Enforcement Actions in Boston

[Kryssan]

Since noone actually took Isla's advice except for one person, I will just to comment on it myself.

Now that this is all over I have to say that I'm more than a little concerned how easy it was to turn an entire city into a police state, fugitive or no, fear is a very powerful motivator and it took little to no coaxing to get people to comply.

It wasn't martial law, nor was it a "police state", and more importantly, that's not really at all what happened. So, no.

The people going on about "Police State" this and "Military Rule" that have no idea what an actual police state is like.

Word choice is always important. And the above already covers this part of it.

People were put on lockdown and ordered to say inside, couldn't go anywhere, closed down all business ... perhaps "police state" is not the correct term but you had an entire city shut down for over half a day. It makes me nervous how easy that was.

I'm not going to sit here and spout any "omg coming for our guns" shit or anything like that, but I do have to say that it is a little disconcerting and doesn't leave an easy feeling in my mind. Take that for what you will, but it was scary for all involved, and I imagine it's just as scary for many who were not.

How "easy" it was? Have you been under a rock for the past 24 hrs?

Did people argue with it? This is what I mean by easy. I will shut up now, it's clear no one agrees with me. I am a law abiding citizen that is fearful when rights are taken away, even temporarily.

Included the elements that were still available for the sake of not taking items out of context. Now for discussion.

The 4th amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Based on this alone, I would personally say that no, the instance of the enforcement forces being able to do what they did was not an overreach of power nor should anyone particularly be concerned by it. Lets examine:

In this particular event, not only were people killed / injured in the initial attack, but in the follow on 'run' as well. Actions taken while the suspects ran also included the use of further IEDs, or so it has been said. Given this knowledge, would you really want to be outside where you could potentially be indiscriminately hit? By a bullet or a bomb? Call it fear control if you want, but I think it is more predominantly 'we don't want to die' mentality takeover, and as long as people feel the chances of that being feasible are high they're not really going to protest against simple protective measures of limited duration. I would hypothesize in this instance, people would probably have been willing to go a few days longer before 'unreasonable' became an actual item ( wrt 4th Amendment rights ).

The chase event only lasted for the span of a day or two. I do not think the outcome would ever have been a siege event ( unless we are shown later that the two suspects had outside influence they were attempting to make contact with ). If a siege event could have occurred, and the entire area was still kept under lockdown I think you might be able to have more of a substantial claim. But they wouldn't have the resources to do that for a long period anyway - we can examine past enforcement siege events and see that they don't correlate in this specific case.

Now, if the enforcement had been conducted in a brute force / ask no questions - take no prisoners / triggerhappy way, I think you would have seen protest and quite possibly further exacerbation. The enforcement units would have to contend not only with their suspect-at-large, but random family groups as well. That can rather quickly end up nasty, as has been seen in the past. I'm sure said recent past events played in the minds of those orchestrating this enforcement action.

From a conspiracy standpoint, how long do you really think enforcement details could artificially maintain 'we don't wanna die mentality' where people give others the impression of 'easy control', as specified above? I don't imagine they could do it more than 2 weeks at a maximum before public outpour became a serious contention point to where groups were starting to collaborate with one another against enforcement details - even if it was only limited to the more radical groups. Keep in mind just how 'connected' people generally were during this event. I think in past times where dissemination of information was more difficult you could control people for longer periods of time, but could you actually 'blackout' an entire sector for any sustainable time lapse in populated America? In other places around the world, accessibility of technology assists governments with keeping populations in check, but America generally doesn't suffer from this same problem.

[thetruepandagod]

but in the follow on 'run' as well.

Link me prz

[Kryssan]

Link me prz

Link you to what specifically? Or just all of it? There was a rather good summary link in the other thread, wonder if I can find it...

[thetruepandagod]

Link you to what specifically? Or just all of it? There was a rather good summary link in the other thread, wonder if I can find it...

Specifically civilians that were killed or maimed after the explosion during the car jacking/hide and seek funtime.

[Kryssan]

Specifically civilians that were killed or maimed after the explosion during the car jacking/hide and seek funtime.

Ah, I included police officers with 'people' in my earlier post regarding the hide / seek fun time. AFAIK, the only civvy particularly involved with that was the carjack victim who reportedly was unharmed. An interesting side note, considering they didn't appear to have a particular disdain for killing.

[thetruepandagod]

the only civvy particularly involved with that was the carjack victim who reportedly was unharmed.

Pretty much what i thought but i didn't follow this all very closely at all.

[Boyiee]

Being told to stay in your homes is a safety issue. It's safer for you, your family, your kids, and the police trying to apprehend the suspects in your backyard. When you put yourself in danger, you put others in danger, you put police in danger. Police/Fire/EMS make entry into houses without permission all the time. Unconscious patient, no one around, guess we'll wait a few hours to get that warrant to enter. House is on fire, small child inside. Guess we'll wait for someone to get a hold of a parent. Fugitive in your house, holding you at gun point. Well you said we couldn't enter, sorry.

People have homeowners insurance for a reason. It's just a door or window, it's not worth much, but someones life is.

[thetruepandagod]

Genuinely curious what would have happened if people started engaging stand your ground laws.

[Boyiee]

We had a manhunt here after an armed cop killer ran into a neighborhood. Every house had to be searched by SRT and cleared. No one seemed to complain considering he had a fucking gun and was already willing to kill a cop, so he didn't have anything to lose.

I'm biased, but people can argue this shit all they want, when its your family, your child, you'll see things differently.

[Boyiee]

Genuinely curious what would have happened if people started engaging stand your ground laws.

They would be detained for interfering with a police investigation, and thought of as harboring a fugitive.

[thetruepandagod]

but muh freedumz

[Nephlite]

Genuinely curious what would have happened if people started engaging stand your ground laws.

Would have went poorly with all that heat on the streets. At that point when you're searching for a suspect, everyone is a target. God forbid if you look remotely like the suspect (i.e. L.A. during the Domer scare).

People have homeowners insurance for a reason. It's just a door or window, it's not worth much, but someones life is.

Or the state will pay you. Most agencies have insurance bonds for their police officers for these types of instances. I heard (can't verify) all our officers have $1,000,000 bonds on them for breaking stuff during duty. Once you exceed the limit though i'm sure it'll get revoked so don't blow up anything or drive cars in to buildings (or get sued).

[Talint]

What would have happened if people ventured outside? Were they going to be detained? Arrested? Moreover, was there a greater good for violating the order? I don't buy into nebulous concepts of "freedom" and "liberty" for something like this, since there's a very clear public safety issue here.

[Churchill]

The real issue is more that there really is no martial law as it is actually defined, and martial law is illegal in the sense that it can only be employed during an invasion or rebellion. Further on that point, the Supreme Court ruled it can only be invoked in those situations IF the civilian government/courts are no longer functioning.

That said, what is a more accurate term for what occurs would be the suspension of Habeus Corpus and violation of the 4th/5th amendments.

This is also ignoring the fact that our military/police/judicial system is so intertwined that there wouldn't really need to be due process or compelling evidence or really anything to get a warrant issued if needed in a situation like what occurred in Boston (for better or worse).

As far as what happened, I don't know. I wasn't there, so I assume the truth lies somewhere between everything was voluntary and martial law was enacted as evidence of both could be seen.

Castle Law: Also wasn't there. I am the type of person who doesn't really elevate a cop/firefighter/EMS over normal civilians. If a cop is harassing you, threatening you, then I really feel you are within your rights to stop that threat with the proper escalation of force. Police officers jobs are not to protect you as citizens, but to enforce the law, and that is something you should always keep in mind when dealing with them. Shit's situational (lol) and obviously not every time a cop gives you a hard time should you pull your .45 from under your seat and start busting caps...but there is definitely a time and place for defending yourself. You are not dealing with the brightest people in the world and there is definitely a predominant level of stupid, power tripped brute that you are face to face with.

The best solution is to just do whatever they say and hope they don't shoot you or beat the shit out of you, but at some level this just isn't an acceptable course of action.

[Mazmaz]

Being told to stay in your homes is a safety issue. It's safer for you, your family, your kids, and the police trying to apprehend the suspects in your backyard. When you put yourself in danger, you put others in danger, you put police in danger. Police/Fire/EMS make entry into houses without permission all the time. Unconscious patient, no one around, guess we'll wait a few hours to get that warrant to enter. House is on fire, small child inside. Guess we'll wait for someone to get a hold of a parent. Fugitive in your house, holding you at gun point. Well you said we couldn't enter, sorry.

People have homeowners insurance for a reason. It's just a door or window, it's not worth much, but someones life is.

I just wanna point out that this is the correct way to argue issues like this. On the moral basis of them. I'm getting real tired of seeing people bringing up the Constitution in every thread and basing their argument around it. When you don't have the legal expertise to form arguments on the Constitution, it's like thumping the damn Bible.

[NynJa]

I wonder if these people complaining about "infringed rights" would feel if somewhere in their area was harboring a person with high powered rifle(s) and multiple bombs who clearly is NOT afraid to use them.

[Acevalefor]

Several months ago there was an armed robbery about a half mile away from my house where the suspect took a hostage when he left the scene. My house was at the edge of the perimeter that was set up so there were a couple of local LEOs that I was able to chat with while they milled around. One of the officers explained it quite nicely to me.

He said that if I was ordered to stay inside my house, there was nothing they could do to keep me inside. In the instance of an officer telling you to do something for your safety, you do not have to comply but you will suffer the consequences. If your refusal to comply jeopardizes other citizens or officers, you pay he consequence for that too. If I were to refuse to go inside and did nothing but sit in my yard watching the searches and no harm came to anyone from my refusal, The consequence would be harsh words from the officer and a mental note for any future incidents involving me. Basically the officer(this particular one) would hold a grudge because you did not comply.

After that explanation, it really makes it easy to make the decision. It's for my safety, I don't have to comply, I have the freedom to choose not to, I have nothing to gain by not going inside, and there are potential criminal charges if I cause someone else to be harmed. Sounds like a really hard decision to make for some people.

[hey]

I wonder if these people complaining about "infringed rights" would feel if somewhere in their area was harboring a person with high powered rifle(s) and multiple bombs who clearly is NOT afraid to use them.

They would likely waive their rights, if they thought it was in their best interest. Just because people are likely to not care doesn't mean it's okay to take their choice away.

[Tarage]

I still say it's stupid to compare what happened to a "police state".

Somehow it seems like people in the states who bitch about America turning into a police state have never had to live in one.

[Tyrath]

As someone who actually is in Boston right now, the authorities did tell people to stay inside, but unless you were in the hotzone (mostly Watertown) they didn't really enforce it. In Allston/brighton, the towns next door and also where my girlfriend lives, tons of people were out and about. Many of them were simply going for a run. The cops didn't do anything to them. So no, I don't think this shit was anything like a police state.

Maybe it was more so in the Waterton area, but if you don't understand why people in those area should've been staying in for their own safety, I don't even know what to tell you. Not gonna have much freedoms if you're dead.