Government response to Boston Marathon bombs; warrantless searches & soldiers

[thompal]

I think perhaps you're not taking into account that the murders in Chicago are, generally, retail in scope (a couple at a time), while the casualties in Boston were wholesale in scope; they practically equaled 50% of your 400 number in one incident. That alone is reason enough for a major response. Additionally, there was absolutely NO REASON to think that, had the perps escaped capture, they would not have done the same thing again and again until they WERE captured or killed.

You are comparing murder figures in Chicago and Indy with number of injured in Boston. If we include the number injured in Indy or Chicago, I suspect you would at least triple that number, perhaps MUCH more than that. For instance, how many thugs end up shooting into a crowd and only inflict leg injuries?? I also seem to remember a shooting in Chicago recently that resulted in 4 or 5 deaths.

And you seem to believe that if the thugs who shoot people aren't captured, they will never shoot again. I think that is a false assumption.

 

[level.eleven]

It's kind of interesting that we've gotten ourselves into such a state that when a government performs one of its few legitimate functions - protecting the populace - we rail against it.

Only in the echo chamber that is INGO. The rest of the country are waving flags and cheering first responders, EMTs, and law enforcement.

I blasted Dirty Water and danced around in my Sox hat.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqKHqWaTv9g[/ame]

 

[thompal]

It's kind of interesting that we've gotten ourselves into such a state that when a government performs one of its few legitimate functions - protecting the populace - we rail against it.

I, for one, am not railing against arresting the killers. My problem is with some of the methods and activities done in the quest to get the guy.

I would also note that NONE of the searches resulted in an arrest. An arrest came about because a citizen found the guy and called the police.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

You are comparing murder figures in Chicago and Indy with number of injured in Boston. If we include the number injured in Indy or Chicago, I suspect you would at least triple that number, perhaps MUCH more than that. For instance, how many thugs end up shooting into a crowd and only inflict leg injuries?? I also seem to remember a shooting in Chicago recently that resulted in 4 or 5 deaths.

And you seem to believe that if the thugs who shoot people aren't captured, they will never shoot again. I think that is a false assumption.

It's an assumption that I didn't make; you inferred it. I'm pointing out that the retail murders in Chicago (I didn't say anything about Indy, BTW) are done in dribs and drabs; each case has its own particulars. That it is desirable to find the perps and get them off the streets goes without saying (but I'll go ahead and say it, just for you).

In ONE incident, the Boston Marathon perps caused over 180 casualties; the count of the dead may not yet be completely tallied. And had they not been caught, they might have been able to repeat their terror act at a mall or a school or elsewhere. As we now know, they had the capability and the tools in place to conduct more bombings had they not been caught. So, yes, I think the "Government" was justified in pouring all available manpower into the area to contain and capture or neutralize the bombers before they could strike again.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

law enforcement conducts thousands of warrantless, constitutional searches of persons, dwellings, papers, and effects daily.

Don't I know it!

Stop consenting out there.

do you have proof that the citizens of Boston would have faced prosecution for refusal to comply with the requests? Do you have proof that the citizens complied with the requests only out of fear of these up-to-now- imaginary prosecutorial reprisals?

I'd like to see the Massachusetts statute that permits this?

The po-po asked and people agreed. Heck, likely an excuse for a day off.

NPR was out interviewing people who were walking around downtown Boston today. Most places were closed but some were open.

Best chance for grabbing lunch=Chinatown! A day off, I don't think there is a word for that there.

Now I miss hopping the Orange to Chinatown and a bowl of Pho and a chopped nut moon cake.

 

[88GT]

You said "not all crimes are equal," and I agree with that. You did not say "not all murders are equal."

I agree that shoplifting a piece of gum is not equal to murder/rape/whatever. But murder is murder, no matter the motivation. And if murdering any one person is equal to murdering any other person, how is murdering 3 people worse than murdering hundreds(Chicago), or dozens (Indy)? And if we shut down an entire city and have 24 hour news coverage over the murder of 3, why is the murder of a few hundred not even newsworthy?

I agree that the two bombers NEEDED to be caught. But, seeing all the 'military' on the streets to catch them, travel restrictions, searches, etc. being used to catch them, I have to ask why we cheer those actions, when used to catch two guys who murdered 3 people. Will we urge those same tactics be used to make OUR city "safe" by catching those who murder dozens?

There's no difference at all? The 400 and some odd murderers in Chicago are exactly like the 2 bombers in Boston? Let's exclude the obvious common factor that all the players are responsible for the illegal taking of another's life. Now explain to me how the 400+ murderers in Chicago are similar to the bombers in Boston.

A few thousand of them. All the people who committed the murders were killed, and most were from Saudi. Did that justify invading Iraq and losing a few thousand more, at a cost of trillions?

All of the murderers were also male, and middle-eastern. Does that justify molesting toddlers and old white people at the airport?

Does the fact that a loony shoots up a school justify giving up our firearms?

How many liberties are you willing to give up every time some insane person commits a murder?

You're going off the reservation with that post.

What would the citizens of Boston done in 1775 ?(pre revolution)

Called the Crown for help ?

Or

Taken matters into their own hands and just done what needed to be done with anyone that did what they did ?
Figuring it would only taken an HR or so

Ironically enough, that's exactly what the people of Boston have done too. Unless you want me to believe that the police have installed themselves independent and against the wishes of the populace and are exercising powers via an authority they were not given.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I, for one, am not railing against arresting the killers. My problem is with some of the methods and activities done in the quest to get the guy.

I would also note that NONE of the searches resulted in an arrest. An arrest came about because a citizen found the guy and called the police.

I'm going to answer your second paragraph obliquely: When you're looking for a lost person, the first thing you try to do is ensure that he can't get outside the area in which you're searching for him. There are various techniques for doing this in the wilderness, where the odds of cutting sign of him are much better than on the streets of a city. In practice, the way you contain a lost person in the search area, and the way you contain a suspected criminal in a search area are pretty much the same, except in an urban area, you need to use as much manpower as you can get because it's easier to miss the clues that would lead you to him.

The citizen was able to find the guy and call the cops on him because the cops, in their legions, had established an effective perimeter which contained him and gradually limited the area in which he was free to move; eventually confining him in place where he COULD be found.

 

[Lex Concord]

Assuming the AP report's wording is accurate:

The search for the younger brother all but paralyzed the Boston area. Officials shut down all mass transit, including Amtrak trains to New York, advised businesses not to open, and warned close to 1 million people in the entire city and some of its suburbs to stay inside and unlock their doors only for uniformed police.

Granted, they shut down mass transit, but that's generally municipally owned...Amtrak, that ghost hasn't been truly private for decades, if ever.

It's definitely a hit to the bottom line, and I think that is just one more type of destruction the "leaders" of such activities hope to inflict.

 

[rambone]

I see we're altering the story line a bit. First it was that it cost too much. Now it's just the loss of commerce from the intrusion.

I stand by both points.

I'm going to ask this again: do you have proof that the citizens of Boston would have faced prosecution for refusal to comply with the requests? Do you have proof that the citizens complied with the requests only out of fear of these up-to-now- imaginary prosecutorial reprisals?

Is a criminal prosecution the only way government can massively disrupt commerce? Absolutely not. Your questions are irrelevant. Roads and transportation were SHUT DOWN. Customers were "ORDERED" to stay indoors. Reprisals, if any, were unknown. The indisputable result is that the commerce of a major U.S. city was brought to a crawl today and the city lost a crap load of money.

Residents in Boston are being ordered to stay indoors, with the MBTA’s official Twitter account telling residents to “stay inside and stay safe.” source
​

Boston-area commerce ground to a halt Friday morning after the city enacted a transportation shutdown as police continue a manhunt that has already resulted in the death of at least one of the suspected bombers. source
​

I'm willing to bet that people were perfectly happy to lose one day's worth of commerce.

Maybe some. Not all. We're talking about millions of people affected here. I know its easy to categorize large groups of people, but it is factually not going to hold up. Some people have bills to pay and want to work.

But I have a feeling you think the mere fact that the government asked was an infringement. Am I close?

The loss of commerce speaks for itself. You can agree with it or not, but it happened. It was expensive and unnecessary.

Do you really want me to believe that you have read nothing from terrorists in the past?

I just wanted to make sure I hadn't missed some writings from the actual individuals in this case.

 

[thompal]

There's no difference at all? The 400 and some odd murderers in Chicago are exactly like the 2 bombers in Boston? Let's exclude the obvious common factor that all the players are responsible for the illegal taking of another's life. Now explain to me how the 400+ murderers in Chicago are similar to the bombers in Boston.

Yep, each individual murder is "equal." Everyone is defending the paramilitary presence and police-state actions in Boston, with the curfews, and searches, etc. Since "400 murders" is more than "3 murders," why doesn't everyone think it would be reasonable to do house to house searches, detain people who go out in public, and close all the businesses in Chicago? For that matter, since Indy is on its way to yet another record-breaking year in murder, why not do those things here?

If you support those actions to apprehend the people who killed 3, why wouldn't you support those actions to apprehend those who kill hundreds?

Just think how very safe we would be if those policies were implemented here!!! If you didn't want to go that far, maybe we could settle for TSA-style searches for everyone who travels on a public thoroughfare.

 

[thompal]

The citizen was able to find the guy and call the cops on him because the cops, in their legions, had established an effective perimeter which contained him and gradually limited the area in which he was free to move; eventually confining him in place where he COULD be found.

You are making an assumption that the guy was found within the search perimeter, and I don't know that to be true. I would think that if he was within the area that the police had closed down, since the police had given the citizens permission to leave the area they thought the guy was in, and were in the process of packing up, they had completed their search. It would seem that the boat was in a neighborhood that wasn't searched by the police. Either that, or the police did a horrible job of searching.

The citizen said he went outside, saw blood all over the side of his boat, and looked inside. If his house was within the area that was searched, I would have hoped that the police might have taken the same precaution.
This would mean that the guy wasn't where they thought he was.

 

[jbombelli]

You are making an assumption that the guy was found within the search perimeter, and I don't know that to be true. I would think that if he was within the area that the police had closed down, since the police had given the citizens permission to leave the area they thought the guy was in, and were in the process of packing up, they had completed their search. It would seem that the boat was in a neighborhood that wasn't searched by the police. Either that, or the police did a horrible job of searching.

The citizen said he went outside, saw blood all over the side of his boat, and looked inside. If his house was within the area that was searched, I would have hoped that the police might have taken the same precaution.
This would mean that the guy wasn't where they thought he was.

He was found outside the established search perimeter.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/19/suspect-in-custody-newspaper-says/2095845/

SWAT teams had spent the day in a house by house search within a 20-block perimeter, but came up short.

"He managed to elude us by being slightly outside the perimeter we set up," he said..

 

[IndyBeerman]

 

[TheRude1]

It's kind of interesting that we've gotten ourselves into such a state that when a government performs one of its few legitimate functions - protecting the populace - we rail against it.

It appears as more information comes out(an we have tones coming) that the GOV had plenty of info on the two boobs that they should have had an eye on them but due to the reverse racism of this admin and department of jerks has put in place no one is guilty of anything unless you are white and a T-Party member or conservative

 

[kickbacked]

I swear some of you must think everything the police or government does is to take away your rights. Is it possible that just this once when terrorists were throwing bombs around neighborhoods and having shootouts in the streets, that they were just looking out for people in what they thought was the fastest and safest way? Or would you have preferred them to just let everyone go about their day as if there werent home made explosive devices laying all over town? Im surprised some of you arent complaining that oakley sells the same glasses the military wears to civilians all over the world. How ever will we know whose who? Or more importantly why does it matter? Does wearing camo or being in the military somehow allow one to do things that a black swat uniform doesnt?

 

[jbombelli]

I actually laugh most the time when cops in the city wear camo better suited to a desert or woodlands. It screams "look at me! I don't know what I'm doing!"

That said, whatever I can own they can own and use too. I can buy camo. I can buy AR's and AK's. I can buy body armor. I can buy an armored vehicle. I can buy a .50 BMG. Hell, I can buy a 20mm rifle. I can buy radios for me and my friends so we can run around looking pofeshunal. My only line is this: if I can't own it, I don't think they should be able to have it either. That includes post-ban machine guns.

As far as searches... if they asked for and were granted permission ... no problem. If they said "we're searching..." and didn't give someone the choice to decline, problem.

 

[Sharpie]

Yep, each individual murder is "equal." Everyone is defending the paramilitary presence and police-state actions in Boston, with the curfews, and searches, etc. Since "400 murders" is more than "3 murders," why doesn't everyone think it would be reasonable to do house to house searches, detain people who go out in public, and close all the businesses in Chicago? For that matter, since Indy is on its way to yet another record-breaking year in murder, why not do those things here?

If you support those actions to apprehend the people who killed 3, why wouldn't you support those actions to apprehend those who kill hundreds?

Just think how very safe we would be if those policies were implemented here!!! If you didn't want to go that far, maybe we could settle for TSA-style searches for everyone who travels on a public thoroughfare.

Do you really not see the difference between individual murder cases spread out over the course of time, no matter how numerous in a given jurisdiction, and a single terrorist attack on innocents intended to cause mass death and injury at an international event? It's really not a simple numbers game (3 vs. 400), and if one doesn't understand the difference, I'm not sure what to say.

 

[Prometheus]

I, for one, am not railing against arresting the killers. My problem is with some of the methods and activities done in the quest to get the guy.

I would also note that NONE of the searches resulted in an arrest. An arrest came about because a citizen found the guy and called the police.

This can't be stressed enough. Rarely does "diligent police work" ever trump what the average joe six pack does to catch bad guys.

 

[Sharpie]

This can't be stressed enough. Rarely does "diligent police work" ever trump what the average joe six pack does to catch bad guys.

I would say that in this instance, following up on investigative leads and chasing 2 terrorists to ground while being shot at and getting bombs thrown at you, killing one and wounding the other, then locking the area down to make escape of the wounded suspect difficult, might be considered slightly diligent work police work and may have even indirectly contributed to the capture of both terrorists. Maybe just a little.

Just sayin'

 

[38special]

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem. - Thomas Jefferson.

Translated: I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.