What was the alternative to what the police did in Boston?

[MisfitToy]

I think they could've replaced about 8000 troops with 10 bloodhounds and caught the guy quicker. He was bleeding to death, he wasn't going to get really far which is the whole idea of going door-to-door.

 

[Brett85]

I think they could've replaced about 8000 troops with 10 bloodhounds and caught the guy quicker. He was bleeding to death, he wasn't going to get really far which is the whole idea of going door-to-door.

Ok, thanks. That's really the first real alternative that anyone has presented.

 

[Shane Harris]

I get it. It was a "terrible thing" that the police caught the suspected terrorist, but the bomb itself that was set off wasn't a terrible thing, or was actually set off by the government itself. According to some of you there are no such thing as criminals and bad people in this world, except those who work for the government. Every citizen who doesn't work for the government is just some perfect angel who isn't capable of ever doing anything wrong.

Missed my point. I was referring to the entire situation in general. The terrible thing I was referring to was the bombing. Sure people won't call it excitement, but you can feel it when you're watching the news with other people (if you are unable to avoid such a situation as I was). I wasn't referring to you or this thread. I was referring to the overall sensationalism of every single tragedy in this country (and apparently only this country). Rant was slightly off-topic. Apologies

 

[Cap]

The true meaning of your question is simply this. What is the alternative to the police-state? Truly, you can't be serious by endorsing any of these tactics used in Boston. This is full blown tyranny plain and simple.

 

[otherone]

It just seems like you guys will take the side of the criminals over the police in all of these situations.

WOW.
You obviously don't get it.

 

[Shane Harris]

alleged murderer. alleged criminal. alleged bomber. Did I miss the part where he was tried and convicted in a trial by jury?

 

[Brett85]

The true meaning of your question is simply this. What is the alternative to the police-state? Truly, you can't be serious by endorsing any of these tactics used in Boston. This is full blown tyranny plain and simple.

The police state? So you're saying that what happened in Boston on that day is now going to be permanent throughout the entire U.S? What evidence do you have of that?

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

What could they have done? Gotten the hell out of the middle east so they wouldn't have wanted to bomb us in the first place!

That's what they should have done and still should do!

Failing that, put an ad in the local paper for a sale on pressure cookers and wait for them to show up...

-t

 

[dancjm]

If they did not do the crazy lock down, the guy who alerted police to the boat would have come out of his house sooner, and would have seen the blood/boat situation sooner, and would have notified police sooner. They would have arrived, maybe 50 - 100 would have been enough, it would all have been resolved sooner, cheaper and without needing to be done at the expense of the constitutional rights of all Americans.

 

[pcosmar]

The police state? So you're saying that what happened in Boston on that day is now going to be permanent throughout the entire U.S? What evidence do you have of that?

Lets see,,
The Massive build up of militarized police nationwide.
Armored vehicles purchased nationwide.
Viper teams
Roadblocks and searches.
Drones over the US
New laws requiring more police resources. and more and more and more and more,,,,,,,,, without end.


sort of a known pattern.

 

[affa]

As I said, I don't necessarily think the lockdown was a good idea in light of the fact that the suspect was actually found and arrested after they lifted the lockdown. But, some here seem to be suggesting that the police shouldn't have pursued and looked for this guy at all, which I just don't agree with.

Can you provide a single quote from anyone suggesting that police shouldn't have looked for this guy at all on this site? I'd exclude 'itshappening', but I don't even think I need to do that.

 

[Cap]

Don't forget Pete, the billions of rounds that Homeland bought.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

If they did not do the crazy lock down, the guy who alerted police to the boat would have come out of his house sooner, and would have seen the blood/boat situation sooner, and would have notified police sooner. They would have arrived, maybe 50 - 100 would have been enough, it would all have been resolved sooner, cheaper and without needing to be done at the expense of the constitutional rights of all Americans.

Or maybe the guy would have left and not discovered the boat/guy till later.
Maybe the guy would have been able to get rested up and patched up and moved on to someplace else.
Maybe they would have found him sooner, before he bled out to the point of loosing consciousness? How many more would have died in the following gun/bomb battle?

I feel sorry for the guy that found him. Call the cops and get your boat turned into swiss cheese. I doubt his insurance covers acts of god or terrorism. I also bet he's going to think twice before ever calling the cops again! I think it's called dead dog syndrome.

-t

 

[affa]

So apparently you think what happened in this one day in Boston for eight hours means that we'll now have martial law throughout the entire United States every single day for the rest of our lives?

If a government can suspend 'rights' at any time for what they declare to be 'extreme circumstances', then they aren't 'rights' to begin with, but privileges.

The difference between a right and a privilege is something many people have died for protecting, and what this country is built on.

You may not realize it, but essentially you are arguing for the death of the Constitution and Bill of Rights... because as soon as we don't have rights anymore, it's over.

 

[affa]

This needs to be re-stated again. They only asked people to stay in their homes. They didn't arrest people who didn't stay in their homes.

Question for you.

Watch the video of this


starting at 1:30. It's short.

This is a guy looking out his window. He sees a fully militarized vehicle and forces coming down his street. A megaphone blares for him to shut his window. Is this 'asking' or 'telling'? This is forced voluntarism, because almost anyone is going to be doing whatever they say.

EDIT:
Oh, and for reference? I'd have my wife in the damn bathtub if I saw those men rolling anywhere near our house. "only asked" my ass. Oh, and while I suggested starting at 1:30 to get to the window quote, the first 1:30 of the video are just as... wild. Are you going to tell a squad like that to get off your property?

 

[Cap]

If a government can suspend 'rights' at any time for what they declare to be 'extreme circumstances', then they aren't 'rights' to begin with, but privileges.

The difference between a right and a privilege is something many people have died for protecting, and what this country is built on.

You may not realize it, but essentially you are arguing for the death of the Constitution and Bill of Rights... because as soon as we don't have rights anymore, it's over.

Signature material there. May I?

 

[tod evans]

I get it. It was a "terrible thing" that the police caught the suspected terrorist, but the bomb itself that was set off wasn't a terrible thing, or was actually set off by the government itself. According to some of you there are no such thing as criminals and bad people in this world, except those who work for the government. Every citizen who doesn't work for the government is just some perfect angel who isn't capable of ever doing anything wrong.

I seriously wonder if you're stable?

I haven't read where anybody posting here believes such drivel..

I am arguing for any approach that could apprehend accused bombers alive that does not involve militarized soldiers roaming the streets in packs lauded by the media.

Make no mistake every one of those government employees fits the definition of soldier.


sol·dier
3. An active, loyal, or militant follower of an organization.
Word History: Why do soldiers fight? One answer is hidden in the word soldier itself. Its first recorded occurrence is found in a work composed around 1300, the word having come into Middle English (as soudier) from Old French soudoior and Anglo-Norman soudeour. The Old French word, first recorded in the 12th century, is derived from sol or soud, Old French forms of Modern French sou. There is no longer a French coin named sou, but the meaning of sou alerts us to the fact that money is involved. Indeed, Old French sol referred to a coin and also meant "pay," and a soudoior was a man who fought for pay. This was a concept worth expressing in an era when many men were not paid for fighting but did it in service to a feudal superior. Thus soldier is parallel to the word mercenary, which goes back to Latin mercnnrius, derived from mercs, "pay," and meaning "working for pay." The word could also be used as a noun, one of whose senses was "a soldier of fortune."


Militarized troops exercising authority within the borders of our nation is abhorrent to me, and those who promote this activity are fighting against liberty and a free society.

 

[MelissaWV]

What rights were taken away? The reports are that the police didn't go into any home in which the homeowner refused to have his or her home searched.

Except the ones that were evacuated, of course, and citizens ran out hands raised into a crowd of armed cops with guns pointed at them.

Except the ones that "looked suspicious" because no one answered.

 

[CPUd]

I seriously wonder if you're stable?

I haven't read where anybody posting here believes such drivel..

I am arguing for any approach that could apprehend accused bombers alive that does not involve militarized soldiers roaming the streets in packs lauded by the media.

Make no mistake every one of those government employees fits the definition of soldier.


sol·dier
3. An active, loyal, or militant follower of an organization.
Word History: Why do soldiers fight? One answer is hidden in the word soldier itself. Its first recorded occurrence is found in a work composed around 1300, the word having come into Middle English (as soudier) from Old French soudoior and Anglo-Norman soudeour. The Old French word, first recorded in the 12th century, is derived from sol or soud, Old French forms of Modern French sou. There is no longer a French coin named sou, but the meaning of sou alerts us to the fact that money is involved. Indeed, Old French sol referred to a coin and also meant "pay," and a soudoior was a man who fought for pay. This was a concept worth expressing in an era when many men were not paid for fighting but did it in service to a feudal superior. Thus soldier is parallel to the word mercenary, which goes back to Latin mercnnrius, derived from mercs, "pay," and meaning "working for pay." The word could also be used as a noun, one of whose senses was "a soldier of fortune."


Militarized troops exercising authority within the borders of our nation is abhorrent to me, and those who promote this activity are fighting against liberty and a free society.

Perhaps they are a well regulated militia?

 

[MelissaWV]

So what was your alternative? Just tell the police to go home and not do anything to catch this guy? It just seems like you guys will take the side of the criminals over the police in all of these situations.

No, the side of non-criminals who were essentially under "voluntary" house arrest to make it easier for thousands of police to comb the streets.

Did it occur to anyone that maybe if there were much fewer warm bodies on the street (ie - cops) during this lockdown, they could have employed the IR technology sooner and more easily? Doesn't seem like it.

The plan here is being lauded as a success, when it obviously wasn't. "What can they do differently?" People give you suggestions, and you whip around and snap back at them.