Words like "there is something more important for me than my life" can not be thrown around without some kind of proof baking it. This one point makes the whole essay not worth reading. Sorry.
Does risking 8 years in federal prison to defend a senior citizen activist exercising his first amendment right to pamphlet on a public sidewalk from us marshals using a video camera count?
There were numerous explosive devices thrown about by the suspects. They were disposed of properly. The suspect was forced to stay within a confined area. Police were able to respond within minutes of the suspect being spotted. We don't know how long he was inside the boat and where he was hiding previously. It may have been the case that the boat was searched but when the suspect was not inside.
I would not have let my kids outside and I would not have gone outside either if I had been in the area. It's just not my thing to go out and have to be on the look out for explosive devices or suspects. I want the police to do that for me. That's what I pay taxes for.
Nor would I have wanted anyone to be on the train while this guy is on the loose.
These people just love to overreact.
Also, the whole point of having a private home is that you get to let in anyone you want, this includes law enforcement. If I want them to come in and check my house and yard really fast, that's my decision to make. If I don't want them to, then they need a warrant. This is the whole point of the fourth amendment.
I think the problem for me comes in when you start talking about what you want for other people. Doesn't each individual have the capacity and the responsibility to make his or her own decision?
>>>It may have been the case that the boat was searched but when the suspect was not inside.
Just a POI: The owner recounted that the cover had been lashed down and his son saw it was flapping in the wind when he went outside (after "being allowed to"). Had it been searched, I doubt the cover would have remained on it.
Not to mention, that sort of lockdown was only in the immediate area of where the psychopath was located. I left the house multiple times during the day and there were plenty of people walking and driving around without the police bothering them.
It amazes me that people like this can sit back and play critic when it's not happening to them. If a violent murderer were in his backyard, I wonder if the OP would actually respect the people who would put their lives on the line to defend him.
How do the police normally catch fugitives? What is so different about this guy that required such a radically different response. Even an FBI historian in WashPo admitted that shutting down a US city was unprecedented.
These types of sensationalist political articles are why I stopped reading reddit. They are a small minority here, and I hope it doesn't go much further past this.
Also, as a Boston resident, thank you to the police for what you did on Friday. You were acting on the will of society, not imposing a "police state" on it.
Sensational in what way? Martial law is the very definition of police state; that part is not sensational. Is it sensational because you agree with the deployment of martial law and the author does not?
Hacker News is not a site to discuss topics like this.
I don't want to see Hacker News turned into Reddit-lite with political bullshit, armchair economics, social outrage of the day, current events, or science'y articles that have little to do with the spirit of the site.
I come here for technical, positive or cool articles - not to see shit about a "police state.". If I wanted that type of discussion I would go somewhere else.
For anyone who doesn't know you can click on the Flag button on an article to report it to the moderators and if you don't see the button you don't have enough karma yet.
That kind of laying down for these kinds of measures just makes it that much easier to pull off next time.
While the article isn't something you'd find in the comparatively-sanitized pages of the New York Times (or similar papers), it makes important points. We need to ask ourselves if this is the kind of action we want to see in our towns and cities the next time a violent individual is on the loose. I sure hope not.
Sounds like someone was just waiting for an excuse to dust off the ol' "jack-booted thugs" routine. One person's "cowering in fear" might be another's "staying the hell out of the way". The rest read so much like a canned response, I don't feel a need take apart the points (and I'm kind of sorry I bothered to read it).
I think the economic points are the most simply persuasive. Two things concretely led to the capture of the suspect:
Once the lockdown was lifted, "a neighbor reported that a bloody man was hiding in his boat."
Then, "a hostage negotiator talked to him for about 25 minutes and talked him into climbing out of the boat,” according to one law enforcement official."
Both are hilariously inexpensive compared to all the things that did not lead to the capture of this kid. In fact, most of the armed police actions just resulted in bombs and dead police officers.
I want to find out: Who is this hostage negotiator? Why can't we pay him a huge bonus for all the money he would have saved Boston? If the police weren't so dim, maybe they would have tried negotiating with a 19 year old boy in the first place.
Or maybe everyone is just an irrational jihaddist nowadays, in spite of the evidence, and we should roll humvees up Dexter and look through people's garbage.
I was hoping someone would write an essay like this, but this one falls short of the mark with some fluff in the second half. I think the most important debate topics from this incident are this:
- Does it make sense to shut down an entire city on a business day to catch a criminal, even one with suspected small explosives? I would argue 'no' in this case with all the data, but it could still make sense in a case like the Mumbai terror attacks with several trained terrorists who knew what they were doing
- Should we applaud the fact that people were 'willing to stay in lockdown' as I've seen several Boston residents say? My opinion: absolutely not, people stayed inside for fear not bravery, which is exactly the goal of 'terror'-ism
- Does this incident mean that more people should have personal guns/weapons to defend themselves? I think 'no' on this as well. What I would have liked to see is every private citizen outside Watertown to operate as they would normally in defiance of the terrorists, with heightened police presence in risky areas. The whole point of security is to defend liberty, and by impeding the liberty of private citizens for even one day, an argument could be made that the terrorists partially succeeded in their goal
I'm really sick of people criticizing the "lockdown" and "police state" - especially since most of it seems to be written by people from well outside of the Boston area (btw I'm writing this as someone who's bedroom is a thousand feet from where the MIT police officer was shot). The request to shelter in place was just that, a request. It was not an order, it was not illegal to go outside. The vast majority of us chose to stay inside. We made this decision because it's a) safer for us in the short term by not getting caught in the crossfire and b) safer in the long term by staying out of the way to make it easier for law enforcement to prevent these people from endangering us further.
Many comparisons to other cities and other suspects at large have been presented in the last few days and all the comparisons I've seen really aren't comparable. In most cases (at least those I've seen) they either have absolutely no clue where the suspect(s) is OR they know exactly where the suspect(s) is. Boston didn't issue the shelter in place request the city Monday afternoon when they knew whoever did this was somewhere out there. They made the request four days later, AFTER they had killed a cop and engaged countless others in a scenario you rarely see outside of an action movie.
They had a rough idea of where they were pretty sure he was (they were off by a block, but that's a different discussion). It's different when you have no idea where the suspect is (i.e. where we were Monday afternoon through Friday morning). It's different when you have the suspect pinned down to one specific location (and you can surround and cut off any means of escape). They removed the shelter in place request once they felt they were back to where they were (not sure where he is).
We caught him, alive and with no harm to civilians. Out of towners can keep Monday morning quarterbacking this whole thing all they want as an academic exercise. But for those of us that it actually affected we're pretty damn happy (and proud) with how Friday turned out.
24 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 68.4 ms ] thread(Thomas Menino called for the shutdown)
I would not have let my kids outside and I would not have gone outside either if I had been in the area. It's just not my thing to go out and have to be on the look out for explosive devices or suspects. I want the police to do that for me. That's what I pay taxes for.
Nor would I have wanted anyone to be on the train while this guy is on the loose.
These people just love to overreact.
Also, the whole point of having a private home is that you get to let in anyone you want, this includes law enforcement. If I want them to come in and check my house and yard really fast, that's my decision to make. If I don't want them to, then they need a warrant. This is the whole point of the fourth amendment.
It is your right to stay inside and protect your family. It is your right to have the protection of the police.
However, it is not your right to tell all of us other citizens what to do. Nor should it be the government's. However, it apparently is.
I'm glad they caught the suspects. I do not agree even a tiny bit with the failed attempt that occurred before they caught the final suspect.
That being the point.
Just a POI: The owner recounted that the cover had been lashed down and his son saw it was flapping in the wind when he went outside (after "being allowed to"). Had it been searched, I doubt the cover would have remained on it.
It amazes me that people like this can sit back and play critic when it's not happening to them. If a violent murderer were in his backyard, I wonder if the OP would actually respect the people who would put their lives on the line to defend him.
This sentence contains no meaningful information.
The author spends his whole time describing how horrible the police presence was without actually describing what should have been done differently.
Become more resilient. Build more prosperity
Oh, ok. I wasn't really doing those things before, because I don't actually like prosperity or resiliency, but I'll hop to it now.
My main takeaway is that the author has a major axe to grind with the police.
That doesn't mean it was wrong. It means it wasn't tried before. A lot of things haven't been done before- probably just as many good, as bad.
un·prec·e·dent·ed: (Adjective) Never done or known before
Also, as a Boston resident, thank you to the police for what you did on Friday. You were acting on the will of society, not imposing a "police state" on it.
I don't want to see Hacker News turned into Reddit-lite with political bullshit, armchair economics, social outrage of the day, current events, or science'y articles that have little to do with the spirit of the site.
I come here for technical, positive or cool articles - not to see shit about a "police state.". If I wanted that type of discussion I would go somewhere else.
For anyone who doesn't know you can click on the Flag button on an article to report it to the moderators and if you don't see the button you don't have enough karma yet.
Flagged.
While the article isn't something you'd find in the comparatively-sanitized pages of the New York Times (or similar papers), it makes important points. We need to ask ourselves if this is the kind of action we want to see in our towns and cities the next time a violent individual is on the loose. I sure hope not.
Once the lockdown was lifted, "a neighbor reported that a bloody man was hiding in his boat."
Then, "a hostage negotiator talked to him for about 25 minutes and talked him into climbing out of the boat,” according to one law enforcement official."
Both are hilariously inexpensive compared to all the things that did not lead to the capture of this kid. In fact, most of the armed police actions just resulted in bombs and dead police officers.
I want to find out: Who is this hostage negotiator? Why can't we pay him a huge bonus for all the money he would have saved Boston? If the police weren't so dim, maybe they would have tried negotiating with a 19 year old boy in the first place.
Or maybe everyone is just an irrational jihaddist nowadays, in spite of the evidence, and we should roll humvees up Dexter and look through people's garbage.
- Does it make sense to shut down an entire city on a business day to catch a criminal, even one with suspected small explosives? I would argue 'no' in this case with all the data, but it could still make sense in a case like the Mumbai terror attacks with several trained terrorists who knew what they were doing
- Should we applaud the fact that people were 'willing to stay in lockdown' as I've seen several Boston residents say? My opinion: absolutely not, people stayed inside for fear not bravery, which is exactly the goal of 'terror'-ism
- Does this incident mean that more people should have personal guns/weapons to defend themselves? I think 'no' on this as well. What I would have liked to see is every private citizen outside Watertown to operate as they would normally in defiance of the terrorists, with heightened police presence in risky areas. The whole point of security is to defend liberty, and by impeding the liberty of private citizens for even one day, an argument could be made that the terrorists partially succeeded in their goal
Many comparisons to other cities and other suspects at large have been presented in the last few days and all the comparisons I've seen really aren't comparable. In most cases (at least those I've seen) they either have absolutely no clue where the suspect(s) is OR they know exactly where the suspect(s) is. Boston didn't issue the shelter in place request the city Monday afternoon when they knew whoever did this was somewhere out there. They made the request four days later, AFTER they had killed a cop and engaged countless others in a scenario you rarely see outside of an action movie.
They had a rough idea of where they were pretty sure he was (they were off by a block, but that's a different discussion). It's different when you have no idea where the suspect is (i.e. where we were Monday afternoon through Friday morning). It's different when you have the suspect pinned down to one specific location (and you can surround and cut off any means of escape). They removed the shelter in place request once they felt they were back to where they were (not sure where he is).
We caught him, alive and with no harm to civilians. Out of towners can keep Monday morning quarterbacking this whole thing all they want as an academic exercise. But for those of us that it actually affected we're pretty damn happy (and proud) with how Friday turned out.