4 ms·

I wasn't frightened. I considered it the best, most effective way of helping Law enforcement to do their jobs. Which, BTW worked. One day of lockdown and the cr

I wasn't frightened. I considered it the best, most effective way of helping Law enforcement to do their jobs. Which, BTW worked. One day of lockdown and the crisis was over. Compare that to the DC snipers referenced in the article.

stefantalpalaru 13y ago
Will you be willing to help law enforcement again by staying in your home each time an armed suspect is on the run?
- bsg75 13y ago
  On the rare occurrence that the suspect is armed with and has deployed homemade explosive devices on two separate occasions, the first in a very public setting? Yes.
  - jrockway 13y ago
    Then the terrorists have won. Now all anyone needs to do to cost the economy a billion dollars is fill a pressure cooker with some marbles and black powder. Instead of killing 3 people, he destroys the lifetime value of hundreds. It's like DNS amplification attacks, but in real life. Great...
    - afterburner 13y ago
      They caught the guys within days, and the suspects didn't get very far at all. I'm pretty sure Boston, and all its residents, won. If the US can't afford billions of dollars to prevent the murder of potentially dozens more innocents and the extremely quick capture of such dangerous criminals, then what the heck is the point of all that money.
    - bsg75 13y ago
      > he destroys the lifetime value of hundreds Lifetime? Now that is an amplification.
      - jellicle 13y ago
        Not in the slightest. Humans live for perhaps 30,000 days total. If you make 30,000 humans waste a day, you've destroyed one life in its entirety. If you make 720,000 humans waste an hour, you've destroyed one life. Security theater in the U.S. has cost many thousands of lives in the past ten years, for nothing.
    - carbocation 13y ago
      I don't think your comment is a substantive response to bsg75's point. He started with "On the rare occurrence..." Exceptions can be made for exceptional circumstances. If, God forbid, terrorism on US soil becomes commonplace, then his point is no longer applicable (since his point is about rare things).
- Anechoic 13y ago
  This actually happens fairly regularly after armed robberies and gang activity, although the affected area tends to only be a few blocks. But if I am aware of a real danger posed by the armed subject (for example, the suspect has killed an innocent homeowner rather than thug-on-thug crime) and the restrictions are voluntary and temporary, then yes, I'm will in help out.
  - largesse 13y ago
    It's a slippery slope. Right now is voluntary, but there's a very good chance that if it happens more often, police will find public support for arresting people who don't comply. The news media is making it worse by taking "lockdown", a term that originated in prisons and then appropriated by schools and throwing it around in this context. Schools, at least, have some sort of legal basis for restricting movement as they are loco in parentis for minors. There is no legal basis for doing this to adults in cities short of an actual declaration of martial law.
youngerdryas 13y ago
That comment is only being upvoted because it implies that America isn't a first world country which some insecure souls need to believe contrary to all evidence.
thoughtsimple 13y ago
Of course not. It depends completely on the situation. No one here complained about the shelter in place request that I've heard of. People seem happy this was resolved so quickly.
hga 13y ago
Errr, did you/are you ignoring that the lockdown was a complete and total failure? That only until it was over did a subject (see my other comments, can't call Massachusetts residents citizens by the traditional meaning) exit his house and notice something amiss on his property (evidently outside the search parameter), resulting in him calling the police?
- thoughtsimple 13y ago
  I disagree. They tracked him to Watertown and he couldn't leave because there was no way to move without attracting suspicion. The shelter in place request did exactly what was supposed to.
  - hga 13y ago
    Good, this is a debatable point. Evidently he wasn't bleeding enough when he exited the carjacked Mercedes for dogs to follow him, so they knew roughly where he was, but drew the cordon a little too small (he was really into soccer, probably a good runner). So with enough surveillance, if he'd moved after daylight he might have been caught. Then again, the authorities denied themselves the use of thousands of eyeballs of Watertown subjects, who would have likely recognized him from the description (the point about blood above is that I'm assuming they assumed he wasn't bleeding heavily, a much stronger tell). And it was one of those subject's eyeballs after they came back into play that resulted in the end of the hunt. Given what we know now, it was a mistake. Given what I'm assuming they knew then, it was not obviously one.
    - hga 13y ago
      Ah, forgot one of the strong arguments I was thinking during the shutdown; as expressed by Megan McArdle (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/19/should-the-police-have-shut-boston-down.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/19/should-the-...): "it [sends a] message: if you set off bombs in a public space, we will shut down the city and hunt you like vermin until we find you." Of course, that only works if they actually do find you, which they didn't, although they might be able to spin it that way.
InclinedPlane 13y ago
By this logic attempting to look for Sunil Tripathi also "worked". Post hoc ergo propter hoc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

stefantalpalaru 13y ago

Will you be willing to help law enforcement again by staying in your home each time an armed suspect is on the run?

bsg75 13y ago
On the rare occurrence that the suspect is armed with and has deployed homemade explosive devices on two separate occasions, the first in a very public setting? Yes.
- jrockway 13y ago
  Then the terrorists have won. Now all anyone needs to do to cost the economy a billion dollars is fill a pressure cooker with some marbles and black powder. Instead of killing 3 people, he destroys the lifetime value of hundreds. It's like DNS amplification attacks, but in real life. Great...
  - afterburner 13y ago
    They caught the guys within days, and the suspects didn't get very far at all. I'm pretty sure Boston, and all its residents, won. If the US can't afford billions of dollars to prevent the murder of potentially dozens more innocents and the extremely quick capture of such dangerous criminals, then what the heck is the point of all that money.
  - bsg75 13y ago
    > he destroys the lifetime value of hundreds Lifetime? Now that is an amplification.
    - jellicle 13y ago
      Not in the slightest. Humans live for perhaps 30,000 days total. If you make 30,000 humans waste a day, you've destroyed one life in its entirety. If you make 720,000 humans waste an hour, you've destroyed one life. Security theater in the U.S. has cost many thousands of lives in the past ten years, for nothing.
  - carbocation 13y ago
    I don't think your comment is a substantive response to bsg75's point. He started with "On the rare occurrence..." Exceptions can be made for exceptional circumstances. If, God forbid, terrorism on US soil becomes commonplace, then his point is no longer applicable (since his point is about rare things).
Anechoic 13y ago
This actually happens fairly regularly after armed robberies and gang activity, although the affected area tends to only be a few blocks. But if I am aware of a real danger posed by the armed subject (for example, the suspect has killed an innocent homeowner rather than thug-on-thug crime) and the restrictions are voluntary and temporary, then yes, I'm will in help out.
- largesse 13y ago
  It's a slippery slope. Right now is voluntary, but there's a very good chance that if it happens more often, police will find public support for arresting people who don't comply. The news media is making it worse by taking "lockdown", a term that originated in prisons and then appropriated by schools and throwing it around in this context. Schools, at least, have some sort of legal basis for restricting movement as they are loco in parentis for minors. There is no legal basis for doing this to adults in cities short of an actual declaration of martial law.

youngerdryas 13y ago

That comment is only being upvoted because it implies that America isn't a first world country which some insecure souls need to believe contrary to all evidence.

thoughtsimple 13y ago

Of course not. It depends completely on the situation. No one here complained about the shelter in place request that I've heard of. People seem happy this was resolved so quickly.

hga 13y ago

Errr, did you/are you ignoring that the lockdown was a complete and total failure? That only until it was over did a subject (see my other comments, can't call Massachusetts residents citizens by the traditional meaning) exit his house and notice something amiss on his property (evidently outside the search parameter), resulting in him calling the police?

thoughtsimple 13y ago
I disagree. They tracked him to Watertown and he couldn't leave because there was no way to move without attracting suspicion. The shelter in place request did exactly what was supposed to.
- hga 13y ago
  Good, this is a debatable point. Evidently he wasn't bleeding enough when he exited the carjacked Mercedes for dogs to follow him, so they knew roughly where he was, but drew the cordon a little too small (he was really into soccer, probably a good runner). So with enough surveillance, if he'd moved after daylight he might have been caught. Then again, the authorities denied themselves the use of thousands of eyeballs of Watertown subjects, who would have likely recognized him from the description (the point about blood above is that I'm assuming they assumed he wasn't bleeding heavily, a much stronger tell). And it was one of those subject's eyeballs after they came back into play that resulted in the end of the hunt. Given what we know now, it was a mistake. Given what I'm assuming they knew then, it was not obviously one.
  - hga 13y ago
    Ah, forgot one of the strong arguments I was thinking during the shutdown; as expressed by Megan McArdle (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/19/should-the-police-have-shut-boston-down.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/19/should-the-...): "it [sends a] message: if you set off bombs in a public space, we will shut down the city and hunt you like vermin until we find you." Of course, that only works if they actually do find you, which they didn't, although they might be able to spin it that way.

InclinedPlane 13y ago

By this logic attempting to look for Sunil Tripathi also "worked". Post hoc ergo propter hoc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc