3 ms·

This is ridiculous. It wasn't martial law security theater - it was unprecedented community-level collaboration. Security forces had absolutely no way to forc

This is ridiculous. It wasn't martial law security theater - it was unprecedented community-level collaboration. Security forces had absolutely no way to force/require the citizens to stay in, and probably wouldn't have been anywhere near as effective in coordinating if the citizens hadn't helped out.

hga 14y ago
All their efforts and "coordinating" were a complete and total failure. Repeating again, a point made in the original, it was only after the shelter in place request/implicit order (after Dornan in California it's take it as a "if you want to stay unperforated, stay indoors..." sort of "request": http://12160.info/forum/topics/two-women-shot-in-manhunt-for-ex-lapd-cop?commentId=2649739%3AComment%3A1116109 http://12160.info/forum/topics/two-women-shot-in-manhunt-for...) was lifted that a Massachusettes subject exited his house, noticed something was amiss and called the police.
- afterburner 14y ago
  And it was the lockdown that prevented the suspect from getting anywhere until that point.
  - usea 14y ago
    What was gained by making it difficult for the suspect to move for a day? Increased probability of him bleeding out? Scenario 1) No lockdown. Suspect is discovered immediately by homeowner. Scenario 2) Lockdown. Suspect hides for a day, and is discovered immediately when the lockdown is over. What is gained in scenario 2? Specifically, when weighed against the cost of the lockdown.
    - afterburner 14y ago
      What if the resident hadn't been at home because he/she went to work as normal? What if without a lockdown the search radius widens so much that the suspect is able to escape a great distance? How on earth can you rely on the suspect being too injured to move? Don't you think the lockdown was part of the reason the suspect was forced to hide in the first place, and part of the reason the resident was present and primed for anything different going on?
    - csixty4 14y ago
      Look, I'm not one of those people who goes around pointing out logical fallacies everywhere. Frankly, I think those people are obnoxious. But you've described a pretty obvious false dichotomy. A lot of things could have happened without the lockdown, including attacks on public transit, attacks on crowded public areas, and a better chance of him fleeing town on foot or in a car without being noticed. It's not as simple as your two scenarios.
    - Anechoic 14y ago
      More like: Scenario 1) No lockdown. Homeowner goes to work, goes out to dinner with colleagues after work, goes to a movie/bar/club and doesn't return home until 1am. Notices boat has been disturbed, checks and doesn't find anything because the suspect fled hours earlier.
  - tunesmith 14y ago
    I don't think you even have to argue that the lockdown "worked" in that sense. Who cares if it didn't "work"? Even aside from that, it reduced the probability of all sorts of unforeseen complications that would have made things worse for everyone. I think the burden here lies on the people who infer "the lockdown didn't immediately and directly cause the apprehension of the person, therefore it was an unspeakable tragedy against our liberties".
    - hga 14y ago
      "it reduced the probability of all sorts of unforeseen complications" Oh, you don't have to look very far to see potential "complications", e.g. http://12160.info/forum/topics/two-women-shot-in-manhunt-for-ex-lapd-cop?commentId=2649739%3AComment%3A1116109 http://12160.info/forum/topics/two-women-shot-in-manhunt-for...
- tunesmith 14y ago
  I think you are conflating two points. The story of the week was about citizen help. Citizen help in supplying media, helping to identify suspects, supplying additional photos, reporting news, finding/reporting the final location of the second suspect. I agree with that. But to then to say that therefore, everything would have gone better had the police told no one to stay indoors, that's quite a leap of logic. It's also worth noting that it was the fbi or police force's decision to lift the recommendation. It's just as easy to argue that that was wise on their part, as it was to ask for photographic help, etc. All in all this seems like a strained effort to make the police forces appear incompetent or unnecessary.
  - hga 14y ago
    I'm not making the claim that "everything would have gone better"; this subthread adresses the tradeoffs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5581940 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5581940 I, at least, am not saying they're incompetent, but there's no denying they made a mistake (size of the cordon), in 20/20 hindsight 2 mistakes (keeping all the eyeballs outside the cordon inside). ADDED: They made a mistake, but no innocents were seriously injured to our knowledge and the suspect was captured alive. Massachusettes subjects are not quite as disarmed as I gather Indian civilians are, but any terrorists thinking about attempting 2008 Mumbai style attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Mumbai_attacks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Mumbai_attacks) should notice the immediately availble police resources.... Always good to look at the bottom lines.

hga 14y ago

All their efforts and "coordinating" were a complete and total failure. Repeating again, a point made in the original, it was only after the shelter in place request/implicit order (after Dornan in California it's take it as a "if you want to stay unperforated, stay indoors..." sort of "request": http://12160.info/forum/topics/two-women-shot-in-manhunt-for-ex-lapd-cop?commentId=2649739%3AComment%3A1116109 http://12160.info/forum/topics/two-women-shot-in-manhunt-for...) was lifted that a Massachusettes subject exited his house, noticed something was amiss and called the police.

afterburner 14y ago
And it was the lockdown that prevented the suspect from getting anywhere until that point.
- usea 14y ago
  What was gained by making it difficult for the suspect to move for a day? Increased probability of him bleeding out? Scenario 1) No lockdown. Suspect is discovered immediately by homeowner. Scenario 2) Lockdown. Suspect hides for a day, and is discovered immediately when the lockdown is over. What is gained in scenario 2? Specifically, when weighed against the cost of the lockdown.
  - afterburner 14y ago
    What if the resident hadn't been at home because he/she went to work as normal? What if without a lockdown the search radius widens so much that the suspect is able to escape a great distance? How on earth can you rely on the suspect being too injured to move? Don't you think the lockdown was part of the reason the suspect was forced to hide in the first place, and part of the reason the resident was present and primed for anything different going on?
  - csixty4 14y ago
    Look, I'm not one of those people who goes around pointing out logical fallacies everywhere. Frankly, I think those people are obnoxious. But you've described a pretty obvious false dichotomy. A lot of things could have happened without the lockdown, including attacks on public transit, attacks on crowded public areas, and a better chance of him fleeing town on foot or in a car without being noticed. It's not as simple as your two scenarios.
  - Anechoic 14y ago
    More like: Scenario 1) No lockdown. Homeowner goes to work, goes out to dinner with colleagues after work, goes to a movie/bar/club and doesn't return home until 1am. Notices boat has been disturbed, checks and doesn't find anything because the suspect fled hours earlier.
- tunesmith 14y ago
  I don't think you even have to argue that the lockdown "worked" in that sense. Who cares if it didn't "work"? Even aside from that, it reduced the probability of all sorts of unforeseen complications that would have made things worse for everyone. I think the burden here lies on the people who infer "the lockdown didn't immediately and directly cause the apprehension of the person, therefore it was an unspeakable tragedy against our liberties".
  - hga 14y ago
    "it reduced the probability of all sorts of unforeseen complications" Oh, you don't have to look very far to see potential "complications", e.g. http://12160.info/forum/topics/two-women-shot-in-manhunt-for-ex-lapd-cop?commentId=2649739%3AComment%3A1116109 http://12160.info/forum/topics/two-women-shot-in-manhunt-for...
tunesmith 14y ago
I think you are conflating two points. The story of the week was about citizen help. Citizen help in supplying media, helping to identify suspects, supplying additional photos, reporting news, finding/reporting the final location of the second suspect. I agree with that. But to then to say that therefore, everything would have gone better had the police told no one to stay indoors, that's quite a leap of logic. It's also worth noting that it was the fbi or police force's decision to lift the recommendation. It's just as easy to argue that that was wise on their part, as it was to ask for photographic help, etc. All in all this seems like a strained effort to make the police forces appear incompetent or unnecessary.
- hga 14y ago
  I'm not making the claim that "everything would have gone better"; this subthread adresses the tradeoffs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5581940 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5581940 I, at least, am not saying they're incompetent, but there's no denying they made a mistake (size of the cordon), in 20/20 hindsight 2 mistakes (keeping all the eyeballs outside the cordon inside). ADDED: They made a mistake, but no innocents were seriously injured to our knowledge and the suspect was captured alive. Massachusettes subjects are not quite as disarmed as I gather Indian civilians are, but any terrorists thinking about attempting 2008 Mumbai style attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Mumbai_attacks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Mumbai_attacks) should notice the immediately availble police resources.... Always good to look at the bottom lines.