights are extremely important.  I’m not for sacrificing all of our freedoms in the name of governmental protectionism.  But when decade upon decade continues to reveal our penchant for firearm-related violence, it is time to argue less and take stronger, more decisive steps toward protecting ourselves and each other.  So far, the talk has been tragically cheap (though not as cheap as a box of bullets).  The 2nd Amendment is an important part of who we are as a nation, but it is no more important than the amendments that call for a freedom of the press or for a right to a fair and speedy trial.  Far too many innocent Americans have died because an incredibly stubborn and vocal minority are unwilling to meet somewhere in the middle on gun control.  The U.S. Constitution was co-written by Franklin, Hamilton, and Madison – not by Beretta, Smith, and Wesson.  Tragically, within these past fifty years, it has become increasingly difficult to remember that.

Thursday, June 13, 2013

Hollyweird Conspiracy: Did Homeland Security Murder Brittany Murphy and Her Husband?

Lately, there has been a plethora of conspiracy stories in the news.  I've been reporting extensively on the continuing saga of the Boston Bombings and the various suspects connected with that event.  Then there is the whole NSA-Verizon spy scandal, involving a Carlyle Group connection and an overseas whistleblower, which I have yet to report on that has exploded throughout MSM.  But there is a story I learned about recently that has not received very much attention that I am interested in presenting in this post.  I found out about this in a recent interview with another government whistleblower that made me shocked that I hadn't heard this story before.

Julia & BJ Davis - Hour 1 & 2 - Top Priority: The Terror Within May 26, 2013 "Top Priority: The Terror Within" is a documentary film by Fleur De Lis Film Studios. It features an incredible true story of Julia Davis, a national security whistleblower who was falsely declared a "Domestic Terrorist" and subjected to retaliation of unprecedented proportions by the Department of Homeland Security. She joins us to discuss what happened when she discovered and reported a breach of national security at the largest and busiest land border crossing in the U.S. on 4th of July, 2004. The DHS failed to act on her reports but instead of correcting the shortcomings exposed by Julia’s report, they opened investigations against her. Her husband BJ, a film producer who documented these events with a camera, also joins in to talk about the detailed events of this major story, never reported on by mainstream media, although Julia took her case to court and won. They’ll detail unprecedented retaliation and abuses of the Patriot Act in Julia’s case and talk about how the DHS spent American taxpayer’s money on warrantless surveillance, including aerial surveillance with a Blackhawk helicopter and a fixed-wing airplane, wiretaps, sneak and peek burglaries, Internet monitoring and On-Star tracking of the Davis family. They’ll explain why this story was never reported on by mainstream media and who was involved. In the second hour, we hear about several deaths connected to this story including Julia’s father, her neighbor who filmed the footage of the Blackhawk and the actress Brittany Murphy as well as her husband. Julia and BJ talk about the diminishing of our American rights amongst "terror theatre 101." Don’t miss this astonishing story of the real terror, within the US government.

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2013/05/RIR-130526.php


Brittany Murphy Picture
Brittany Murphy 1977-2009


While I have yet to see the full documentary, after listening to the interview in the link above, I find this story quite compelling and credible.  In addition to extensive information presented in the interview to document this case, there are a number of other links detailing this story.  My favorite is this one from Huffington Post:




The Government, the Whistleblower and the Hollywood Starlet: Why a New Documentary Blames U.S. Department of Homeland Security for Brittany Murphy's Death

Posted: 20/11/2012 01:59

When Brittany Murphy died back in 2009, many believed the actress's abuse of prescription drugs and historic eating disorders were to blame. But now a controversial documentary claims her demise was far more sinister.

Top Priority: The Terror Within tells the alleged true story of how Brittany was caught up in a government plot against a national security whistleblower.

Another conspiracy theory you may think but after speaking to the whistleblower and filmmaker Julia Davis the accusation does not seem so outlandish.

According to Julia, 'Britt defended [her] from false allegations and [she] intends to keep doing the same for her, even in death.'

'Britt was neither paranoid nor a drug abuser [but] was branded as such simply because her friends and industry contacts couldn't believe the magnitude of retaliation the couple were facing.'

The actress's movie breakthrough came in the 90s as Ty in classic teen comedy Clueless. Afterwards, Brittany racked up a number of high profile roles, in films like Sin City, Don't Say A Word and Just Married, where she met former beau Ashton Kutcher.

So like many I was shocked to hear of her death at such a young age and as a result 'of natural causes'. Especially as two months after announcing the cause of death, Los Angeles Assistant Chief Coroner Ed Winter changed his mind, adding 'multiple drug intoxication' to the report.

The Girl, Interrupted star was laid to rest at Forest Lawn Memorial Park on Christmas Eve, 2009, but as worldwide speculation into her sudden death continued, her British husband Simon Monjack, 39, died under similar circumstances just five months later on May 23, 2010.

Celebrity blogger Perez Hilton said it 'came as no surprise', and, only a month before making this statement, he predicted that she would be the next big Hollywood death on a U.S. radio show.

In 2011 Brittany's mother, Sharon Murphy, was unhappy with the coroner's report and wanted a better explanation. She blamed the death of her daughter and son-in-law on toxic mould found in their Hollywood home.

That's when Sharon - who lived in the house with the couple - decided to file a suit against Brittany's lawyers who she claimed double-crossed her into giving up her rights to sue the builders for wrongful death.

However, the documentary points the finger at a far greater power, at U.S. government spooks who allegedly targeted Murphy and her husband.

The film reveals that:

  • Murphy and Monjack were on the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) watch list;

  • U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) were trying to kick her screenwriter husband out of the country;

  • Monjack was arrested over an expired visa - a ruthless tactic to intimidate Murphy after she spoke out in defence of Julia Davis, a former Customs and Border Protection agent.
'Britt and her husband Simon didn't deserve to be terrorized by the Department of Homeland Security for standing up to defend me,' says Davis.

The former enforcement officer was suing the government for wrongful imprisonment and according to the film, Homeland Security falsely claimed that the statement given by Murphy supported their allegations against Davis.

Davis's husband BJ - who co-produced the documentary - says that their actress friend was 'completely taken aback' by the department's deceit and hit back against their lies by issuing a sworn statement through her attorneys.

But BJ says that 'Britt's life was never the same' and from then on she placed herself 'in the crosshairs of Julia's attackers.'

The film isn't the first to note the couple's fear of being under government watch. American journalist, Alex Ben Block, said that Simon Monjack told him 'they were under surveillance by helicopters and their phone was bugged.'

And within days of sharing his worries, on 21 December, Murphy was dead.

She was found unconscious in her bathroom by her mother, who called an ambulance to rush her daughter to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, LA, where she was pronounced dead on arrival.

In a bid to find the truth about the star's death - like her mother Sharon - Brittany's father Angelo Bertolli had to pay for his daughter's hair samples to be saved from destruction after the LA Coroner admitted tests 'for poisons and toxic substances' had not been carried out during the autopsy.

But as Angelo failed to term up to a court hearing to make his case, the lawsuit was subsequently thrown out. However, with the fresh investigation into Murphy's death, favour does seem to be falling on the side of the filmmakers.

But let's go back to the beginning, to the moment in 2004 when Homeland Security branded Davis a 'domestic terrorist' because she accused government officials of breaching national security.

Davis had discovered that 23 foreigners from terrorist countries had been allowed onto U.S. soil, the same day Osama Bin Laden had planned terrorist attacks on America.

After Julia Davis highlighted the security breach in a report to her supervisors, the film claims Homeland Security took 'hostile action' against Davis, her family and friends.

This included a staggering 54 investigations leading to two malicious prosecutions, two false imprisonments, and a Black Hawk helicopter raid on her home that involved 27 DHS agents and one U.S. Marshal.

Shockingly, the film says the hush-hush tactics and the attack on Julia Davis, her family and Hollywood friends took more military manpower than the assassination of Bin Laden.

Luckily for Davis, she was finally cleared of all accusations in 2010. But not content, she decided to tell her story by writing and producing the film, that made sure 'these monsters' didn't get away with their crimes.

The film's director Asif Akbar says that when he first met BJ and Julia Davis he knew the 'incredible true story had to be told.' The filmmaker found it shocking that so many government officials and citizens, 'were willing to accept corruption as the norm of life.'

Akbar now claims he and his family are being targeted by Homeland Security. He says officials have 'raided their business' after Top Priority premiered at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences on May 16 this year.

Remarkably, Julia Davis is still under surveillance by the government, saying that her bank accounts are levied 'on special dates.' But her film won't be the only project to shed some light on the mysterious life of Brittany Murphy.

Akbar and Davis have teamed up again, along with the actress's father, to write and produce a biopic, called Britt. The director says the film will cover everything during Brittany's rise to fame including 'her romances, lifestyle, career and her untimely death.'

Considering the subject matter and heavy accusations it is unsurprising that reviews of the documentary have not been kind, with the New York Times describing Top Priority as serving 'neither the viewer nor its embattled subject.'

Another critic suggests it 'too often distracts from the core story instead of enhancing it.'

Whether you believe Julia Davis' story or not, there is no doubt that the ambiguous life of Brittany Murphy is a tale worth telling.

more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/hanna-flint/brittany-murphy-death_b_2162026.html



For some, this might be just another untimely Hollywood tragedy that people are reading too much into, like they did with Marilyn Monroe over 50 years ago.  But for those who note the inconsistencies in the autopsy report, as well as the connection of political and criminal intrigue, this might be a case of history repeating itself!

Tuesday, June 4, 2013

Accidental Death of a Chechen

"There is no greater equaliser than the stupidity of men– especially when those men have power." 
-Dario Fo


The quote above from Nobel Prize winning playwright Dario Fo is written in the prologue to one of his most famous plays, Accidental Death of an Anarchist.  The play, written in 1970 and described by Fo as "a grotesque farce about a tragic farce", deals with factual events in a fictional scenario.  The factual events explored revolve around the death of Giuseppe Pinelli, an anarchist railway worker who while being interrogated by Milanese police regarding the Piazza Fontana Bombing of December 12, 1969, which killed 17 and wounded 88 people, died after falling from the fourth floor of the police station where he was being held.  

The fictional scenario has a "Maniac" infiltrate the police station where he impersonates a judge heading an inquest reopening the investigation of the anarchist's death.  By using dazzling wit and insight, the Maniac is able to trip up the police and get them to admit they are part of a cover-up.  Through reconstruction of authentic documents in the Pinelli case, Fo uses the fictional Maniac character to prove the police lied about the evidence they had to the anarchist, then contradicted themselves to the media about what time they presented the false evidence.  The police even claimed they tried to stop him from jumping and tore off one of his shoes, yet both shoes were found on his body.  

The reality?  The Piazza Fontana Bombing was part of the Strategy of Tension in which acts of terror were perpetrated by neo-fascist groups under the auspices of Masonic lodge Propaganda Due (P2) and Operation Gladio for the purpose of blaming them on left-wing groups to discredit them at a time that their popularity was on the verge of putting them in a place of power in the government.  While Accidental Death of an Anarchist deals with these events as they were understood at that specific moment in time (1970), the play is still performed today as a timeless study of authoritarian repression and political duplicity.  Often when it is staged, it is adapted with more contemporary references, such as in the link above which contains references to Nicaragua and the contras.



http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_DlKdVR17k4I/S6oJBYDR7gI/AAAAAAAAApw/Xs17SHMgnh4/s1600/Dario+Fo.jpg
Dario Fo, 1997 Nobel Prize in Literature


I sincerely hope some theatre company in this country stages this play and adapts it to recent events that I would describe as a "tragic farce".  That would be the events surrounding the death of Ibragim Todashev.



Man with ties to Boston bombing suspect admits role in 2011 murders; shot during FBI questioning


John Raoux / AP
An FBI investigator walks to the apartment where a man was shot by an FBI agent, on May 22, in Orlando, Fla.
Dead Boston bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev and another man — who was killed by the FBI on Wednesday — murdered three people in Massachusetts after a drug deal went wrong in 2011, law enforcement sources tell NBC News.

Sources say that what began as a drug ripoff ended in a triple homicide when Tsarnaev and friend Ibragim Todashev realized their victims would later be able to identify them.

Todashev was killed by a federal agent while giving a statement on his role on Wednesday in Orlando, Fla.

The man who was shot, Todashev, 27, allegedly attacked an agent with a knife while confessing to the slayings. He was not suspected of having played any role in the bombing that killed three people and injured scores more in April, but he did confess to being involved in a brutal Boston-area slaying two years ago, investigators said.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/22/18418012-man-with-ties-to-boston-bombing-suspect-admits-role-in-2011-murders-shot-during-fbi-questioning?lite


But this version is not so cut and dry, according to those who knew him:





While all eyes were focused on Boston in the aftermath of the deadly marathon attack, federal agents in Orlando had quietly turned their attention to a Chechen-born mixed martial arts fighter with ties to the suspected bombers.

It wasn't until 27-year-old Ibragim Todashev was shot to death while being questioned — after lunging at an FBI agent with a knife in an Orlando condo early Wednesday — that it became clear the federal government's probe had extended to Central Florida.

snip

The FBI has been questioning and following Todashev relentlessly ever since the April 15 attack, his longtime friend Saeed Dunkaev told the Orlando Sentinel Wednesday.

Dunkaev, 25, said he and other Chechens who live in the gated Kissimmee community Orlando Sun Village were taken to the Kissimmee Police Department on Monday and interviewed by the FBI for three hours.

Several of Todashev's friends told the Sentinel that the FBI told him Tuesday would be his last interview and that he was going to be cleared.

snip

In recent weeks, Todashev became increasingly scared by what the friends described as near-constant surveillance by suspected agents following them. The same vehicles with dark-tinted windows parked across Old Vineland Road from their apartment complex and showed up whenever the friends went to a nearby hookah bar to relax in the evenings.

It appeared the FBI wanted them to know they were being watched, they said.
"Everywhere we'd go there were like three cars following us," said 22-year-old Khusen Taramov. "He was afraid they were going to make something up against him."

Taramov spent almost all of the last week with Todashev because, he said, his friend was scared and tired after weeks of being followed and occasionally questioned by FBI agents.

"I was with him every minute. I knew what was going on in his head," he said of Todashev's fear of being linked to the Boston Marathon bombing. "To me, it's a setup. This is what he was afraid of. They had nothing against him. He was innocent."

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-orlando-fbi-boston-bombing-20130522,0,5850989,full.story



According to his wife, the triple slaying accusation was never even brought up prior to the final interview.  But where this story really gets weird is when the FBI starts changing it.  You'll notice in two of the above links the FBI stated the killing was provoked by Todashev attacking them with a knife.  But when no knife could be found at the scene of the crime, the weapon miraculously changed into a sword.  Then, the story changed to something even more puzzling:



Officials: Man who knew Boston bombing suspect was unarmed when shot

By Sari Horwitz and Peter Finn, Published: May 29

A Chechen man who was fatally shot by an FBI agent last week during an interview about one of the Boston bombing suspects was unarmed, law enforcement officials said Wednesday.

An air of mystery has surrounded the FBI shooting of Ibragim Todashev, 27, since it occurred in Todashev’s apartment early on the morning of May 22. The FBI said in a news release that day that Todashev, a former Boston resident who knew bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was killed during an interview with several law enforcement officers.

snip

One law enforcement official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation, said Wednesday that Todashev lunged at the agent and overturned a table. But the official said Todashev did not have a gun or a knife. A second official also said Todashev was unarmed.

An official said that according to one account of the shooting, the other law enforcement officials had just stepped out of the room, leaving the FBI agent alone with Todashev, when the confrontation occurred.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/officials-man-who-knew-boston-bomber-was-unarmed-when-shot/2013/05/29/21f05b74-c8a8-11e2-9f1a-1a7cdee20287_story.html?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost



On top of this revelation, Todashev's father held a press conference where he exhibited photos taken from his son's friend, Khusen Taramov, of Todashev's body at the mortuary, which revealed six shots to the torso and one to the back of the head.  Even Rachel Maddow noted the strangeness of it all. “How does that comport with the FBI’s story that he was killed during questioning by armed agents who were only acting in self defense?” she asked. “Shot seven times, including in the back of the head?”  But then the FBI changed the story again, this time to say that Todashev attacked them with a metal pole.  Or maybe a broomstick.  How many different versions of the story does that make?!  And how many FBI agents actually witnessed the incident?  Is it possible the FBI agent who shot him was waiting for the other law enforcement officials to leave the room so he could have an undisturbed window of opportunity to do the hit job and wrap up the triple homicide case neatly tied to the equally dead Boston Bomber, Tamerlan Tsarnaev?  Or is this just the sort of speculation that couldn't possibly be true, Todashev must have confessed without an ounce of persecution from law enforcement officials, just to clear his conscience?

I would normally say, "You can't make this shit up!"  Well, aside from the fact that Dario Fo already did over forty years ago.