Would you let police raid your house without a warrant?
Yes
8.9% (36)
8.9% (36)
No
55.4% (225)
55.4% (225)
Depends on circumstances
35.5% (144)
35.5% (144)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Police State USA: Boston Area Raids

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Fappy:
They had already cornered the guy and it was clear he wasn't going to do anything else short of run away.

I'm glad this was clear to you, but it wasn't to a lot of the people in Massachusetts.

I'm just north of the border. I have friends and family in the area, and I followed this so closely in part because they were scared out of their fucking minds. The cops didn't know what he was capable of at that point, which is why they came down so hard in the first place.

Does that justify searching every home in the town? No. I'm just saying, let's not act like they knew he was a pussycat at this point.

Product Placement:
Finally, the idea of charging the guy with using weapons of mass destruction (which I've always associated with Nuclear weaponry or of similar scale) is also a bit odd in my books.

The concept of a wmd is not a new one and has long been used to describe things much smaller than a nuclear device. The legal requirement is ridiculously small and probably the only reason you haven't heard of such a thing is that we haven't seen this sort of attack succeed much since wmd became an empty buzzword.

Is it overkill here? Yeah, probably. But still.

Geo Da Sponge:
You should shoot them with your guns.

I hear that's a really good way to make freedom happen.

Amen, brother! This is what happens when a liberal commie state like Massachusetts bans all the guns!

Vegosiux:
Riddle me this:

How many "genuine American patriots" that live far enough away from Boston, would start accusing the authorities of not trying hard enough to catch the terrorists otherwise?

My guess is "A whole damn lot".

Considering it took the same patirots less than an hour to accuse Obama (yes, Obama) of being all talk and no action? Yeah, a whole damn lot.

Actually, one of the things that's KILLING me right now is watching the same people on TV complaining about a police state suggesting we torture the guy and otherwise violate his civil liberties.

Bug MuIdoon:
Unfortunately, "No", in the eyes of the law, usually means "I'm guilty."

I can only see it bringing further complications in a situation like this, but no I would not let them enter.

They very likely would get a warrant for it in that case, and yeah. Make your life harder in the process.

RicoADF:

Your correct

Legally, his knot correct

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction#Criminal_.28civilian.29

sorry.

australian here. would i let the police in to search if this guy was in the area. most definitely. actually if there was pretty much any criminal in the area they were searching for i would let them in to look

Zachary Amaranth:
-Snip-

No, you're right. I honestly wasn't quite sure how to phrase the bit you quoted and it came out a bit exaggerated. I understand the police had to exercise caution as they should never underestimate what these kinds of people are capable of, but like you said, it still doesn't justify what they ended up doing.

Halvhir:
As someone who actually LIVES in the Greater Boston area... we are almost universally appreciative of the way the Boston Police Department and other various first responders handled this event.

This is really the only opinion that should matter right now: somebody that was in the middle of the situation and was actually experiencing the emotions that were going on at the time. Its easy, as an outsider, to sit back and make judgments on a situation when its just shown on our televisions

Sure things aren't perfect here, but "I'm never coming to America now," and "an Orwellian nightmare" are so ridiculous as to be insulting.

One thing I've noticed is that no one here has direct evidence that police did anything unconstitutional. I've heard a lot of rumors, but never any substantiated evidence. And if there is evidence, I hope the police who committed such crimes against the public and the constitution are prosecuted.

Milanezi:
it's a public threat, all privacy goes to ground, that's what I believe in, even when the law says otherwise...

I think that sentiment right there is more corrosive to freedom than any act of terrorism can ever be. Terrorists can't destroy our freedom unless we help them, and that attitude is what's going to make it happen.

Fappy:

Zachary Amaranth:
-Snip-

No, you're right. I honestly wasn't quite sure how to phrase the bit you quoted and it came out a bit exaggerated. I understand the police had to exercise caution as they should never underestimate what these kinds of people are capable of, but like you said, it still doesn't justify what they ended up doing.

That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever hea....Wait, you agree?

Well, I don't know how to take THAT. I always guessed it was bound to happen some day. I just...I just wasn't prepared.

The Apple BOOM:
Sure things aren't perfect here, but "I'm never coming to America now," and "an Orwellian nightmare" are so ridiculous as to be insulting.

If the millions of firearms don't scare you off, nothing should! >.>

One thing I've noticed is that no one here has direct evidence that police did anything unconstitutional.

That's because most of this was fear mongering.

Zachary Amaranth:
*SNIP*

RicoADF:

Your correct

Legally, his knot correct

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction#Criminal_.28civilian.29

sorry.

Perhaps American law has a different definition of it, but the general international community consider WMD's as Nuculear, Chemical or Biological weapons. Under the definition of the wiki link, the US use WMD's every day. It also devalues the meaning for when a real WMD is used, rather than an IED (Improvised Explosive Device).

Zachary Amaranth:

Fappy:

Zachary Amaranth:
-Snip-

No, you're right. I honestly wasn't quite sure how to phrase the bit you quoted and it came out a bit exaggerated. I understand the police had to exercise caution as they should never underestimate what these kinds of people are capable of, but like you said, it still doesn't justify what they ended up doing.

That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever hea....Wait, you agree?

Well, I don't know how to take THAT. I always guessed it was bound to happen some day. I just...I just wasn't prepared.

I wouldn't blame you if you forgot this conversation happened on the internet of all places :P

No, what was and is being allowed in Boston is a stain on American values.

thaluikhain:

Product Placement:
Finally, the idea of charging the guy with using weapons of mass destruction (which I've always associated with Nuclear weaponry or of similar scale) is also a bit odd in my books.

Actually, no. The phrase is used by politicians and the media to mean something really nasty (usually CBRN), but apparently it's also a phrase used in US law that includes fairly small bombs. That definition just doesn't hit the headlines so much.

OTOH, they really should not be using the same terminology to refer to two completely different things like that.

Zachary Amaranth:
The concept of a wmd is not a new one and has long been used to describe things much smaller than a nuclear device. The legal requirement is ridiculously small and probably the only reason you haven't heard of such a thing is that we haven't seen this sort of attack succeed much since wmd became an empty buzzword.

Is it overkill here? Yeah, probably. But still.

Looking up history of the terminology, you're right that it basically meant "a weapon capable of causing great deal of harm to property and people" but its earliest record of being used is when describing the newest high yield explosives being employed in the second world war (i.e. the bombs being used to carpet bomb and level entire cities). It's no wonder that people started associating it with nukes, when those came around just few years later. The term saw increased usage when referring to nuclear devices during and following the Reykjavík summit of 1986, which marked the first serious discussion for nuclear disarmament.

So basically, it's kinda stupid to use this term as an all covering blanket for almost any form of explosives, when we already have a term for that... "explosives". Otherwise, we're kinda saying that WMD is anything from a regular hand grenade or stick of dynamite, all the way to Nuclear device.


And the same thing, they're not.

The Only thing Policemen FEAR is the LEGAL recording in public spaces, of what they do beyond the reaches of the LAW...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxlL0I5AWLI

Question is, if Police Departments are like a family, when you want to REPORT A COMPLAINT against a police officer foe X reason, normally they HAVE THE OBLIGATION to give you the instructions for how to do it, but in NO case, they should Intimidate or tell you they "don't do it" or even ask for your identity or the policeman's identity in question.

That's what Undercover ex-cops check in Police Departments, Corruption and Abuse of power.
(http://www.freeexistence.org/police_complaints.html)

Now this is what awaits to the Good men and women that don't do nothing about it: Another form of Tyranny.

"To conquer a nation, one must first disarm its citizens."
GUN CONTROL -> MARTIAL LAW -> MAIL COLORING -> NATO INTERNATIONAL SOLDIERS -> FEMA CAMPS -> Population Reduction -> Total Control.

Remember Social Evolucionism -> which led to Eugenics -> then it was incorporated as the industry of death?
check this out:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/02/02/microsoft-merck-and-bill-gates-eugenicists/

No way in hell would they get into my home acting like that. If they asked me nicely I would have considered it but like that? Yeah they can fuck right off until they get a fucking warrant. I know these were some pretty extreme circumstances and shit but that does not excuse disgusting fear mongering behavior and intimidation like that.

Some asshole cop tried that shit with me he'd end up being laughed at and having the door shut in his face. I do not tolerate shit like that and nobody in America should, for any reason.

xDarc:
I don't know if you guys have been seeing the the house to house raids that were conducted in and around the Boston area, but it disgusts me. They were looking of course for the 19 year old Boston marathon suspect, who was found hiding in a boat outside the cordon, and later it would be admitted he was unarmed.

Now, I watched the video you posted and agree that it's wrong to order someone out of their own house with and AR in their face. I agree that's the type of thing you expect in some totalitarian state, so I see were you're coming from.

But, I think you're forgetting that this suspect killed three people and a police officer. This man is a criminal, murderer, and terrorist. For all they knew, this guy was heavily armed and had back up. The kind of caution you see in those videos (yes, even training a gun on an old women) could have saved lives.

Perhaps in your eyes the authorities overreacted, but as someone from a community who has lost people to this kind of senseless crap, I can tell you that yes, I would let the authorities "raid" my house.

Product Placement:
So basically, it's kinda stupid to use this term as an all covering blanket for almost any form of explosives, when we already have a term for that... "explosives". Otherwise, we're kinda saying that WMD is anything from a regular hand grenade or stick of dynamite, all the way to Nuclear device.

Oh certainly.

Well, I could understand the need for such a blanket term, but then you'd need one for what we tend to call WMD. I suppose you could use CBRN, only that's not in common usage, and excludes really big conventional weapons, which should count. As it stands, CBRNe works as a blanket term anyway.

I think a little differently. I do sometimes think more about the greater good than the niceties of control I want to believe I have.

First off, we do now know that the brothers reported to have acted alone. I'm going to say reported until we see all their credit card statements and see they bought everything themselves. But the key idea is that we know now. This was fundamentally different than 9/11. All the Hijackers that we know died. We couldn't track them down for intel, and if they were in my area, yes, I'd do what I could to make sure they got that intel. Living near one of the biggest data and communications hubs at that time, my city always had the first of a strike if we were ever attacked. That brought the idea of follow up attacks closer to home screaming through my mind.

Back to my original statement, capturing this guy was very important to find out if it was just them or was more coming. I don't want to give up my rights, but I'd like to believe I'm a decent enough of a person to put my feelings aside for a short period of time to potentially protect my family and friends. would I feel stellar at the time? Probably not. But afterwards I get to go back to sleep while they go back out and try again.

Would I want them to capture the guy without infringing on my life at all? Sure. Would I have loved it even more that there were no bombings at all? A Thousand times as much. I've lived through a lifetime of drive-bys (back when they were popular), 9/11, a shooting on my campus, even the Montreal shooting (I lived 4 blocks away from Dawson College). I'm not on a particularly friendly status with the cops, but I get what they do. I don't feel the need to walk through the cops and yell "I AM AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, HOW THE FUCK DARE YOU TRY TO IMPEDE ME BY DOING YOUR INVESTIGATION!!". I realize the situation is a little more real than my taught and followed beliefs, and I go to fight or flight mode. Whatever is best for my survival at that moment trumps.

Fappy:
After watching the video I just realized something. What about the people who had indoor cats? I would be terrified one of those assholes would leave a door open or something and let them out :/

We'll considering how often police seem to like killing family pets during raids, i'd consider myself fortunate if my cat was simply let out. Many police seem to consider it within their rights to kill any dogs that might be on the premises during a raid, even if the owners have them on a leash or are holding onto them. They get away with this all the time.

I know if that happened to me, i would be dead shortly after. So for me, raid=death. You may claim that my priorities are a bit off, but i put a lot of personal value in my pets. I would feel obligated to do as much harm to my pets killer as i can manage regardless of consequence. If my death made the next cop think twice about needlessly killing some kids pet as a sadistic power play, i would consider it worth the sacrifice.

TheDrunkNinja:
In this case, yeah I would.

If you know the full story, those brothers were on a rampage. After the bombing, the full list of events as I understand it included the two brothers robbing a convenience store at gun point, pulling over and shooting a campus security officer for no reason, getting in gun fights with the police involving lower-grade explosives, the older brother getting shot at which point the younger one drives over his corpse to get away, and then finally being found by in a grounded boat by the owner. The guy had no idea he was there. This is straight out of a movie plot it's so surreal.

Boston was on complete lockdown trying to find these desperate madmen. If the police were at your door, you knew why they were there. If the cops had reasonable suspicion that one of the bombers was on your property somewhere, then why in the hell would you want them waiting and coming back the next day with a legal warrant, all the while the bomber might be hiding in your goddamn home with you?! A warrant would be useless, and you might be fucking dead for spending the night with a crazed man hiding in the basement.

If you're thinking that some cops were using the opportunity to raid houses in relation to other cases, that's highly doubtful. The hundreds of cops that were in Boston during lockdown were a part of an entire search grid. These weren't cops just bopping around on their own patrolling whatever street they felt like. The search they performed was completely procedural and didn't allow opportunities to go off and raid some home that had relation to some other case being worked on. This wasn't a police state. It was a search grid that was eventually disbanded when the search was complete.

A search grid that the majority of us Bostonians completely supported.

All of you people shitting on our cops need to shut the fuck up and think for a second. Our city was ATTACKED. We wanted them CAUGHT. We succeeded.

No, I repeat, NO innocents were hurt by the police.

Halvhir:
As someone who actually LIVES in the Greater Boston area... we are almost universally appreciative of the way the Boston Police Department and other various first responders handled this event.

Allow me to remind you all that this was taking place not FOUR DAYS after the bomb blasts at the marathon, which left three dead and over 170 wounded, many of whom lost limbs, and was being watched LIVE ON TELEVISION across the state. They found additional explosive devices that didn't go off, one of which was directly underneath the grandstands where hundreds of spectators were sitting near the finish line. As tragic as the casualty list is, it could easily have been much, much worse.

Add to this the murder of an officer at MIT, a carjacking, throwing MORE explosives out of the car window while being chased, an extended shootout and the very real concern of a suicide vest, there was every reason to try and lock down the immediate area to make sure he didn't sneak away, grab another hostage or hurt more people. And then when you have hundreds of cops and agents roaming the streets after being on edge for four days straight, immediately following a prolonged gunfight, you think it's unreasonable for them to want to start checking private property?

They asked for permission to search houses. Not everyone said yes, and in those cases they just left; I haven't seen a single report of them barging into homes uninvited. Instead, I see there's a photo of a cop bringing GALLONS OF MILK back to one house with a toddler, because they were out and couldn't leave to get it themselves. That guy is AWESOME.

Yeah, I'm sure there are cases where cops were too aggressive or pushed harder than they should have. Perfection ain't something we got here; if you know somewhere that's selling it, please let us know. But they broke no laws, and made goddamn sure that they did everything they could to prevent more casualties. I'm proud of them, the city is proud of them, and every single person in the press and in person I've seen, read or talked to has appreciated how it was handled.

You know what, just read what Halvhir said here. I don't have the time to type out my exact feelings on all of this, and he captured most of it.

Basically, how about talking to the people it happened to before you scream "POLICE STATE LOL" like you're some beacon of freedom. You aren't.

EDIT: DrunkNinja and Halvhir, thank you for showing me that there are SOME people on these gods-forsaken forums that understand what actually happened. I'm so sick of how much these forum hate cops because they're cops. It's so fucking stupid.

Orcus The Ultimate:
The Only thing Policemen FEAR is the LEGAL recording in public spaces, of what they do beyond the reaches of the LAW...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxlL0I5AWLI

Question is, if Police Departments are like a family, when you want to REPORT A COMPLAINT against a police officer foe X reason, normally they HAVE THE OBLIGATION to give you the instructions for how to do it, but in NO case, they should Intimidate or tell you they "don't do it" or even ask for your identity or the policeman's identity in question.

That's what Undercover ex-cops check in Police Departments, Corruption and Abuse of power.
(http://www.freeexistence.org/police_complaints.html)

Now this is what awaits to the Good men and women that don't do nothing about it: Another form of Tyranny.

"To conquer a nation, one must first disarm its citizens."
GUN CONTROL -> MARTIAL LAW -> MAIL COLORING -> NATO INTERNATIONAL SOLDIERS -> FEMA CAMPS -> Population Reduction -> Total Control.

Remember Social Evolucionism -> which led to Eugenics -> then it was incorporated as the industry of death?
check this out:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/02/02/microsoft-merck-and-bill-gates-eugenicists/

Oh God noooooo!
Those U.N bastards are going to invade America, and I don't know, force us to accept healthcare?
Just go back to info wars.

Fuck to the no.

Bastards already have enough power.

If I'm at home and a terrorist has broken in I've probably already done some damage to the terrorist so... no, i'd just throw him out, beaten and bloodied, to be taken away...

No, they need a warrant to come in my house for that kind of thing.

McMullen:

Milanezi:
it's a public threat, all privacy goes to ground, that's what I believe in, even when the law says otherwise...

I think that sentiment right there is more corrosive to freedom than any act of terrorism can ever be. Terrorists can't destroy our freedom unless we help them, and that attitude is what's going to make it happen.

I remember why I stopped coming to these forums now.

Scolar Visari:

Also, that one FBI loser who was filmed on national TV trying to be a big-dick operator trying to jump a tiny gate, only to practically fall off the thing and then have it casually swing open a second later.

Oh lord, I just had to find that clip.

image

Mulder and Scully would be ashamed.

That is pretty terrifying.

Bertylicious:
Besides, it isn't as if they rugby tackled a brazilian student to the floor and shot him in the head 5 times because he was running for a train.

In fairness that's pretty much why we don't want our police to be armed. They're perfectly capable of killing innocent people with sticks anyway.

What would I do? Let them come in. I'm not going to argue about shit when there's a gun in my face being held by somebody I'm just going to assume is an idiot. Not saying police are all idiots, it's just some obviously are like with any group of people. After all is said and done I'll kick up a hell of a fuss. Consent at gunpoint is not fucking consent.

Since when was the phrase changed to "gun-hoe"? The phrase is "gung-ho", please stop skewing it because it has nothing to do with guns. Also I don't particularly like how the post was phrased in places. Like the part about the police discovering he was unarmed. That's completely irrelevant. And I guarantee you that the police were aiming at doors and windows, not the old lady.

Adam Jensen:
Closing down the entire city to search for one unarmed, sleep deprived and exhausted teenager.

Ha. Ha ha. Hahahahahahahahahaha! Oh, that's a funny bit of truth twisting there.

The kid has already allegedly blown up two bombs and planned to blow up others. He and his brother stole a car at gunpoint and when the cops saw them, the two suspects started tossing homemade explosives at them and entered into a fire fight in which a cop was injured and his brother killed.

It turns out that he was unarmed, but the cops have no way of knowing that and they aren't going to think that the guy who perpetrated those crimes listed above has suddenly become harmless.

When you're after someone who has proven willing and able to cause massive harm to innocents, you don't stop and assume he's going to be unarmed and cooperative. You assume hostility until you can verify that he is not dangerous.

As to the topic, I would let police search my home but I don't think they should be able to search anywhere they want without a warrant.

Lucky Godzilla:
"An Orwellian nightmare"
Huh, I wasn't aware we were discussing North Korea.

North Korea is obviously the most extreme example, but the way things are going in the US these days, it's far from being a land of the free. It's been that way for the past decade or so.

Lucky Godzilla:
Besides if you think scaremongering is exclusive to the U.S government, you must really not be that well traveled.

I don't.

Lucky Godzilla:
I mean look at the islamaphobia that's gripping most of Europe, especially France.

There is no such think as islamophobia. People aren't afraid of Muslims. They are criticizing Muslim extremism. And every time someone says something critical of their religion, they emerge to spout their lies about islamophobia. They are hypersensitive about anything that has to do with their religion. Just think about their reaction to "draw Mohammad day". Would normal, civilized people give a crap about that? Would normal people demand the beheading of those who insult Islam? I guess that strategy "say it enough times and people will start believing it" worked It obviously worked on you.

No.

This is just a line for me. I don't care about the context, I will not be a reactionary to fear. I hate when people make big decisions out of fear. If that makes me more suspicious, fine, go get a damn warrant. In the meantime, I do not surrender any of my personal freedoms just because something scary happened.

And also:

We are supposed to be civilized people and shouldn't become barbarians just because someone else did first.

Daveman:
That is pretty terrifying.

Bertylicious:
Besides, it isn't as if they rugby tackled a brazilian student to the floor and shot him in the head 5 times because he was running for a train.

In fairness that's pretty much why we don't want our police to be armed. They're perfectly capable of killing innocent people with sticks anyway.

What would I do? Let them come in. I'm not going to argue about shit when there's a gun in my face being held by somebody I'm just going to assume is an idiot. Not saying police are all idiots, it's just some obviously are like with any group of people. After all is said and done I'll kick up a hell of a fuss. Consent at gunpoint is not fucking consent.

Now keep in mind this is America we are talking about. The rate of gun ownership is ludicrously high, and you are expecting police to go after a man with a gun using only police batons? Besides, there was absolutely no evidence of police forcing themselves into the houses of people who declined to be searched.

Aramis Night:

Fappy:
After watching the video I just realized something. What about the people who had indoor cats? I would be terrified one of those assholes would leave a door open or something and let them out :/

We'll considering how often police seem to like killing family pets during raids, i'd consider myself fortunate if my cat was simply let out. Many police seem to consider it within their rights to kill any dogs that might be on the premises during a raid, even if the owners have them on a leash or are holding onto them. They get away with this all the time.

I know if that happened to me, i would be dead shortly after. So for me, raid=death. You may claim that my priorities are a bit off, but i put a lot of personal value in my pets. I would feel obligated to do as much harm to my pets killer as i can manage regardless of consequence. If my death made the next cop think twice about needlessly killing some kids pet as a sadistic power play, i would consider it worth the sacrifice.

How often does that really happen though? I know it's a TV trope, but I can't say I have ever seen a news report where this has actually happened.

ZeroMachine:

A search grid that the majority of us Bostonians completely supported.

All of you people shitting on our cops need to shut the fuck up and think for a second. Our city was ATTACKED. We wanted them CAUGHT. We succeeded.

No, I repeat, NO innocents were hurt by the police.

You know, I'm going to take a moment on this. Five days after 9/11, I woke up to something that sounded like an explosion. I quickly looked out my window and I saw nothing but grey. My heart beat, my jaw dropped, and I thought 'Oh God, this is it. I'm going to die at 21'.

Later I found out it was a jet and it was just a cloudy day. I remember the police presence everywhere. I remember people being on high alert and looking at packages or bags or whatever. I remember the announcements of what you should do. If you see something, say something. I remember life just being changed forever.

And I knew the cause of it. It wasn't even the first terrorist attack on the towers, but it was the most damaging. There was no way the police could handle it all themselves. Silently, we all knew we were deputized. We couldn't just sit behind our walls and think the cops will handle it. We knew we had our part. No one wanted to do it, but we wanted to make sure shit didn't happen again.

On a last note and a tangent, as I eluded to in my last post, I went to school in Montreal in 2004-2006. I had a girlfriend at that time who had a friend who invited us over to her house for Chirstmas. She was... Romanian I think, and Her entire family was there. And there was this one family member who was my age who kept staring at me. I come to find out that the family members were told who we were in Romanian, and I was very interesting because I was American.

Said Boy did not like that Bush was re-elected.

He used that time to quiz me to answer for all over America. I told him that I didn't like Bush and I actually went to Buffalo to vote against him, and he said something I'll never forget: "Ah, finally. An American who thinks like me!" Like the world would be better if we all thought like him. But he loosen up and we talked more and I even started to like him.

Until he asked about 9/11. I do remember the CBC doing a lot of the anniversary that year, and he was bothered by it. So much so that he wanted four months to question the first American he could about it. Why was it a big deal? Why are Americans still so concerned about it? Why can't they just move on?

I didn't yell. I didn't really do anything but answer his question. But I wanted to punch him dead in the face. But my answer was this;

We were violated. Man, Woman, People, Groups, Creeds... whatever. We all have a basic need of security. A place to feel like you are safe in. Even in New York, you know there's places you go and you get hurt by x,y,and x, and there are places you go that you'll be perfectly safe in. You know who to avoid, you know what to do.

But when you have a foriegn, unknown power penetrate your defenses, completely blindsiding you, you don't know where to turn. It's one of the most frightening feelings there is. It's a rape. America was violated horribly during that time and we were not prepared for it, even if we had domestic terrorism. You would never ask a rape victim to just 'get over it'. You either live the situation or you sit on the sidelines, be quiet, and wait until the subject changes to something you know about.

Halvhir:
As someone who actually LIVES in the Greater Boston area... we are almost universally appreciative of the way the Boston Police Department and other various first responders handled this event.

Allow me to remind you all that this was taking place not FOUR DAYS after the bomb blasts at the marathon, which left three dead and over 170 wounded, many of whom lost limbs, and was being watched LIVE ON TELEVISION across the state. They found additional explosive devices that didn't go off, one of which was directly underneath the grandstands where hundreds of spectators were sitting near the finish line. As tragic as the casualty list is, it could easily have been much, much worse.

Add to this the murder of an officer at MIT, a carjacking, throwing MORE explosives out of the car window while being chased, an extended shootout and the very real concern of a suicide vest, there was every reason to try and lock down the immediate area to make sure he didn't sneak away, grab another hostage or hurt more people. And then when you have hundreds of cops and agents roaming the streets after being on edge for four days straight, immediately following a prolonged gunfight, you think it's unreasonable for them to want to start checking private property?

They asked for permission to search houses. Not everyone said yes, and in those cases they just left; I haven't seen a single report of them barging into homes uninvited. Instead, I see there's a photo of a cop bringing GALLONS OF MILK back to one house with a toddler, because they were out and couldn't leave to get it themselves. That guy is AWESOME.

Yeah, I'm sure there are cases where cops were too aggressive or pushed harder than they should have. Perfection ain't something we got here; if you know somewhere that's selling it, please let us know. But they broke no laws, and made goddamn sure that they did everything they could to prevent more casualties. I'm proud of them, the city is proud of them, and every single person in the press and in person I've seen, read or talked to has appreciated how it was handled.

Have a relative with the exact reaction as you. She tells me it was less nerve-racking to know the police were actually doing something instead of just sitting there with their thumbs up their asses or shooting at civilians because they "might be suspicious"

Also she loved the cop who bought those guys milk.

I love how all the foreigners here see this as the worst possible thing that could happen and can't put two in two together that this guy may have had ANYTHING and we really didn't want him causing another innocent.

McMullen:

Milanezi:
it's a public threat, all privacy goes to ground, that's what I believe in, even when the law says otherwise...

I think that sentiment right there is more corrosive to freedom than any act of terrorism can ever be. Terrorists can't destroy our freedom unless we help them, and that attitude is what's going to make it happen.

I see your line of thinking here, but I sustain my point. I am NOT, however, saying that every single threat is to be treated as such. I'll use for example the Brazilian Constitution, in case of war (WAR) many of the privacies goes to waste, including mail privacy, also death penalty goes into play (which is non-existent otherwise).
But i can't blame your point of view, it makes total sense. You're playing freedom (or whatever is closest to it since we never have real freedom), I'm playing for safety, which doesn't come as a surprise as I usually turn out to be the one raising a toast to strong dictatorial leadership rather than democracy in SOME countries (read Brazil, not USA as far as I know the north-american people as a whole are well instructed enough in politics not to deviate the attention to the prettiest butt instead of what matters, in terms of politics, if get my meaning).

It's come to my attention that many of the people on this thread don't want to hear otherwise. If that's so, why post in the first place? I have been insulted twice on this forum and don't intend on coming back to R&P or related topics anytime soon.

If you post in a topic, be ready to hear dissenting opinions, and check your childish impulses at the door.

And that's how terrorism wins.
It's not the overt violence, death and destruction caused by crazies.
It's the response that it provokes, like an extreme form of trolling.

I'm used to hearing sirens when I visit my friends out in their neck of Chicago.
(I'm also curiously used to hearing automatic weapons fire)
But I haven't seen the police cordon off the area and go in like the Marshalls.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked