Author Topic: This scares me more than any terrorist bomb (Read 1269 times)

scotsman · « **on:** April 20, 2013, 04:31:47 AM »

The city of Boston was 'locked down', people told to stay inside and police enforcing a stay in your home order. People who went to work were not allowed to return to their homes. Schools and colleges closed, businesses closed, streets and roads closed. In a city of millions while they searched for two persons and later for one person. Other than Martial law who can order such a thing? The mayor? Police commissioner? The governor? Maybe I am old and cranky and I know it is always easy to talk big on the interwebs but I don't believe that anyone has the authority to order me to stay inside. There is just enough scotch-irish in me I don't think it would be possible for me to obey such 'orders'. I am glad the suspects were found and especially happy the one was taken alive so that information can be extracted. I do not want him executed, he is 19 and when found guilty I hope he spends the next 60 years in prison, a fate worse than simple death. I believe a much more dangerous thing than terrorism happened this week and it was the 'lock down' by authorities.

bilmac · « **Reply #1 on:** April 20, 2013, 04:55:21 AM »

My thoughts exactly. The terrorists don't have to do much, a couple of little pop gun bombs kills 3 and wounds a few folks. That much carnage probably happens every day on Bostons roads, and yet the sissys shut down the city. Worse yet could be new knee jerk reaction laws and regulations to suck our freedoms away from us. The way the country reacts to these events, just a few of them, and the lawmakers could be prompted to put everybody in straight jackets.

Wasn't it Ben Franklin that said something like, "People who give up freedom to gain security deserve neither." The people who wrote our constitution were some really smart guys.

DDZ · « **Reply #2 on:** April 20, 2013, 04:59:37 AM »

It appeared that the police had much freedom just barging into everyones home to search it. How is it that police can search your home, just because they are looking for a bad guy?

coyotejoe · « **Reply #3 on:** April 20, 2013, 05:08:23 AM »

No state of emergency was declared and police have no more authority than usual, if it were anywhere but Boston I would be surprised that police met no resistance. 240 years ago Boston was the cradle of liberty, today it seems to be the center of oppression.

kennyd · « **Reply #4 on:** April 20, 2013, 05:27:48 AM »

The police got permission to make sure homes were safe, from what I heard. They did the same thing here looking for the missing girl some months back. They also were taking DNA from all the neighbors. This included the killer's home, and he gave DNA. They also found other things they arrested people for. If I deny entry, will they get a warrant? I already know there is no one hiding here, and I know I did not rape and kill a little girl.

They didn't look at the boat if they did get to that neighborhood. I had figured they would finda body under a bush. I do not think I would have pulled the cover back as did the boat owner given the whole scenario.

It is a concern how easily the ones with power can impose their will on the whole populace. I wonder about anyone who would be traveling to hunt, to a range, or just carrying as some do. Next time the emergency may be civil unrest or some made up reason.

Dee · « **Reply #5 on:** April 20, 2013, 05:29:17 AM »

I agree! When there's a man hunt goin on, for a man that has slaughtered and maimed dozens of folks, I think we SHOULD be able to go out and wander around. It's our RIGHT, to make a dangerous and deadly task, more dangerous and deadly and COMPLICATED!

Better still! Send the damn police home, and tell'em your gonna find'em YOURSELF! That way, none of the police will get killed lookin for'em.

vabeachman · « **Reply #6 on:** April 20, 2013, 05:32:18 AM »

They should have used hounds for that second suspect. Would of found him very quickly.

Shu · « **Reply #7 on:** April 20, 2013, 05:50:16 AM »

Common sense should tell someone to stay the heck out of the way of this. I got nothing to prove by going out and showing the police I can do what I want. I surely would help if asked.

There are certain times when civil disobedience is nessecary, there are other times when it is best to do as asked. Wisdom is knowing the difference.

Dee · « **Reply #8 on:** April 20, 2013, 05:52:01 AM »

Yes of course, hounds would have been the answer. Ever been on a man hunt vabeachman? Ever used hounds on all those manhunts you were coordnatin? Ever try to stumble over rubberneckers, while lookin for a killer. Ever seen one of your fellow officers go down while riskin his ass, to keep someone for killin yours. Didn't think so.
Is Boston STILL on lock down? No, its not. I find it insanely goofy for such a topic to pop up after a terrorist attack, when most of the posters supported folks like John McCane, and Mitt Romney, whom were, and are devout socialists.
Why not just not have any more public gatherings, and that way none of you guys will lose any of your freedoms. Hell, maybe the next time they have a terrorist attack, one of you can exercise your freedom, and go out and volunteer to be carjacked by the terrorists, so they won't have to walk everywhere they go. Good grief!

Oldshooter · « **Reply #9 on:** April 20, 2013, 06:00:03 AM »

Quote

Common sense should tell someone to stay the heck out of the way of this.

Yea well,...... it is Boston But you are correct!
What I find curious is that the kid escaped in the first place, and it took all that time and a little old lady to find him. They dont have police dogs there?

spruce · « **Reply #10 on:** April 20, 2013, 06:01:50 AM »

No doubt Boston is near the center of the universe when it comes to liberalism, but if you recall there was no "order" for people to remain in their homes/businesses.

Every broadcast I heard, from the governor on down to the various police officials, did not order the people to do anything. They "recommended", "asked", "urged", but did NOT order.

The police weren't forcing their way into people's homes, they were asking permission to search. They even stated at one point during the search that they were not searching every home, but were searching in a somewhat random pattern, trying to cover as much area in a short amount of time as they could.

The part that seems amazing to me is that people are so stupid they have to be told that it could be dangerous to go out walking around the neighborhood when a killer is known to be at large in the neighborhood!

The best example of how totally helpless those people (not all, I'm sure) were is the guy who actually climbed up and lifted the tarp to look in his boat! For the most part they are just totally incapable of taking care of themselves, not unusual at all for suburbanites.

williamlayton · « **Reply #11 on:** April 20, 2013, 06:11:04 AM »

To ask---sternly perhaps--for co-operation is one thing-----and I agree that it was in the best interest to everyone---is justified.
It is a hard question we have to ask ourownselves.
Do we co-operate or do we demand our rights ? I think--just my opinion--folks would be very un-wise to not co-operate. Not just because they are giving up rights, they are in fact assisting police in protecting them.
I think the OP is a little to paranoid. Not everything the police try and do is a bad thing. We gave up a lot of rights in WWII in the name of national security. Some were trounced upon--but--like a lot of things where time is of importance--some things have to be delt with later.
Blessings

Dee · « **Reply #12 on:** April 20, 2013, 06:11:25 AM »

Oldshooter, I know a lot about police dogs. How do you "think" that works? Or do you "know"? You just get ole RinTinTin out of the unit and holler FETCH? He goes and gets the TERRORIST by the arm, drags him back to the unit, and everyone takes a "donut break".
Do you really think that the police, FBI, ATF, Secret Service, and others didn't use everything at their disposal to find this guy. Have you ever been in a gun fight AT NIGHT, with someone shootin at you, and throwin grenades at you? Oh, and by the way, when you were doin all this, being aware that you were in a "residential area" with thousands of innocents. How often do you participate in such activities by the way?
The "kid" got away during a hellish shootout where everyone was tryin to do their job without getting killed, or killin any innocents. That's how he got away.

I find it incredible that L.E. risked their lives, one got killed, another wounded, trying to protect the public, and they get this kind of treatment after they caught the guy, without anyone else getting hurt or killed. Shame on them for keepin everyone out of the pizza parlor.

brettcar · « **Reply #13 on:** April 20, 2013, 06:27:03 AM »

I'm just glad that this man ignored the "request" to stay indoors & had the guts to check his property out. If he had remained in his home, they would probably still be searching, & the criminal would now be dead & unable to give any information. Watertown Hero David Henneberry Points Police to Bomb Suspect

scotsman · « **Reply #14 on:** April 20, 2013, 06:39:56 AM »

Dee I know that you are retired police and have strong opinions, I respect that. All I ask is that you respect my opinion. I am an American and am endowed by the creator with certain inalienable rights. Among those rights are Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of happiness. None of those are subject to suspension by mayors, police officials, or state governors. The police have a job to do I will aid them in anyway possible if asked. What I will not do is surrender those rights. If we disagree then we simply disagree and nothing will be lost from it. But I believe what happened is not a slippery slope but a sheer cliff when officals make and enforce such'orders'. At what time and under what conditions can such an 'order' be used again?

DDZ · « **Reply #15 on:** April 20, 2013, 06:45:51 AM »

I'm really not making a statement, I'm asking a question. Do police have right to entry to your home if looking for a Criminal? I know if you give consent, but what if they come to your door and tell you they are looking for a bad guy and want to search your home. If you tell them no there is no one here but me and my family. Do the police say we are coming in anyway? Or do they get a warrant, and can they obtain a warrant based on looking for a criminal? Or do they say thats fine, and leave? Do the police have this right to enter homes any time they are looking for a dangerous man? By dangerous man, I mean anyone that has killed people with a bomb, gun, knife, etc.

vabeachman · « **Reply #16 on:** April 20, 2013, 07:14:20 AM »

I specifically stated the second terrorist. I realize dogs would not have been any help in the night chase. But when a criminal is on foot, dogs have been very effective in catching them.

vabeachman · « **Reply #17 on:** April 20, 2013, 07:16:39 AM »

I would have stayed indoors and not hampered the police in the catching of the terrorist.

mannyrock · « **Reply #18 on:** April 20, 2013, 07:16:55 AM »

To answer your question: Yes, the police have the right to enter any home without a warrant to arrest a criminal, but only if they are in "hot pursuit." This has been the law for hundreds of years, steming from the ancient common law of England. The definition of hot pursuit can vary from juridiction to jurisdiciton, but basically it is defined as being in the act of pursuing a felon, with little or no break in visual or other "contact" with the fleeing felon during the apprehension.

I understand that Dee is a retired office, so he may be able to give you the definition that was taught to him as an officer.

And by the way, game wardens enjoy a very special right of entry. They have the right to enter any premises to search for illegally taken game, if they have probable cause to believe it is there, without ever getting any warrant from a judge or other judicial authority. They do not have to be in hot pursuit. This too has been the law for hundreds of years, arising from English common law.

Seriously, I think you guys should be more concerned with coronary disease, obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, cancer and lyme disease that this silly diatribe as to some fictional authority, in a time of emergency, ordering you to stay in your house for a while. Nobody ordered anybody to do anything in Boston. They only asked and urged.

And yes, the President and all Governors have the right to declare martial law. And yes, if the Governor of Massachusetts had wanted to, he could have declared martial law. It is a discretionary versus ministerial governmental act, and is there not subject to review by other politicos or people.

Regards, Mannyrock

Oldshooter · « **Reply #19 on:** April 20, 2013, 07:20:48 AM »

Quote from: Dee on April 20, 2013, 06:11:25 AM

Oldshooter, I know a lot about police dogs. How do you "think" that works? Or do you "know"? You just get ole RinTinTin out of the unit and holler FETCH? He goes and gets the TERRORIST by the arm, drags him back to the unit, and everyone takes a "donut break".
Do you really think that the police, FBI, ATF, Secret Service, and others didn't use everything at their disposal to find this guy. Have you ever been in a gun fight AT NIGHT, with someone shootin at you, and throwin grenades at you? Oh, and by the way, when you were doin all this, being aware that you were in a "residential area" with thousands of innocents. How often do you participate in such activities by the way?
The "kid" got away during a hellish shootout where everyone was tryin to do their job without getting killed, or killin any innocents. That's how he got away.

I find it incredible that L.E. risked their lives, one got killed, another wounded, trying to protect the public, and they get this kind of treatment after they caught the guy, without anyone else getting hurt or killed. Shame on them for keepin everyone out of the pizza parlor.

Pick your battles Dee, you dont have one with me, or do ya? I think I agreed with your general premise. I do have an idea how the police dog works but I didn't see any in all the coverage. And the police seem to have missed the kid in the boat or the shed, a dog might not have ya think! From now on we wont have any discussion when the police are concerned we will just wait till you post, then you and you can fill us in about any questions we might be stupid enough to ask.

I can even see the kid escaping during a night firefight, if it were just one or two cops, but I was led to believe that there were many. Maybe thats how he escaped, in the confusion.

The Kid was on foot and they had the car he stole, might not a dog have led them to him.
Dont know about the Pizza parlor but, the Duncan donut shop was open(fox remarked about that) But maybe that was the command center.

Dont know that any are second guessing the LEO, just asking questions.

Shu · « **Reply #20 on:** April 20, 2013, 07:29:55 AM »

In a situation like in Boston does complying really infringe on your rights? I personnaly don't feel it does. I think in that situation it is part of being a responsible citizen.

The police only have the right to enter your house if they are in hot pursuit of the suspect. That means they have identified him and saw him go in. Chances are if he is a killer you want them there anyway. Normally police in these type of searches will ask to look, You can say no if you want to. They will probably ask if you are hiding something.

The police cannot just walk into your house. Nor can they just remove someone from private property (there are circumstances they can though). If you are really in doubt, ask a lawyer or do some internet searches. 99.9% of the time the cop is just trying to do his job legitimately. Yes there are a few bad apples. They are well known by fellow law enforcment.

Simply put, if the officer asks, show identity. Be polite and do not get smart mouthed. You can always ask for legal counsel. Don't let them bait you with statements to make you angry. Be polite and keep asking for legal counsel. Do not get angry, do not get smart mouthed or insulting. Again ask for legal counsel. Did I mention ask for legal counsel. You have the right to remain silent. So shut up and wait for legal counsel.

Dee · « **Reply #21 on:** April 20, 2013, 08:18:03 AM »

Quote from: Oldshooter on April 20, 2013, 07:20:48 AM

Quote from: Dee on April 20, 2013, 06:11:25 AM
Oldshooter, I know a lot about police dogs. How do you "think" that works? Or do you "know"? You just get ole RinTinTin out of the unit and holler FETCH? He goes and gets the TERRORIST by the arm, drags him back to the unit, and everyone takes a "donut break".
Do you really think that the police, FBI, ATF, Secret Service, and others didn't use everything at their disposal to find this guy. Have you ever been in a gun fight AT NIGHT, with someone shootin at you, and throwin grenades at you? Oh, and by the way, when you were doin all this, being aware that you were in a "residential area" with thousands of innocents. How often do you participate in such activities by the way?
The "kid" got away during a hellish shootout where everyone was tryin to do their job without getting killed, or killin any innocents. That's how he got away.

I find it incredible that L.E. risked their lives, one got killed, another wounded, trying to protect the public, and they get this kind of treatment after they caught the guy, without anyone else getting hurt or killed. Shame on them for keepin everyone out of the pizza parlor.
Pick your battles Dee, you dont have one with me, or do ya? I think I agreed with your general premise. I do have an idea how the police dog works but I didn't see any in all the coverage. And the police seem to have missed the kid in the boat or the shed, a dog might not have ya think! From now on we wont have any discussion when the police are concerned we will just wait till you post, then you and you can fill us in about any questions we might be stupid enough to ask.
I can even see the kid escaping during a night firefight, if it were just one or two cops, but I was led to believe that there were many. Maybe thats how he escaped, in the confusion.

The Kid was on foot and they had the car he stole, might not a dog have led them to him.
Dont know about the Pizza parlor but, the Duncan donut shop was open(fox remarked about that) But maybe that was the command center.
Dont know that any are second guessing the LEO, just asking questions.

My point is Oldshooter, I don't have a battle with ANYONE. I saw lots of police dogs there, and a lot of other equipment. It just baffles me how UNTRAINED folks can come up with a solution AFTER THE FACT, and criticize other folks that are layin their life on the line, so people can have a once a year foot race. I gave my opinion, and most of the cop haters don't care what I think anyway, but the sword cuts both ways on that. None of US were there, None of US knew the enviorment they were working under. I personally KNOW, that dogs do not always do what we can only HOPE they can at any given circumstances.
This was a bad event, and people got hurt, and some got killed, and now the critics are makin it into something different. It was the police's fault, and they took to long. I think about all those people and their families. I also think about the cop that got killed tryin to stop the terrorists, and I think about his family, and their loss. Everyone did the best they could, with what they had, and now it's done. Let the critics begin, I guess. I know I'm wastin my time, and I regret doin it.

wolverine_1 · « **Reply #22 on:** April 20, 2013, 08:59:14 AM »

Dearest Dee, What you don't understand is that, with some justification, many people don't trust our police and "elected" officials to do the right thing or to protect them. I live near a minor West Coast city where the police were told, in effect, that they have to stop shooting so many people by the Federal Government. I try to stay out of the city whenever I can, but... Before I retired, I worked with a police chief of a small rural city who told me that his officers first job was to protect themselves and implied that if citizens could be protected after that, that was ok as well. That kind of attitude leaves a bad taste in most peoples mouths. Let's ban guns, knives, pressure cookers, ball bearings, sticks and stones so our police will feel safer. It doesn't seem to matter whether we, the people, feel safer. As my old high school principal used to say "A word to the wise is sufficient."

Dee · « **Reply #23 on:** April 20, 2013, 11:08:09 AM »

Quote from: wolverine_1 on April 20, 2013, 08:59:14 AM

Dearest Dee, What you don't understand is that, with some justification, many people don't trust our police and "elected" officials to do the right thing or to protect them. I live near a minor West Coast city where the police were told, in effect, that they have to stop shooting so many people by the Federal Government. I try to stay out of the city whenever I can, but... Before I retired, I worked with a police chief of a small rural city who told me that his officers first job was to protect themselves and implied that if citizens could be protected after that, that was ok as well. That kind of attitude leaves a bad taste in most peoples mouths. Let's ban guns, knives, pressure cookers, ball bearings, sticks and stones so our police will feel safer. It doesn't seem to matter whether we, the people, feel safer. As my old high school principal used to say "A word to the wise is sufficient."

Wolverine, what I DO UNDERSTAND is that with some justification may people don't trust our police and "elected" officials to do the right thing, or to protect them. I also UNDERSTAND, that there are good cops, and not so good cops, and I also UNDERSTAND that, there are people whom just plain don't like cops regardless of whether their good cops, or bad cops.
Now. The remark I DON'T UNDERSTAND, is the "Let's ban guns, knives, pressure cookers, ball bearings, sticks and stones, so our police will feel safer". The police aren't the ones wanting to ban anything. It's YOUR politicians, that YOU elected. So what's your point with that one?

Dee · « **Reply #24 on:** April 20, 2013, 11:14:37 AM »

Quote from: mannyrock on April 20, 2013, 07:16:55 AM

To answer your question: Yes, the police have the right to enter any home without a warrant to arrest a criminal, but only if they are in "hot pursuit." This has been the law for hundreds of years, steming from the ancient common law of England. The definition of hot pursuit can vary from juridiction to jurisdiciton, but basically it is defined as being in the act of pursuing a felon, with little or no break in visual or other "contact" with the fleeing felon during the apprehension.

I understand that Dee is a retired office, so he may be able to give you the definition that was taught to him as an officer.

I cannot add anything to that. It's correct except that "Search and Seizure Laws" are Federal, not local. What applies in Texas, applies in NYC.

And by the way, game wardens enjoy a very special right of entry. They have the right to enter any premises to search for illegally taken game, if they have probable cause to believe it is there, without ever getting any warrant from a judge or other judicial authority. They do not have to be in hot pursuit. This too has been the law for hundreds of years, arising from English common law.

This one I disagree with. Game Wardens are NOT a special lot. The search and seizure laws apply to them also, as I understand it.

Seriously, I think you guys should be more concerned with coronary disease, obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, cancer and lyme disease that this silly diatribe as to some fictional authority, in a time of emergency, ordering you to stay in your house for a while. Nobody ordered anybody to do anything in Boston. They only asked and urged.

Now this I completely agree with.

And yes, the President and all Governors have the right to declare martial law. And yes, if the Governor of Massachusetts had wanted to, he could have declared martial law. It is a discretionary versus ministerial governmental act, and is there not subject to review by other politicos or people.

This also is a true statement, and perhaps everyone here would have been happier if it had happened this way. Then they could really bi#*h.

wolverine_1 · « **Reply #25 on:** April 20, 2013, 11:18:03 AM »

I didn't elect them. I only vote for pro gun candidates. Actually, from my conversations with a couple of police officers, their primary concern is their own safety, not mine or yours or anyone elses but theirs and their families. I'm one of those who don't trust the cops or elected officials any farther than I can throw them. That comes from personal experience.

FPH · « **Reply #26 on:** April 20, 2013, 11:31:07 AM »

I think the Military type uniforms were a bit intimidating to some folks.

Dee · « **Reply #27 on:** April 20, 2013, 11:33:19 AM »

Of course it does, and you should feel that way. It is your right.
However, I don't armchair quarterback folks layin their lives on the line for others. The funny part of this thread is, the Boston folks, the ones it actually affected, came out into the streets in droves when the ordeal was over, and cheered the police as they were leaving the scene, high five'en them, and they shook their hands as they drove out, and thanked them PERSONALLY on nation wide TV. They were GLAD to cooperate to end the ordeal, that mostly NONE here were experiencing.

I doubt if 1% of the complainers, and judgmentalists here live within 500 miles of Boston, and ALL know only what they saw on TV.

Dee · « **Reply #28 on:** April 20, 2013, 11:37:03 AM »

Quote from: FPH on April 20, 2013, 11:31:07 AM

I think the Military type uniforms were a bit intimidating to some folks.

Yea, I agree. Shorts, flipflops, and a colorful Hawaiian shirt would have put everyone more at ease. Only thing is. I didn't here anyone complainin about'em. They seemed to just want the terrorist off the street. Maybe they just weren't payin attention to the uniforms.

FPH · « **Reply #29 on:** April 20, 2013, 11:37:29 AM »

Good point, the Boston folk seemed very thankful to LE.