They didn’t teach anybody anything. This is a mentality that glorifies martyrdom. They’re heroes.
It is when they overreact and mow you down. If it’s true that they captured the 2nd one and he didn’t have a gun then they basically fired round after round at him for no reason. Any one of those rounds could have gone through a house and killed someone.
No, they’d be kidnapping and killing people as they went. You can’t lock down the entire country. Can’t be done. And running around the country swarming various locations based on rumors is overkill.
They were doing so in the area immediate surrounding the gunfight where the suspect fled on foot. That’s pretty specific rumors.
You know, I don’t really see that happening. I’m sure some people are trying to spin it that way, but I really doubt these guys will be considered heroic in the way that some considered the 9/11 hijackers to be.
I don’t think that’s going to stop global terror or anything. But I think we’ve probably discouraged some similar wanna-be jihadis who think they can strike their own blow against the Great Satan with their homegrown plot. Causing the US to embark on a decade of war can seem like an accomplishment. Causing part of Boston to have a stressful morning before being gunned down and captured just looks pathetic, and hasn’t made anyone more interested in Chechnya.
I really think that is the right way to go with terror. Treat them like criminals, don’t pay any mind to their “cause,” and let them realize it’s a pretty poor use of their energy.
Why not? Same senseless act.
you’re basing an opinion on Western Standards which I think is the wrong metric to use. One of them died for the glory of (fill in the blank religious reason).
A town is not a location. Someone’s backyard is a location. They were going door to door.
Because they were searching for a fleeing, armed and dangerous suspect who had already killed a cop and used explosives, who had fled from the scene a few blocks away. It’s completely appropriate and understandable. I haven’t heard anyone who lives there express outrage over that aspect of the response.
If you don’t think it’s appropriate in this scenario I really don’t know what to say to you. What do you think should have been the police response?
It was a 20 block area and they were going door to door. The video showed someone ordered out of their house at gunpoint with their hands in the air. It’s not even remotely appropriate. You want to know if there’s a crazy person in my house? ring the door bell and ask. If I say no but my eyes are moving up and down then there’s a reason to be suspicious. Otherwise move on.
And we’ll just have to agree to disagree about that. I can’t see your approach being favored by anything but a tiny minority of folks.
Ordering a person out of their house without a warrant is against the law. I don’t know what minority you’re referring to but these people’s rights were violated. I would sue if it was done to me.
Cite?
Here’s what I think is a cite against that claim:
On the face of it, this case seems to fall under this doctrine but IANAL so I could easily be missing something.
Here’s a page with more discussion of this issue - http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/04/the_boston_mara.html
:rolleyes:
"I don’t care if you’re looking for a really dangerous guy that’s already killed a bunch of people and appears able and willing to kill more - I think I’m technically in the right (even though I’m not) so by golly I’m not going to move one big toe to help you keep me and my family safe!’
I’d say more but since this isn’t the Pit…
Strangely enough I don’t recall seeing that was actually in the area complaining about how they were treated by Boston’s finest.
Is that what happened, though? The video in the OP is hardly conclusive, since I can’t make out anything that’s being said.
Cite that people were ordered out, as opposed to agreeing to leave?
These were homes of private citizens not a battlefield. I’m still questioning the authority of someone yelling “Don’t look out your windows” as a direct order not to look out your windows. It has been explained to me that one’s home is
I take issue with this because this is a misconception that many people have. The training that police officers receive is the among the weakest of all civil servants, including teachers, EMTs , and even firefighters. Yep, that’s right, even your local figther fighter had to get or actively be pursuing an associates degree in fire science as a prerequisite to employment. To become a police officer, you need to have a GED, clean record, pass a physical followed by “vigorous” training at a police academy for 14 weeks. Then, that’s it! You’re a police officer and you get a gun plus power over other people.
The only law enforcement that are educated belong to the U.S military. And, interestingly, you never hear of a military officer “accidently” mistaking his taser for a gun. Nor do you hear of much corruption in the military as, to say, the LAPD or the NYPD. I think it’s because military, unlike law enforcement, are bound by a judicial system that is more punitive than the civilian courts. Law enforcement, on the other hand, have a suite of immunities and privileges including winks and nods that softens the impact of bad decision making.
The only saving grace is that Boston police here were smart enough not to shoot at civilians, though the pointing of the gun was uncomfortable. However, if this occurred in LA, I think the neighborhood might have been called Elm street after they got done with it.
It’s funny how people think because I would’ve said the opposite. It would show that the bigger the terrorist events the more Americans will start to clamp up on their own civil liberties. Look at us, we can’t even go to the airport without our privates being digitized on the screen. Soon, we won’t be able to run a marathon without armored tanks at every block. The more we react to these events by giving up our freedoms, the more “terrorist win” (and I hate using that phrase).
Nobody has yet said what the police should have done, only what they shouldn’t have done. C’mon, you’ve had plenty of time to come up with the perfect plan. Let us in on it.
I certainly don’t advocate people being “ordered” out of their home at gunpoint as in “if you don’t come out I’m going to lock you up”. The fact that no one directly impacted has come forward and complained that their rights were violated says something.
Being ordered to stay away from the windows probably wasn’t, technically, a lawful order. But it wasn’t intended to be. Its much easier to say, “Stay away from your windows!” than “For your safety we suggest that you stay out of sight but you are free to do as you like. You are responsible for your own safety.”
Um, yes, it is? Do you say you’re not home when you are out in your yard?
To quote selectively, although Edmond deals with checkpoint stops;
…The Fourth Amendment requires that searches and seizures be reasonable.** A search or seizure is ordinarily unreasonable in the absence of individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305, 308 (1997)**. While such suspicion is not an “irreducible” component of reasonableness, Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S., at 561, we have recognized only limited circumstances in which the usual rule does not apply…
Since there was NO individualized suspicion to enter hundreds of homes, IF force was used or there was language by the police of the effect that compliance was mandatory or arrest was possible, then we have Constitutional issues. The entering was no doubt under a voluntary compliance, and although I am sure “some” thought they had to, that does not render the search per se UNconstitutional.
Here is dicta to the effect of a “roadblock” to stop a terrorist, but this is not inclusive of a dragnet sweep of homes.
…For example, as the Court of Appeals noted, the Fourth Amendment would almost certainly permit an appropriately tailored roadblock set up to thwart an imminent terrorist attack or to catch a dangerous criminal who is likely to flee by way of a particular route. See 183 F.3d, at 662—663. The exigencies created by these scenarios are far removed from the circumstances under which authorities might simply stop cars as a matter of course to see if there just happens to be a felon leaving the jurisdiction…
For the police to ORDER each occupant to submit to a search would be a Constitutional error.
The suspect was a murder suspect, he had no atomic bomb capable of destroying a city as to even suggest “exigency” would permit a warrantless entry to any home to search.
People were not as free move around as some posters here would have us believe. The lock down extended in at least a 30 mile radius around Boston. I know for a fact that all rail service was suspended all the way out to Worcester, which is like 40 miles from Watertown. The Mass pike was also shut down.
Use any nice sounding term you want, like “shelter in place”, or think that people were just helping the police. Martial law was effectively declared in Boston. While it’s true the tanks and heavily armed “police” were pretty much just in that part of the city, people elsewhere could not move about freely.
And it was all cheered by supposed patriots. I fear what the future police state has in store for America.
I think it’s funny that anti-statists think their rights are violated when public transportation is shut down.