The Boston Marathon Bombing

[joepistole]

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

You have thrown up a lot of chaff, there is no question people were told to stay in their homes. Public officials including the governor and police departments are on record calling for people to "shelter in place". They are not on record calling for a lockdown because they never called for a lockdown. And you cannot cite a single instance of them calling for a lockdown. There is a difference as noted in my previous post. What you have done is cite some journalists who have used some dramatic license or are lazy or are just dumb and repeating nonsense.

This is what the governor actually said. It is not what other people said he said (e.g. your references).

"We're asking people to shelter in place," Patrick said. "In other words, to stay indoors with their doors locked, and not to open their door for anyone other than a properly identified law enforcement officer."

The request extended to the neighboring communities of Waltham, Newton, Belmont and Cambridge.

"The scale of that [shelter in place] is incredible, perhaps unprecedented," says Frank Cilluffo, director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University. "It's not only to keep people out of harm's way, but also to allow law enforcement to do their jobs."

Residents of Boston and surrounding suburbs were left to wait behind closed doors until authorities signaled it was safe to return to normal life. - National Public Radio

 

[Motor Daddy]

"It's not only to keep people out of harm's way, but also to allow law enforcement to do their jobs."

Residents of Boston and surrounding suburbs were left to wait behind closed doors until authorities signaled it was safe to return to normal life. - National Public Radio

Timeline:

1. Boom...
2. Dangerous 19 year old on the loose...
3. People told to "shelter in place, in other words, stay indoors with their doors locked, and not to open their door for anyone other than a properly identified law enforcement officer."
4. "Shelter in place" request removed. People free to roam at will (with suspect still at large so they are "in harm's way").
5. Suspect found

Why does 4 come before 5?

 

[Bells]

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.

My sarcasm was in response to this:

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​

He is describing Detroit as being some kind of warzone.

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

Duly noted.

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.

They probably wanted people to not be walking about because there were unexploded devices lying around and a guy who had killed a police officer, carjacked another person. Keeping people off the street and locked away in their own home meant that the perpetrators would find it harder to escape.

I honestly do not see anything wrong with this or why it should be queried in such a fashion.

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.

And you do not like being told that you need to remain locked inside your home to ensure your safety and well-being when there is an armed terrorist(s) roaming your neighbourhood and dropping explosives around the place?

And you view the bombings in Boston as "make a loud noise, kill three or four"? The only reason more people did not die is sheer dumb luck and because it was so near the finish line, there were doctors and nurses on hand (who had been there on standby for any runners who collapsed or fell ill) and other personnel who reacted quickly to save that many lives. They didn't just make loud noises and killed a few people. They were going for maximum effect (finish line at a world renown marathon is maximum effect) and, essentially missed. They then killed a police officer, carjacked an innocent bystander, and deliberately went into a densely populated residential area with explosives and armed to the eyeballs, opened fire on police officers and threw bombs at police in said residential area.

I mean sure, the Government could have just shrugged its shoulders and allowed residents to roam free while this was happening and the moment a child blew itself up by touching an unexploded bomb in his front yard, we would then have you complaining that they were allowed to roam free and go about their business while this was happening on their street.

The point is, Balerion, there will be times where the Government will have to ensure the safety of its citizens. While you may believe that the terrorists win if they terrorise you, they have not. Because terrorists win when they kill people. Denying them the people to kill means they have not won. If I were to follow your reasoning, then Bin Laden would have won when Manhattan was shut down when they flew two planes into buildings and the White House evacuated, when the other plane was heading towards it and hit the Pentagon instead. They evacuate and make people stay indoors to ensure people don't die.

 

[joepistole]

Timeline:

1. Boom...
2. Dangerous 19 year old on the loose...
3. People told to "shelter in place, in other words, stay indoors with their doors locked, and not to open their door for anyone other than a properly identified law enforcement officer."
4. "Shelter in place" request removed. People free to roam at will (with suspect still at large so they are "in harm's way").
5. Suspect found

Why does 4 come before 5?

Good question, offhand I would say the police screwed up. They appear to have screwed up by not adequately blocking the suspects in with their vehicles. Car doors just are not a good defense against bullets or speeding vehicles. And how they manage to miss a bloody boat parked at 67 Franklin in Watertown is a question that has not yet been answered. Granted I don't know all the facts, but based on what I know now I think the performance of local police forces were something less than spectacular. The FBI on the other hand seemed to preform very well.

Two, if something that you are doing doesn’t work, it is probably best to do something else.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Good question, offhand I would say the police screwed up. They appear to have screwed up by not adequately blocking the suspects in with their vehicles. Car doors just are not a good defense against bullets or speeding vehicles. And how they manage to miss a bloody boat parked at 67 Franklin in Watertown is a question that has not yet been answered.

Two, if something that you are doing doesn’t work, it is probably best to do something else.

Good thing it wasn't a chemical attack, eh?

1. Gas
2. Put mask on
3. All clear given
4. Take mask off
5. Die!

 

[Tiassa]

A Problematic Phrase

I would point out that we should be very careful about the phrase, "All clear".

I'm still looking for the transcript, but I am as certain as I can be that I heard one of the officials actually respond to a question by saying, "I would never use the phrase all clear."

The point is that they had done what they could do in the time they had; you cannot keep a city of that size under lockdown for much longer than they did.

They did a basic calculation of where they needed to search hard, and got as much done as they could in a reasonable period. Turns out their calculation was off by a little bit. File away, remember in case there's a next time you need to find someone in Watertown.

But I will say this for Boston: The city and community did brilliantly. It's one thing to say we won't be terrorized; it's another to act the part.

 

[Motor Daddy]

I would point out that we should be very careful about the phrase, "All clear".

I'm still looking for the transcript, but I am as certain as I can be that I heard one of the officials actually respond to a question by saying, "I would never use the phrase all clear."

The point is that they had done what they could do in the time they had; you cannot keep a city of that size under lockdown for much longer than they did.

They did a basic calculation of where they needed to search hard, and got as much done as they could in a reasonable period. Turns out their calculation was off by a little bit. File away, remember in case there's a next time you need to find someone in Watertown.

But I will say this for Boston: The city and community did brilliantly. It's one thing to say we won't be terrorized; it's another to act the part.

Don't get me wrong, I applaud the people of Boston for their extraordinary effort in capturing the terrorist. They came together as a people and showed real American spirit! I know it made them come together more, and I think the country learned a lot too.

However, an After Action Review (AAR) of the events that took place is necessary. An AAR would be useless if it didn't identify strengths and weaknesses. I'm just doing my part to shed some light on some of the weaknesses.

 

[milkweed]

You have thrown up a lot of chaff,

ah yes. Chaff because a BLOND WOMAN with a backpack has 3 officers pointing guns at her because she bears a striking resemblance to a 19 year old Male with dark hair. Oh and dont be talking on the phone cuz you might be mistaken for a terrorist. Embarrassing.

Apparently, no one told the Mayor it wasnt really a lockdown. Here is the Mayor saying LOCKDOWN - 3:30 through 4:59 LOCKDOWN.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/video-bost...ure-released-awaits-charges/story?id=19009283

Yeah. Word games from politicians. I never SIGNED a paper...

 

[Balerion]

I think terrorized refers to bombings.

So when he said, "They failed because we won't be terrorized," what he really meant was "Explosions won't terrorize us, but at-large terrorists will?"

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.

They might now, seeing how it creates so much havoc.

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

Are you serious? What about the nutjob who just shot and killed 20 kids in Connecticut?

 

[Balerion]

I would point out that we should be very careful about the phrase, "All clear".

I'm still looking for the transcript, but I am as certain as I can be that I heard one of the officials actually respond to a question by saying, "I would never use the phrase all clear."

The point is that they had done what they could do in the time they had; you cannot keep a city of that size under lockdown for much longer than they did.

They did a basic calculation of where they needed to search hard, and got as much done as they could in a reasonable period. Turns out their calculation was off by a little bit. File away, remember in case there's a next time you need to find someone in Watertown.

But I will say this for Boston: The city and community did brilliantly. It's one thing to say we won't be terrorized; it's another to act the part.

How does one act terrorized, then, if not holding up in one's house while waiting for the police to give them permission to leave again?

 

[Balerion]

Mod Hat — Begging your pardon ....



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.

You're several hours late and considerably off the mark. Bells already addressed the guilty party, and didn't try to pretend that somehow I was in the wrong. Nice try, though.

My sarcasm was in response to this:

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​

He is describing Detroit as being some kind of warzone.

In the context of western cities, that's not a terribly inaccurate picture of Detroit. It kind of is in chaos. There are a ton of violent crimes there.

They probably wanted people to not be walking about because there were unexploded devices lying around and a guy who had killed a police officer, carjacked another person. Keeping people off the street and locked away in their own home meant that the perpetrators would find it harder to escape.

I don't think that was their rationale. The reason the police and federal agencies release information to the public is so that the average citizen can help them find wanted people. That's why they released the images in the first place. The police can't be everywhere.

I also don't think locking people in their homes makes escape more difficult. Shutting down public transport helps that significantly, but removing the public from the streets means there are less eyes on the lookout. What I think the lockdown was about was they thought they had a bead on him, and they wanted to keep citizens away from the action. If they found him and he ran, they didn't want to have to get around traffic or pedestrians to catch him. That's how I read it, anyway. Nothing else makes any sense, particularly the lifting of the lockdown once they realized he wasn't in their dragnet.

I honestly do not see anything wrong with this or why it should be queried in such a fashion.

Look, it's not that I don't appreciate them wanting to keep me safe, or the terrific efforts made by the police departments of Boston and surrounding towns and cities. It's that I think it's overkill. It's setting a bad example. It's holding up a sign that says "The threat of terrorism is enough to shut our city down." There's a reason they call it terrorism! The goal isn't just blood, it's fear.

And you do not like being told that you need to remain locked inside your home to ensure your safety and well-being when there is an armed terrorist(s) roaming your neighbourhood and dropping explosives around the place?

I don't need to be told that. But I also want the option to go to work if I'm poor and require that day's earnings to survive. The lockdown actually was optional--they weren't going to arrest you for being on the street--but it resulted in most businesses closing for the day, meaning that most people didn't have the option. I also don't like the idea of terrorists thinking they have an easy way to disrupt our lives.

And you view the bombings in Boston as "make a loud noise, kill three or four"? The only reason more people did not die is sheer dumb luck and because it was so near the finish line, there were doctors and nurses on hand (who had been there on standby for any runners who collapsed or fell ill) and other personnel who reacted quickly to save that many lives. They didn't just make loud noises and killed a few people. They were going for maximum effect (finish line at a world renown marathon is maximum effect) and, essentially missed. They then killed a police officer, carjacked an innocent bystander, and deliberately went into a densely populated residential area with explosives and armed to the eyeballs, opened fire on police officers and threw bombs at police in said residential area.

I'm coming off as insensitive, and that's not my intent. What happened was terrible, and many lives were ruined or changed forever. In terms of deaths, this was a small incident. It wasn't small in terms of injuries, but compare this to the bombings in Iraq on the same day, and it's nothing. Those killed 75 and injured twice as many as in Boston. The point I'm trying to make is that the next douchebag just has to set off a small IED and hide in a building somewhere, and the city will shut down. I just think it's a bad precedent.

I mean sure, the Government could have just shrugged its shoulders and allowed residents to roam free while this was happening and the moment a child blew itself up by touching an unexploded bomb in his front yard, we would then have you complaining that they were allowed to roam free and go about their business while this was happening on their street.

Here we go. What about my posts leads you to believe that I'd be complaining if they were allowed to roam free?

C'mon, Bells. Don't put words in my mouth.

The point is, Balerion, there will be times where the Government will have to ensure the safety of its citizens. While you may believe that the terrorists win if they terrorise you, they have not. Because terrorists win when they kill people. Denying them the people to kill means they have not won. If I were to follow your reasoning, then Bin Laden would have won when Manhattan was shut down when they flew two planes into buildings and the White House evacuated, when the other plane was heading towards it and hit the Pentagon instead. They evacuate and make people stay indoors to ensure people don't die.

We fundamentally disagree on this. Terrorism isn't called murderism. It isn't called maimism. It's called terrorism because the object is to terrorize people. An entire city shutting down because a couple of guys have crude IEDs is an overreaction, and therefore precisely what the terrorists want. Terrorists win when we're terrorized, and hiding in our houses, shutting down the entire city, counts as being terrorized.

 

[GeoffP]

Don't think I haven't noted that you're merely sounding the alarm rather than actually explaining how my conclusion is unreasonable. I've also noted the false dichotomy you've constructed between "reasonable" and "speculative," as if they're mutually exclusive.

I think you've scarcely noticed the nose on your face, to be honest. Sorry, but: in which world is it that I should adhere to your attempt at equivocation?

Moreover, I don't need to indicate why your conclusion is unreasonable. I never made such a case. If you'd stopped to think for a moment, you might have noticed that I don't even think it is unreasonable. (I forget: is that considered to be ironic?) At most, I considered my position possible, or the statement given by Napolitano suspect. That's it. Anyway, if you're going to try to turn this into a pithy argument about language, learn to use the arguments you're trying first.

No backup? I was correcting her to the best of my knowledge. Besides, I'm right. Go look it up. I believe Bells provided a link.

Sorry, but 'the best of your knowledge' is more than a touch hypocritical, since you're making such a fit about the process of the debate. So simply support or retract; it may be a little late now to start patching together your semblance of integrity, however.

Yes it is. You got called out on some ignorant BS, and now you're trying to change the rules. It's typical crank behavior.

How in the hell would you know what any of what you just wrote means? No, really: how would you know? I've seen no evidence at all of this higher order of discernment you seem determined to sham on SF. And now you're trying to pretend that I'm "changing the rules", somehow or other. Why would I credit this garbage even in passing? Give me something to work with; some reason to scroll up and bother fishing through your old posts to see what you're weaseling around now.

If by "in this case," you mean "whenever it's a politician," then okay

Do you have the faintest conception of why I think Napolitano should be able to provide a concrete answer in this case? This isn't rhetorical: I'm genuinely interested in what you actually know about it. Although, amusingly, you tacitly take up the very argument you're trying to make regarding me: that I'm jaded. The relation between any of this and the initial discussion is tenuous in the extreme, but that's par for your course, though, isn't it?: Refute, assassinate, and then agonize over minutiae until the problem stops being your problem. I'm only ashamed I followed you down this ridiculous spiral in good faith. What in the hell did I think I would find down here? Your integrity? That's like debating how many angels fit on the head of a pin: it doesn't matter, because they don't exist.

And you're not skeptical. You've already said you suspect that he is being deported, meaning that you've already decided that Napolitano is lying.

Wrong yet again: nor do you in particular get to speculate on the meanings of "jaded" and "skeptical" after the above. I mean, it would be too much to imagine that you understand the intricacies of language beyond quote-mining a thesaurus, really. "Hey! It's listed as a synonym! Well that must mean they're completely coincident!" Jesus, you realize that a lot of that is filler, right? Do you have a conception of the meaning of the word correlation beyond the mystical or seraphic? If not, it would certainly explain your devotion to reductionist absolutism. Maybe you gave up on religion too early: I could see you as some kind of psychodramatic Bishop, maybe even a chief Inquisitor if you worked at it hard enough. Don't take this as some kind of protestation over your (monomaniacal) digressions; take it as a fair commentary on your personality. Forewarned is forearmed, isn't it?

Honestly, I started this just to correct the error in your thinking, not to give you a heart attack. It's okay, Geoff, nobody in your real life has to know about this. No reason to burst blood vessels over it.

No no, you fundamentally misunderstand, as you usually do: I write in such a manner precisely because you mean so little. I've decided to treat you as you really deserve, instead of being scrupulously polite all the time. It was actually really cathartic: Why hold back with yet another pointless internet hack?, I asked myself. And, when I was finally honest with myself about it, there was really no reason to do so. Why, specifically, should I give you more credit than you're worth? I mean it seems obvious, but I was raised to be generous. Mea culpa.

I don't know whether I should be more surprised by your desperation, or your knack for getting the meaning of words wrong. Here, I'll play the highlight game as well.

It's unfortunate that you still don't get the distinction between them, but that's okay. I'll help you out yet again - but much more of this and I'm going to have to ask for some kind of remuneration!

1. an act or instance of judging.

I'm still in process, so this one falls down.

2. the ability to judge, make a decision, or form an opinion objectively, authoritatively, and wisely, especially in matters affecting action; good sense; discretion: a man of sound judgment.

And the above is the ability to, not the action thereof, representing yet another grammatical fail for you since we're referring to the event of or action of my supposed judgement on the Napolitano case. But from your citation of this meaning - going so far as to bold it - I guess I should conclude that you think I am indeed possessed of sound objective judgement. Thus I can only regret that I cannot help agreeing with you here. It was an unwitting compliment, so I won't bother to thank you for it.

3. the demonstration or exercise of such ability or capacity: The major was decorated for the judgment he showed under fire.
4. the forming of an opinion, estimate, notion, or conclusion, as from circumstances presented to the mind:
5. the opinion formed

And, no opinion having been formed, this one crashes too. I'm going to make it simple for you. Your usage means I have concluded in this opinion. To wit:

Of course, "conclusion" and "decision" are not antonyms of "suspicion."

Nor are they synonyms. And that is your... 'argument'... done. Well played.

Look, instead of you whinging about English usage, maybe you could simply read what I write down, and ask for clarification where you're confused, instead of trying to project a position you want desperately to be able to attack, since commentary at Fox News or Blaze is apparently somehow out of your reach. I'm not sure why they can't satisfy your urges for mental masturbation, but if you really need some kind of professional comfort, why not call them up? I'm sure they'd be happy to talk to you, and I know you're dying to talk to someone about it. Get the poison out, is my advice.

This guy didn't, and look what happened to him; I'm sure you appreciate the reference

So let me get this straight: The only possible outcome of them claiming they have sources saying X when X isn't true is that they made up the source? It couldn't possibly be that their sources are full of shit?

I see you finally grabbed onto this possibility, but didn't notice that in such a case their sources would be guilty of fraud. It isn't a stack of turtles all the way down, JDawg. There's an originator, a fact which has eluded you. Do you understand now? Let me spell it out: if this story is false, I would like to see someone punished for it. This is part and parcel of why I haven't committed - as if one really could - to their narrative. Is this really beyond you, or are you playing this one up to satisfy some deeper longing for recognition? Charitably, maybe, I really have to go with the latter. No need to thank me: I could see from your last responses that I really hit the mark on that personal esteem stuff.

Actually, it's a dragon from A Song of Ice and Fire, the fantasy series from which the TV show Game of Thrones is adapted.

Before satisfying your need to feed your ego on this not-quite-distinction here, have you ever stopped to wonder what people might think about seeing what you feed it? =D

There are people who have named their children after characters in the books. Adopting one as a screen name on an anonymous internet forum is pretty mild by comparison.

But still incredibly sad. Nonetheless: my apologies for pointing this out.

Stripey black sweater? I'm afraid I'm not as up on my steampunk references as you. Who wears stripey black sweaters?

And ASoIaF isn't steampunk, but you knew that already.

Actually I just assumed it was largely tied in with goths. Good on you for knowing the difference. I guess.

I'm going to return to the discussion now, as I like. You can quit spewing shit, or spew. I don't really care.

 

[GeoffP]

GeoffP


Consider this a public warning. If you continue, I will issue you with an infraction.

So dial it back about 10 notches, calm down, walk away and don't return to the thread until you can post without comparing people to paedophiles, amongst the many insults you regurgitated in that post, including insulting his mother...

Infract away.

I didn't compare him to a paedophile: I only compared their mutual perseverance. Didn't you compare him to a mass murderer or something?

But fine: I'll keep him in perspective. He's embarrassed himself enough already anyway.

 

[Balerion]

I'm not responding to the troll anymore. He's harmed his own image and credibility more than I could have ever hoped to anyway.

 

[Bells]

Infract away.

I didn't compare him to a paedophile: I only compared their mutual perseverance. Didn't you compare him to a mass murderer or something?

But fine: I'll keep him in perspective. He's embarrassed himself enough already anyway.

I believe I advised him that his attitudes towards Muslims in that thread was similar to the attitudes expressed in a certain manifesto.

But thank you for trying to play nice from now on.. Emphasis on the 'trying'. But try a tad harder. I don't feel like enduring the paperwork infracting you would entail (given our history) this afternoon because it is a nice day, my children are at school, hopefully dazzling their teachers with their intelligence and wit and not sitting in a corner picking their respective noses and eating what comes out of it, and I am relaxing at home with my feet up while contemplating whether I should aquascape the fish tank yet again to await the arrival of my son's fry that will be hopefully be born in the coming weeks (hopefully sooner rather than later as she is eating 20 times her weight in everything at the moment) and drawing up a list of what I would want for said aquascaping (new amazing hobby)..

Now back to your corner before your frowning forehead wrecks your botox injections..

Go on now.. git..

 

[joepistole]

ah yes. Chaff because a BLOND WOMAN with a backpack has 3 officers pointing guns at her because she bears a striking resemblance to a 19 year old Male with dark hair. Oh and dont be talking on the phone cuz you might be mistaken for a terrorist. Embarrassing.

You are writting nonsense again. You are letting your fantasies run wild.

Apparently, no one told the Mayor it wasnt really a lockdown. Here is the Mayor saying LOCKDOWN - 3:30 through 4:59 LOCKDOWN.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/video-bost...ure-released-awaits-charges/story?id=19009283

Yeah. Word games from politicians. I never SIGNED a paper...

The link you posted doesn’t say what you seem to think it says. The bottom line here is that you have no evidence for the mandatory lockdown you have been claiming, in no small part because none existed. As previously pointed out to you and proven with direct statements from government officials including the governor of Massachusetts, Governor Patrick, the government requested people stay home. It was not mandatory. It was not an order.

Further, what happened in Boston, Cambridge and Watertown did not result in the fear, intimidation and depression terrorist were so desperately hoping for, but rather a great example of American determination, spirit and cooperation between townspeople, and local, state and federal government.

Terrorists have made and continue to make the same mistake dictators and fascist have repeatedly made throughout history, underestimating The United States. They take our openness and our freedom as weakness never understanding it is our strength.

 

[eram]

ah yes. Chaff because a BLOND WOMAN with a backpack has 3 officers pointing guns at her because she bears a striking resemblance to a 19 year old Male with dark hair. Oh and dont be talking on the phone cuz you might be mistaken for a terrorist. Embarrassing.

he coulda forced a bomb on her

 

[Balerion]

Nevermind. Not important.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

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.

Point taken re WWII, I'll drop that line of discussion.
It might make an interesting discussion for another thread,
but it has no place here.

What I was trying to say, badly, was that while Boston men and women were right to obey the police orders,
I hope that they thought them overcautious.

You are the first person I've heard mention this "sheltering in place" request.
Does that mean that if they went about business they thought necessary that they would not get into trouble?
If they would be arrested, then the sheltering request is a euphemism for lockdown.
Once this is over, someone needs to look at the huge amount of disinformation which has occurred.
Lockdown is the word I have continually heard from every source,
and if true it would have been capitulation to terrorism.

Perhaps you can tell me if any newspaper reported this accurately from the off.
Perhaps, then, I could use it with confidence regarding future US events.
I'm beginning to feel that I can't believe a word I hear.

 

[milkweed]

The bottom line here is that you have no evidence for the mandatory lockdown you have been claiming, in no small part because none existed. As previously pointed out to you and proven with direct statements from government officials including the governor of Massachusetts, Governor Patrick, the government requested people stay home. It was not mandatory. It was not an order.

I never used the term Mandatory. This is the first you have used the term Mandatory. What a reasonable person would conclude is the oft used term when a judge is giving instructions to a jury of your peers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

I have given video links to people reporting how the police interpreted the instructions (blonde woman). We still havent found out about the people taken into custody on friday (what were the circumstances) or if they have been released. Plenty of sources concluded Lockdown including the Mayor. Your not going to claim that abc news, the new yorker, NBC, and the mayor are all unreasonable persons are you?

The powers that be will learn from this situation, I just dont think the conclusion should be we can mealy mouth our way around the constitution. Way too many people are NOT terrorists and shouldnt be regarded as such (in the interest of public safety).