The Boston Marathon Bombing

[Motor Daddy]

They called off the lockdown only in areas where they had already searched everyone's home's and yards..

So the public could use the public transport in those areas only? How does sounding the all clear prior to apprehending the suspect validate the initial justification for initially implementing the lockdown? In other words, if the reason they initially called for the lockdown was that there was a guy with guns and bombs on the loose, then why would you sound the all clear prior to solving the initial conditions?

You equate the city of Detroit as being similar to bombs exploding in Boston, bombs being thrown at police and wild shootouts with even more explosives used by terrorists?

Really?

So let me see if I understand your position. You think it's valid to lockdown a city because a 19 year old with a gun and bombs is on the loose, but for a city like Detroit that is in total chaos, with hundreds if not thousands of people running the streets with guns, killing innocent young children and others, on a DAILY BASIS, but you don't think that is anything to be alarmed about. Got it!

 

[eram]

...but for a city like Detroit in total chaos, with hundreds if not thousands of people running the streets with guns, killing innocent young children and others, on a DAILY BASIS...

Are you sure about that? Maybe gang related killings, but not young children.

 

[Balerion]

It was for their own safety.

Because they risked being shot and killed by a dangerous terrorist running around armed to the teeth with guns and bombs and also with police officers trying to track him down.

I mean sure, people could have gone about their business as though there was not a crazed gunman armed with guns and bombs and who had just killed a police officer, injured others and blown up people in a terrorist attack.... Asking people to remain indoors and away from windows was to ensure less people died.

How can that not be necessary?

I understand that it was for their safety. I'm saying that it was an overreaction. I'm saying that you've got a lot of work to do to draw a line from "It's for their own safety" to "It was necessary." Necessary implies there was no other choice, and I simply don't see it that way. Consider President Obama's words following the events: He said the terrorists failed because we "refused to be terrorized," but doesn't locking your citizens up in their homes qualify as being terrorized? Shuttering a city for a day while you hunt someone down doesn't qualify as terrorized? I think it does. I think it's too much. Other people have been known to have explosives, other dangerous criminals have been loose on the streets. We don't shut down cities for them.

They called off the lockdown only in areas where they had already searched everyone's home's and yards..

No, they lifted the lockdown city-wide.

 

[Balerion]

Are you sure about that? Maybe gang related killings, but not young children.

Young children tend to be accidental targets of gun violence, but targets nonetheless. Teenagers make up a significant number of the perpetrators and victims, as well. Detroit especially has problems in both cases.

 

[Bells]

So the public could use the public transport in those areas only? How does sounding the all clear prior to apprehending the suspect validate the initial justification for initially implementing the lockdown? In other words, if the reason they initially called for the lockdown was that there was a guy with guns and bombs on the loose, then why would you sound the all clear prior to solving the initial conditions?

From what the media reported here, public transport was shut down completely and not allowed to run for the duration.

So let me see if I understand your position. You think it's valid to lockdown a city because a 19 year old with a gun and bombs is on the loose, but for a city like Detroit that is in total chaos, with hundreds if not thousands of people running the streets with guns, killing innocent young children and others, on a DAILY BASIS, but you don't think that is anything to be alarmed about. Got it!

I never realised that Detroit was that much worse than Afghanistan and Iraq rolled into one.

I understand that it was for their safety. I'm saying that it was an overreaction. I'm saying that you've got a lot of work to do to draw a line from "It's for their own safety" to "It was necessary." Necessary implies there was no other choice, and I simply don't see it that way. Consider President Obama's words following the events: He said the terrorists failed because we "refused to be terrorized," but doesn't locking your citizens up in their homes qualify as being terrorized? Shuttering a city for a day while you hunt someone down doesn't qualify as terrorized? I think it does. I think it's too much. Other people have been known to have explosives, other dangerous criminals have been loose on the streets. We don't shut down cities for them.

I guess that is a matter of personal opinion.

I think keeping people off the street and shutting down the city ensured less people died. An inconvenience is better than being killed. As was reported, it was not safe for people to leave their homes due to the explosives that were strewn around.

Certainly, other people are known to have explosives and until such individuals construct bombs and try to mass murder hundreds, if not thousands of people with them. I think the actual people who lived there and were inconvenienced by it have a right to complain about being forced to remain indoors. However they are not and everyone who was not there are....

 

[Balerion]

I never realised that Detroit was that much worse than Afghanistan and Iraq rolled into one.

I don't know where you're going with this one. He's simply pointing out that there are violent crimes all over the place in Detroit (411 murders last year) yet no lockdown. Why would you compare it to Afghanistan and Iraq, when the incident in Boston featured just one person? Certainly the Boston event couldn't hold a candle to most bombings in that region.

I guess that is a matter of personal opinion.

Well of course. I was just curious who thought what, and why.

I think keeping people off the street and shutting down the city ensured less people died. An inconvenience is better than being killed. As was reported, it was not safe for people to leave their homes due to the explosives that were strewn around.

I don't argue that. However, I would offer that the only progress made in the case--from their ousting after the bombings to the younger brother's eventual capture--happened because the city was operating as usual. Now, their perimeter only missed the house he was hiding behind by a block, which can be counted as dumb luck, but the kid was found literally by the homeowner walking into his yard. Yes, it's more dangerous to have people out and about during a crime spree, but it also increases the odds of locating the suspect exponentially. Instead of a few dozen or even hundred police, you have thousands--if not more--civilians on the lookout.

Certainly, other people are known to have explosives and until such individuals construct bombs and try to mass murder hundreds, if not thousands of people with them.

I feel like this sentence ended prematurely...

I think the actual people who lived there and were inconvenienced by it have a right to complain about being forced to remain indoors. However they are not and everyone who was not there are....

Even if I were merely complaining about the inconvenience of an entire city being shut down and its residents forced to stay indoors, I would have a gripe because of my concern that Boston has just set a precedent that will allow my own city to react in kind, should such a threat arise. But as I said before, that's not what I'm complaining about. (Though I do think it's unfair to those living paycheck-to-paycheck to be forced to take an unpaid day off) My chief concern is incentivizing similar acts. You no longer have to kill thousands of people to cripple a city; you merely have to make a loud noise, kill three or four, and remain at large. Then our government will tell us to hide in our homes while these idiots run loose. I'm sorry, I think it's a terrible idea to show terrorists just how easy it is to terrorize us.

 

[Motor Daddy]

I vote for Balerion.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Where were the tracking dogs? They had a suspect on foot with what had to have been a clear scent trail. MesoWest says no precip at KMQE (approx 5 miles from watertown). It is embarrassing for every branch of law enforcement involved.

It's Keystone Cops material.
Speaking of dogs, instead of firing off rounds of ammunition at the boat, why didn't they send in a couple of trained dogs?
Once they have got hold of you, it's game over.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

I vote for Balerion.

Too late.
Balerion, called the Black Dread, was one of the three great dragons of Aegon the Conqueror and his sisters, that were used to conquer much of Westeros during the War of Conquest. Balerion died some time during the reign of King Jaehaerys I, around two hundred years of age. He was very annoying.
http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Balerion

(I added the last bit)

 

[eram]

He said the terrorists failed because we "refused to be terrorized," but doesn't locking your citizens up in their homes qualify as being terrorized? Shuttering a city for a day while you hunt someone down doesn't qualify as terrorized? I think it does. I think it's too much. Other people have been known to have explosives, other dangerous criminals have been loose on the streets. We don't shut down cities for them.

I think terrorized refers to bombings.

Most terrorists wouldn't run the streets shooting cops on purpose and then hide so as to put the city on lockdown. Not their intention.


There are dangerous criminals, but none as nuts as these brothers.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

To think of the heroism of Americans at Omaha Beach and Okinawa.
What happened America?

 

[andy1033]

To think of the heroism of Americans at Omaha Beach and Okinawa.
What happened America?

You think that america won ww2 because they where nice?

 

[Captain Kremmen]

You think that america won ww2 because they where nice?

No.
1. They did not win WWII on their own. In fact, the greatest sacrifice was made by Russia.
2. They were brave men, as were the Canadians, British, Australians, Indians, and all who fought.

I haven't heard of Bostonians complaining that they were locked down in their houses in fear of one 19 year old punk.
Perhaps they have, but no-one is broadcasting it.

 

[milkweed]

It's Keystone Cops material.
Speaking of dogs, instead of firing off rounds of ammunition at the boat, why didn't they send in a couple of trained dogs?
Once they have got hold of you, it's game over.

Usually just the threat of turning the dogs loose is enough. But they wouldnt be able to appeal for more face recognition software (hence the release of photos to the public) and more government cameras (because the private sectors isnt good enough) and more armored vehicles (to cut through shrink wrap) and more heat sensors for helicopters (because we saw how well that worked in Finding the suspect) and more night vision goggles (cuz we saw how well they worked during the shootout). Millions We Just Need More Millions. Dogs are too cheap for this national security issue.

 

[joepistole]

No.
1. They did not win WWII on their own. In fact, the greatest sacrifice was made by Russia.
2. They were brave men, as were the Canadians, British, Australians, Indians, and all who fought.
I haven't heard of Bostonians complaining that they were locked down in their houses in fear of one 19 year old punk.
Perhaps they have, but no-one is broadcasting it.

First, I don’t see what this has to do with the Boston bombings. Two, what do you mean by greatest sacrifice? If you mean total lives lost, that would be correct. If you mean lives lost as a percentage of the population, you would be wrong. Poland has that honor. If you mean by money spent or equipment provided, you would be wrong. But lives lost is not a measure of effectiveness or importance in resolving the war.

There were many brave men and women from many countries who fought in WWII. But again, I don’t see what that has to do with the Boston bombing. Two, Bostonians were not locked down in their homes. There was no lockdown. It was a "sheltering in place" request by the state. The governor requested people stay in their homes to make it easier for police to find Tsarnaev. It was voluntary. The governor did not declare a state of emergency as he did previously when winter storm Nemo hit the state and he banned travel.

 

[milkweed]

Let the Back-peddling Begin

Suddenly, Boston wasnt really on a lockdown:

http://nation.time.com/2013/04/19/was-boston-actually-on-lockdown/

But wait.. Schools, mass transit, private business all told to close today and workers remain in place.

.."and an earlier police request for businesses to close and residents and visitors to "shelter in place" was lifted.."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/dispa...el-airlines-amtrak-manhunt-terrorist/2096279/

I wonder if anyone saved the automated message put out by the city.

Reporters told not to use cell phones (after being ordered to the ground by three weapons wielding officers). She doesnt look like the wanted terrorist to me:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/bos...it-shootout-boston-lockdown-shootout-18996030

Hope someone can archive the video.

 

[joepistole]

Suddenly, Boston wasnt really on a lockdown:

http://nation.time.com/2013/04/19/was-boston-actually-on-lockdown/

But wait.. Schools, mass transit, private business all told to close today and workers remain in place.

.."and an earlier police request for businesses to close and residents and visitors to "shelter in place" was lifted.."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/dispa...el-airlines-amtrak-manhunt-terrorist/2096279/

I wonder if anyone saved the automated message put out by the city.

Reporters told not to use cell phones (after being ordered to the ground by three weapons wielding officers). She doesnt look like the wanted terrorist to me:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/bos...it-shootout-boston-lockdown-shootout-18996030

Hope someone can archive the video.

LOL, let the revisionism begin! Since you think it was a lockdown, perhaps you can produce some evidence of a public official declaring a lockdown. But I think we both know you will not be able to produce that evidence. Because it never happened. American detractors and those who cheer the terrorists are going to try to rewrite history yet again.

http://nation.time.com/2013/04/19/was-boston-actually-on-lockdow

“The lockdown is really voluntary, to be honest with you,” says Scott Silliman, emeritus director of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security at Duke Law School. “The governor said he wants to use sheltering in place. Sheltering in place is a practice normally used if you’re dealing with a pandemic, where you’re telling people, ‘You may have been exposed and we want you to stay exactly where you are so we can isolate everything and we’ll come to you.’”
The “shelter in place” request is legally different from a state of emergency, which Patrick declared earlier this year as winter storm Nemo descended on the Bay State. Patrick imposed a travel ban, threatening a penalty of up to a year in prison and a large fine if people were found on the roads. Massachusetts suffered very few fatalities during the storm.
When it came to keeping the public off the streets on Friday, an order, it seems, wasn’t needed. “When the governor suggested in light of last night’s events that we have an armed subject on the loose who is very dangerous, who has committed murder, I believe the citizens of the commonwealth, in the hopes of helping law enforcement, voluntarily stayed off the streets,” Massachusetts State Trooper Todd Nolan told TIME. “This is a request that the public stay inside and they are adhering to it. There has been no law mentioned or any idea that if you went outside you’d be arrested.” – Time

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat — Begging your pardon

Mod Hat — Begging your pardon ....

Woah.

Quite right.

Um ... I hate to break up such a fun party and all, but perhaps the bighorn egos might consider putting aside all this vacuous butting of heads.

It's quite clear that a number of people have some things to get off their chest about Boston, the police, government in general, and so on. Fine, embarrass yourselves all you want if you're inclined to push that far. But when it comes to dedicating such efforts to embarrassing and belittling each other, well, you know, this thread isn't about you.

We don't care.

So please do your community the kindest of favors, and quit with the buttheading head-butting.

My deepest thanks.

 

[Bebelina]

Well, the guy is so badly injured that they might never be able to question him. Apparently he had shot himself in the neck in a failed suicide attempt.

Is it just me or have others also noticed the striking resemblance between Dzjochar Tsarnajev and Adam Sandler in the Wedding Singer?

 

[milkweed]

Since you think it was a lockdown, perhaps you can produce some evidence of a public official declaring a lockdown.

OK Heres a picture of the electronic billboard:

http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_boston_billboard_1_nt_130419_blog.jpg

I suppose they use those billboards for Amber Alerts too. But I am guessing, I am not in boston. Stay Home. Not Advised to... Not Request... Just STAY HOME if you live... blah blah blah. You ever heard of Fridley MN? Probably not. It is blurred into the Twin Cities. Like Watertown is blurred into Boston.

What is MEMA?

http://www.mass.gov/eopss/agencies/mema/

"Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick gave a brief press conference in which he called for a citywide lockdown"

Public transportation had been shut down, trains were stopped coming in and out of Boston, planes were being rerouted away from the city’s airspace, taxi service was suspended, schools were closed, and the city was told, in the words of Patrick, to “shelter in place.” Robocalls went out across the city, reminding people to stay inside.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/04/boston-in-lockdown.html

At a news conference around 6 p.m., Gov. Deval Patrick lifted the lockdown order, saying they had not found the suspect in Watertown.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/boston-bomb-suspect-captured-alive-backyard-boat/story?id=18994511