Ron Paul on Boston bombings

[panerd]

OK so it has been a few weeks and I think a discussion in a separate thread (to not take the discussion of the 3 new suspects too far off topic in the bombings thread) can take place without too much trolling. As many here know I am a huge Ron Paul supporter. Not sure I agree with him here but I have had some concerns ever since they caught the second bomber. Mainly...

*Is it really that easy to shut down a major American city? Seems like the blueprint for any future terrorist attack. This country has weathered criminals on the loose before without an entire city going on lockdown. Shit even 9-11 didn't cause anyone to be told to stay home and the DC snipers a few years ago posed some serious threats to citizens without the seemingly over the top reaction.
* Some legitimite fourth amendment questions

Where I think he misses the mark is on the martial law...
* Until I hear otherwise the searches served one purpose and they aren't going to bust somebody for a pot plant or unpaid tickets.
* I don't agree there was any sinister plan or test in place for future military style takeover.

Originally Posted by Ron Paul

Forced lockdown of a city. Militarized police riding tanks in the streets. Door-to-door armed searches without warrant. Families thrown out of their homes at gunpoint to be searched without probable cause. Businesses forced to close. Transport shut down.

These were not the scenes from a military coup in a far off banana republic, but rather the scenes just over a week ago in Boston as the United States got a taste of martial law. The ostensible reason for the military-style takeover of parts of Boston was that the accused perpetrator of a horrific crime was on the loose. The Boston bombing provided the opportunity for the government to turn what should have been a police investigation into a military-style occupation of an American city. This unprecedented move should frighten us as much or more than the attack itself.

What has been sadly forgotten in all the celebration of the capture of one suspect and the killing of his older brother is that the police state tactics in Boston did absolutely nothing to catch them. While the media crowed that the apprehension of the suspects was a triumph of the new surveillance state – and, predictably, many talking heads and Members of Congress called for even more government cameras pointed at the rest of us – the fact is none of this caught the suspect. Actually, it very nearly gave the suspect a chance to make a getaway.





The “shelter in place” command imposed by the governor of Massachusetts was lifted before the suspect was caught. Only after this police state move was ended did the owner of the boat go outside to check on his property, and in so doing discover the suspect.

No, the suspect was not discovered by the paramilitary troops terrorizing the public. He was discovered by a private citizen, who then placed a call to the police. And he was identified not by government surveillance cameras, but by private citizens who willingly shared their photographs with the police.

As journalist Tim Carney wrote last week:


“Law enforcement in Boston used cameras to ID the bombing suspects, but not police cameras. Instead, authorities asked the public to submit all photos and videos of the finish-line area to the FBI, just in case any of them had relevant images. The surveillance videos the FBI posted online of the suspects came from private businesses that use surveillance to punish and deter crime on their property.”

Sadly, we have been conditioned to believe that the job of the government is to keep us safe, but in reality the job of the government is to protect our liberties. Once the government decides that its role is to keep us safe, whether economically or physically, they can only do so by taking away our liberties. That is what happened in Boston.

Three people were killed in Boston and that is tragic. But what of the fact that over 40 persons are killed in the United States each day, and sometimes ten persons can be killed in one city on any given weekend? These cities are not locked-down by paramilitary police riding in tanks and pointing automatic weapons at innocent citizens.

This is unprecedented and is very dangerous. We must educate ourselves and others about our precious civil liberties to ensure that we never accept demands that we give up our Constitution so that the government can pretend to protect us.

[molson]

The first thing I wonder is if the talk of this "military-style takeover" is a little overblown. Maybe some Boston-area FOFCers can chime in but I didn't think that the entire city was literally on lockdown. How many businesses were actually ordered closed, anywhere? And how many "Door-to-door armed searches without warrant" were actually conducted outside of a couple of blocks in Watertown (and how many were there even there?) Have any lawsuits been filed in response? Was there any property damage or invasions of property that people have a problem with (people who were there, not Ron Paul.) Maybe there's no way of knowing the answers to these questions, but Paul seems to be exaggerating or assuming facts to make a point.

[panerd]

I got the impression from just the regular news (obviously they were also wrong on a lot of other stuff) that most of the city was shut down. I know the colleges, schools, transit, and sporting events were shutdown. I too would like to hear from someone "on the inside" but I think it was more thn just Watertown.

[molson]

Originally Posted by panerd

I got the impression from just the regular news (obviously they were also wrong on a lot of other stuff) that most of the city was shut down. I know the colleges, schools, transit, and sporting events were shutdown. I too would like to hear from someone "on the inside" but I think it was more thn just Watertown.

But did say, the Red Sox decide to cancel their game or did the police order them to against their will? "Shut down" has no relevance to Paul's rant unless it was police-ordered. Edit: If people were out and about in Boston, were they arrested and charged with anything? (I know there was at least one guy in Watertown who was briefly detained, but did this happen all over Boston?)

[cuervo72]

I'm with him in that I think this was all an overreaction, and a pretty unprecedented one. LA didn't completely shut down when Dormer was on the loose, for instance, and it could be argued that he was more dangerous.

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

The only place with a "military-style" takeover was the search perimeter in Watertown. The MBTA was shut down, necessitating the closure of many other things. The police did not order the sporting events closed; the teams consulted with the Governor to make that decision (easy since there was no way to get to the game). I don't believe anyone was charged with anything. In Cambridge, at least, it was not a ghost town. Dunkin Donuts was open.

Many of those criticizing this have the benefit of hindsight, so let's look at the other side. The police had incomplete information here. Let's say the suspect DID get away. Let's say he had plans for more carnage. They don't shut the city down. He gets away and does something in another city; or, he gets away and plants something that very day.

What's more of a shitstorm - the city shut down for 12 hours in this fashion, or more deaths, civilian and police?

[molson]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I'm with him in that I think this was all an overreaction, and a pretty unprecedented one. LA didn't completely shut down when Dormer was on the loose, for instance, and it could be argued that he was more dangerous.

But the LAPD did ask the media to stop tweeting about the search. Which of course, the media had no obligation to do, and in fact, didn't, but the LAPD could always ask. That's what I'm trying to figure out here, to what extent any "lockdown" was really police/media/public cooperation. Ron Paul might still have a problem with people even cooperating with the police, but I think it is a very different analysis from "military-style lock-down."

[kcchief19]

I haven't read or heard in one place where the shelter-in-place "order" was mandatory. It was simply a recommendation that people took seriously because they didn't want to get hurt or get in the way. From the footage I saw, there was ZERO enforcement of the policy, because it sure looked like a whole lot of people were going outside and shooting video on their phones. In most police states, you also don't have privately owned media on every street corner broadcasting live. I'm sure if your businesses wanted to open, you could. But why would you do that? If there are no customers?

Does he have any examples of illegal searches? If you willingly consent to the search, it's not illegal. If anyone refused a search of their property, I'm sure they could and would have gotten a warrant if needed.

Here's where he really goes off the mark ...

Sadly, we have been conditioned to believe that the job of the government is to keep us safe, but in reality the job of the government is to protect our liberties.

Do any of us really believe those are mutually exclusive and that bot are not roles of government? Based on that logic, why have a military or police?

Does Paul have the same problem when government decides to close offices, shut down transportation and close schools when there is a blizzard or hurricane? Seems like your civil liberty is to do as you please, and since government isn't there to keep people safe, there should never be a snow day.

Paul is making the argument that Friday should have been an ordinary day, with everyone going to work as they pleased. Apparently the applause from the people of Watertown was a mirage, they all had their civil liberties violated. And here I thought they were saved from a mad bomber but brave people doing their damndest to make the best of a bad situation and save lives.

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

To echo that, I can't think of a single person who had any issue with the order. I'm sure Paulites would see that as a sheeple mindset but to me and those I know it's a willingness to sacrifice a small bit to support those who were sacrificing a fuckload more to catch the guy.

[chinaski]

Agreeing with Ron Paul makes my brain hurt.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I'm with him in that I think this was all an overreaction, and a pretty unprecedented one. LA didn't completely shut down when Dormer was on the loose, for instance, and it could be argued that he was more dangerous.

I'd listen to someone that the scope of the mission to get the bombers was perhaps wider than needed, but there were a lot of differences. Given the number of injuries and the damage, these guys where massively more dangerous than Dormer had acted, and the concern they may have more bombs was a greater potential threat than Dormer ever posed.

Sections of LA were indeed shut down with schools and public places closed. There's also a big difference geographically between Boston and LA. LA is pretty sprawling, whereas everything in Boston is more compact.

Dormer also appeared to only pose a threat to specific people and those people were given protection, whereas these bombers appeared to pose a threat to everyone.

[RomaGoth]

I have mixed thoughts on Ron Paul, but this comment just comes off as ignorant:

No, the suspect was not discovered by the paramilitary troops terrorizing the public.

Ummm what?

[rowech]

I thought it was creepy to see video from this event and was amazed how relatively quickly they shut it all down.

[molson]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Does Paul have the same problem when government decides to close offices, shut down transportation and close schools when there is a blizzard or hurricane?

I'm going to guess that he does have a problem with the federal government doing this because its not expressly authorized in the constitution.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm going to guess that he does have a problem with the federal government doing this because its not expressly authorized in the constitution.

lol

[Castlerock]

Originally Posted by molson

The first thing I wonder is if the talk of this "military-style takeover" is a little overblown. Maybe some Boston-area FOFCers can chime in but I didn't think that the entire city was literally on lockdown. How many businesses were actually ordered closed, anywhere? And how many "Door-to-door armed searches without warrant" were actually conducted outside of a couple of blocks in Watertown (and how many were there even there?) Have any lawsuits been filed in response? Was there any property damage or invasions of property that people have a problem with (people who were there, not Ron Paul.) Maybe there's no way of knowing the answers to these questions, but Paul seems to be exaggerating or assuming facts to make a point.

The 'shelter in place' order included Boston proper and several of the communities just outside (Watertown, Cambridge, Newton, Allston). Schools, government offices and public transportation was shutdown. Businesses were asked to shutdown and people asked to stay at home and not to answer the door for anyone except a uniformed police officer. The effect WAS that the whole city was shutdown.

BUT... it was voluntary. It was a request that no one was forced to comply with. Most people complied because they didn't want to be the next person blown up and/or they wanted to help the police find the a$$hole. If no one was moving, it would be pretty impossible for him to get out of there. It was an 'order' that was not enforceable.

The door to door armed searches did happen but they, too, were voluntary. The police ASKED if they could conduct a search.

It all does seem like an over-reaction because we can't just shutdown major cities everytime this happens. And people will look at the success of this event and try to duplicate.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

lol

I wasn't even joking when I wrote it, I thought Paul might have a problem with the fed making those kinds of judgment calls, but I actually think now that he would distinguish the two - but I think the point was good that those decisions are actually pretty similar. Was just reading that during Winter Storm Nemo, Deval Patrick imposed a "travel ban", and actually threatening fines and prison if anyone violated. I doubt they actually prosecuted anyone, but that was an even more specific and defined "lockdown."

Article talking about the legal concept of a "lockdown"

http://nation.time.com/2013/04/19/wa...y-on-lockdown/

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Castlerock

The 'shelter in place' order included Boston proper and several of the communities just outside (Watertown, Cambridge, Newton, Allston). Schools, government offices and public transportation was shutdown. Businesses were asked to shutdown and people asked to stay at home and not to answer the door for anyone except a uniformed police officer. The effect WAS that the whole city was shutdown.

BUT... it was voluntary. It was a request that no one was forced to comply with. Most people complied because they didn't want to be the next person blown up and/or they wanted to help the police find the a$$hole. If no one was moving, it would be pretty impossible for him to get out of there. It was an 'order' that was not enforceable.

The door to door armed searches did happen but they, too, were voluntary. The police ASKED if they could conduct a search.

It all does seem like an over-reaction because we can't just shutdown major cities everytime this happens. And people will look at the success of this event and try to duplicate.

You know, I'm torn on this topic. I understand the reasoning, but at the same time it was a guy who ignored the request that actually found him. It's a classic case of damned if you do, damned if you don't - like if he decided to go out in a blaze of glory.

[chadritt]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

You know, I'm torn on this topic. I understand the reasoning, but at the same time it was a guy who ignored the request that actually found him. It's a classic case of damned if you do, damned if you don't - like if he decided to go out in a blaze of glory.

Actually he didnt violate the order, the lockdown had been lifted an hour before he found him. Some have theorized the lockdown was lifted specifically so people might notice something like blood indicating where he was.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs3

To echo that, I can't think of a single person who had any issue with the order. I'm sure Paulites would see that as a sheeple mindset but to me and those I know it's a willingness to sacrifice a small bit to support those who were sacrificing a fuckload more to catch the guy.

Define "issue". I live in Waltham, which I think was covered by the Shelter request, drove from my apt at 930am to coach in Concord (early practice due to spring break week), then later drove back into Waltham, and then went to a friends house in Cambridge (which was definitely under the Shelter request) for some backyard barbecuing because it was a beautiful day - albeit by a longer route using I-95 and Rt. 2 because my normal path would take me through Watertown and Belmont. I could understand shutting down that area of Watertown, and possibly closing the T if you were worried about accomplices targeting a concentration of people, but it made no sense to me to put the shelter in place warning for areas like Southie, Medford, Newton that really weren't near anything that had happened. This isn't because I'm some huge civil liberties guy - I agreed with and complied with the statewide Road Closures during the blizzard 2 months ago. I also do know a number of people that were still required to work that day, either at restaurants or downtown in the financial district.

Overall, I do agree it's a terrible precedent to set. It is easier to say with hindsight now that we know the suspect was apprehended and didn't have any (violent) accomplices or sympathizers, but I was saying at the time that the lost business was worth more than the (very, very low in my mind) potential for civilian deaths, and I'll stand by it now. That's even before you consider the precedent it set and the probability that that raised the potential for a future similar strike. (Of course, the other irony is that the brothers could have killed hundreds with the bombs they had if they had targeted nightclubs near BU and Cambridge instead of going to Watertown and a residential area.) I'm also of the mindset that if I'm letting a couple nutjobs prevent me from living my life, what's the point?, but I do feel that most people didn't feel "trapped" inside their homes but were instead voyeuristically glued to their TV's watching it like it was the OJ car chase.

Originally Posted by Castlerock

The door to door armed searches did happen but they, too, were voluntary. The police ASKED if they could conduct a search.

Most of what I've seen indicates that the police did their best to talk to homeowners and assure them at all turns, but if there wasn't anyone at the residence they were going in and searching on their own without a warrant (and there were a few mandatory evacuations right near the 2 firefights). I haven't heard of anyone challenging anything in particular, and the upper level brass did seem to be consulting with the ACLU and doing their best not to trample liberties, but I'm sure some were being violated under the fog of war (just look at all the bullets being fired at the boat when it turned out later the suspect had no gun), and people could challenge the broad public safety exception the police were operating under if they felt like it, and stand a decent chance at winning.

[RainMaker]

I thought it was overblown, especially considering that it was a 19 year old kid with no formal training. But I don't know what information they had at the time.

The one defense I've heard that makes sense though is that they were genuinely concerned that other bombs had been planted, or that others were involved. That because of what had happened it might have lead to other terrorist attacks taking place as cell(s) figured they were on the verge of being taken down. Or that the suspects had planted devices before their getaway. That had another attack taken place during the day, the city might have gone into full out chaos. They wanted to avoid a scenario where people were panicking and doing things out of character.

Ultimately, I say the people should decide how it was handled. It seems the people in Boston are relatively happy with the response and the orders. If they are fine with it, so am I.

[Danny]

This was good practice for when the machines take over.

[panerd]

I just don't agree with the ends justify the means part of the argument. As I stated earlier I don't agree with Paul's reasoning as much as I think the reaction was way over the top and sets a dangerous precedent. (and in hindsight I probably should have just started the thread without the Paul article since a lot of what he is saying is an extreme Libertarian angle) I feel like the tanks would be better suited for a 1940's Russian invasion from Canada and not a couple of guys with pressure cooker bombs and when this type of thing happens in the future if a city doesn't go on absolute lockdown and somebody else is hurt that will be the reason provided.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by chadritt

Actually he didnt violate the order, the lockdown had been lifted an hour before he found him. Some have theorized the lockdown was lifted specifically so people might notice something like blood indicating where he was.

Thanks, you beat me to it.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Danny

This was good practice for when the machines take over.

If we had skynet, these guys would have been zapped by a satellite laser and no lockdown would have been necessary.

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Define "issue"

By issue I meant people bitching about it. I think, and of course I'm speaking generally, but most people in the area were extremely pleased with how everything was handled.

[PilotMan]

Over the top bravado as typical of the Paul clan. The trail was hot and they knew that they had a hard lead on the suspects. The will of the people in this case coincided with the will of the police. Trust me, they couldn't have continued it for days, weeks or months, and some sort of military style domination. It wasn't an Axis-of-Evil military lockdown. It was the people of the city wanting justice for the attack on them, and willing to go along with their own law enforcement to see that through.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

It wasn't an Axis-of-Evil military lockdown.

Hell, there were both Dunkin' Donuts & pizza shops open. How "locked down" does that sound to any sane person?

I realize that excludes RP but still.

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

I can't find a link, but I remember Patrick saying on a Sunday morning news show that Obama had talked to him that afternoon and mentioned that the shelter in place would have to end very soon.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Over the top bravado as typical of the Paul clan. The trail was hot and they knew that they had a hard lead on the suspects. The will of the people in this case coincided with the will of the police. Trust me, they couldn't have continued it for days, weeks or months, and some sort of military style domination. It wasn't an Axis-of-Evil military lockdown. It was the people of the city wanting justice for the attack on them, and willing to go along with their own law enforcement to see that through.

As a resident (albeit not in a shut-in town, but essentially bordering on one - Newton), I had no issues with this. Was it overkill...yeah. But there was no way of being sure (although as more details came out it seemed almost certain that if just considering the public-safety angle it was overkill - ie there were no more attacks, but I think at all times people understood that by staying in place they enabled the authorities to focus all of their manpower on apprehending the suspects, which is what we all really wanted).

[Castlerock]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Over the top bravado as typical of the Paul clan. The trail was hot and they knew that they had a hard lead on the suspects. The will of the people in this case coincided with the will of the police. Trust me, they couldn't have continued it for days, weeks or months, and some sort of military style domination. It wasn't an Axis-of-Evil military lockdown. It was the people of the city wanting justice for the attack on them, and willing to go along with their own law enforcement to see that through.

I think people were willing to go along with it because they really wanted that a$$hole captured (alive). And at the time, no one knew if this was part of a larger conspiracy.

I really don't think that it could have continued even into the next morning.

I have reservations about the response, but is this really an image of an 'Axis-of-Evil military lockdown'?
Twitter / Boston_Police: BPD Officer delivers milk to ...

[panerd]

I think the only ones using the term "axis of evil" are those making fun of the ones using the term "martial law". I have stated from the beginning that I don't believe it was martial law but seeing as the definition of martial law is... "The imposition of military rule by military authorities over designated regions on an emergency basis" and there were tanks and heavily armed policeman walking the streets I wouldn't exactly scoff that they are just paranoid idiots. Again my question is why the tanks? Seriously?

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

There was indeed martial law. In the small neighborhood in Watertown. For 12 hours.

[molson]

Originally Posted by panerd

"The imposition of military rule by military authorities over designated regions on an emergency basis" and there were tanks and heavily armed policeman walking the streets I wouldn't exactly scoff that they are just paranoid idiots. Again my question is why the tanks? Seriously?

Whose rights were violated by police assault vehicles (they're equipped and designed differently than a military "tank", though I know the latter word is more provocative for what Paul is going for), driving down the street one day, into a situation involving a suspect who was known to recently possess multiple explosives? How did state operation of state law enforcement vehicles down public streets violate the constitution?

Is the problem just that the police were too "public" about this? That we don't like police and authority generally and therefore they should do their job in such a way that nobody notices what they're doing? Or that they should have just found this guy in a major metro area with the absolute minimum level of public presence and community cooperation necessary? Is that a "right" the people have, or, what is that?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Did I miss some tanks somewhere? You know, those big heavy things with treads & a cannon for a main gun.

All I remember seeing were (presumably) armored humvees.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Did I miss some tanks somewhere? You know, those big heavy things with treads & a cannon for a main gun.

All I remember seeing were (presumably) armored humvees.

Tank
military-style takeover
banana republic takeover
police state tactics
paramilitary police

I like Ron Paul, I think he throws an important voice into the mix, but it's impossible to take him seriously when he goes to this level of obnoxious hyperbole. And I usually tend to think that when someone is forced to resort to that kind of hyperbole, they know that their underlying point isn't that strong.

[panerd]

Seems like we are getting into Bill Clinton "Explain what is is" territory.




Meanwhile in Iraq in an armed conflict...

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

What "is is"

[panerd]

Originally Posted by molson

Whose rights were violated by police assault vehicles (they're equipped and designed differently than a military "tank", though I know the latter word is more provocative for what Paul is going for), driving down the street one day, into a situation involving a suspect who was known to recently possess multiple explosives? How did state operation of state law enforcement vehicles down public streets violate the constitution?

Is the problem just that the police were too "public" about this? That we don't like police and authority generally and therefore they should do their job in such a way that nobody notices what they're doing? Or that they should have just found this guy in a major metro area with the absolute minimum level of public presence and community cooperation necessary? Is that a "right" the people have, or, what is that?

I just think it was overreaction and I fear that it sets a dangerous precedent for any future terror event. I don't like the police generally, my small town in Missouri has these types of vechicles and I think it is a waste of either my local taxes or more likely federal funds. So yes I would say that I fear that negatives outweigh the positives of the end result of the Boston search. I fully respect the other point of view but also think that claiming the police and their vechicles weren't armed to the tooth in a military fashion is really just as disingenuous as Paul's banana republic comments. So it's not a tank, fine look at my picture from Iraq it certainly is military style.




vs

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

So, the last time they saw the bombers there was a gunfight with automatic munitions and IEDs used against the police. What would you have recommended to use to find this guy?

[lungs]

What should they be driving, Ford Explorers?

edit: sorry, whatever the Government Motors equivalant is.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs3

So, the last time they saw the bombers there was a gunfight with automatic munitions and IEDs used against the police. What would you have recommended to use to find this guy?

I don't know. Maybe cut back the resposne by half and you can still take down an entire country. Overreaction is my only arguement. Shared by many in this thread. We will just agree to disagree that the response was appropriate.

[Lathum]

I would rather have an overreaction and the only one hurt the suspect than a lighter response and more innocent victims.

Someone mentioned it earlier, hindsight is 20/20 in a situation like this.

Can't we say the response was appropriate because in the end the suspect was caught with no further loss of life? That was the goal, was it not?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I would rather have an overreaction and the only one hurt the suspect than a lighter response and more innocent victims.

Someone mentioned it earlier, hindsight is 20/20 in a situation like this.

Can't we say the response was appropriate because in the end the suspect was caught with no further loss of life? That was the goal, was it not?

That's my point and my answer is no and the reason for starting this thread. Doesn't mean you are wrong but the ends don't have to justify the means and as others have stated both Dorner and the DC Snipers were caught without an entire military style platoon being used and the danger to others was just as large IMO. It's not really hindsight to say maybe the 50th armored vechicle or 3000th police offficer was overkill.

[molson]

Originally Posted by panerd

It's not really hindsight to say maybe the 50th armored vechicle or 3000th police offficer was overkill.

But you still haven't identified the right or public harm that was implicated by any "overreaction", except for your general dislike of police. And the concern for "setting a precedent". Which is just speculative. If the Boston PD responds to a shoplifting call with the same use of force, which leads to private property damage and loss of rights, then you will be proven correct. If Time Square gets bombed, I hope the NYPD responds exactly the same way the Boston PD does and has the same outcome.

Edit: Though, even general dislike of police can be a completely valid policy/budget/legislative argument. If the MA people are as offended by the response as you are, they can respond by gutting the police budget through their representatives. It would be a more interesting question if the response was entirely federal (and the feds say, took the opportunity to round up immigrants or terror suspects during their door-to-door search). Though, I think generally, based on opposition to excessive private gun ownership and their status as a potential terrorist target, I think MA citizens on the whole like to have a well armed government that generally lies relatively dormant, until, you know, sometimes sets off two bombs at the Boston Marathon.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by molson

But you still haven't identified the right or public harm that was implicated by any "overreaction", except for your general dislike of police. And the concern for "setting a precedent". Which is just speculative. If the Boston PD responds to a shoplifting call with the same use of force, which leads to private property damage and loss of rights, then you will be proven correct. If Time Square gets bombed, I hope the NYPD responds exactly the same way the Bosto PD does and has the same outcome.

Yes of course it is all speculative. I am not arguing in front of a jury just stating my opinion that a precedent has been set and hopefully we won't have another incident to see if I am correct. I feel the same way about airport security and drunk driving checkpoints. Others feel like safety outweighs the negatives, I feel they are getting out of control. Is there a way to quantify this? Not really. Some want none, some agree with me and think they are getting out of hand, some disagree, and some think without them airplanes would be blowing up and 50% of the drivers would be drunk and crashing into things. I don't know how to prove I am right or wrong just stating an opinion. I think the reaction was over the top.

[molson]

Originally Posted by panerd

I think the reaction was over the top.

What would your response have been if you were in charge? What tactics and weaponry would you utilize? Would you communicate any requests of the public? I certainly can't say that a response that was say, "half" wouldn't have done the job just as well. It very well might have. But it might not have. It might have been easier for him to slip away on crowded streets. At the end of the day, there was no downside though, the job was done. If the MA legislature feels it can save some bucks and get by with a smaller force, they can do that.

[Lathum]

The question I have to ask is what's the big deal? Why do you care about the police responce? And if there is a similar incident with a similar response why would you care?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Lathum

The question I have to ask is what's the big deal? Why do you care about the police responce? And if there is a similar incident with a similar response why would you care?

I always love these reponses. It's a thread on a message board that I find interesting. What's the big deal what random poster X thinks about Kobe Bryant's inury or poster Y about the Cleveland Indian's offense or poster Z about the GOP? Why can't I discuss it with Molson and others? Why do you care so much to worry about me?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by molson

What would your response have been if you were in charge? What tactics and weaponry would you utilize? Would you communicate any requests of the public?

I will cede this to the experts. So go ask the London police how they handled the IRA for all those years without shutting down the city or go to Isreal and ask how often Jerusalem is on lockdown. Point being, I think it can be done without as much firepower and without the lockdown. People keep saying look at the end result and I did. A homeowner found the guy in his boat, nothing to do with the searches of the houses or the excess of tank-like vechicles all over the city. I obviously wouldn't do nothing either but I think there is a middle ground.