Watch the police remove a Watertown family from their home, and then search it.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mass-diver said:
Certainly the police went a little overboard, but at least they located the guy and saved tons of lives. I heard the kid had 2 full auto AKs, a sniper rifle, 1000 rounds of ammo, and a brick of C4.

If another group of terrorist shows up, we can be confident that the police will handle any threat.
Click to expand...

Wrong:
On the news today: FBI said the brothers only had 1 9mm handgun SO the video of the guy saying that 1 brother was shooting at police and the other brother was reloading the other gun for him is a lie
 
Last edited:
Last edited by a moderator:
Question: If the terrorist was in one of the house, with occupants, why would he release them , knowing that SWAT would be coming in right after they exited ?
 
rchap36 said:
Wrong:
On the news today: FBI said the brothers only had 1 9mm handgun SO the video of the guy saying that 1 brother was shooting at police and the other brother was reloading the other gun for him is a lie
Click to expand...


Sarcasm my friend

- - - Updated - - -

Quiet said:
You can't speak when you're intubated at least.
Click to expand...

He's trached
 
economist said:
A good part of the Boston metro area shut down, with encouragement from government leaders, in order to catch one guy. That is a relevant fact -- a ridiculous overreaction, and the sort of response terrorism seeks to achieve. That is exactly what I was talking about. Is that how you want your government to behave?

A hint: equivocation and pragmatism are not synonymous with reason or balanced thinking. Willingness to compromise is not inherently admirable. Stealing a little is still stealing. Coercing a little is still coercion. Meddling a little is still meddling. Democracies, however "well armed", rot in the middle ground.
Click to expand...
Apart from the active crime scene which was still under investigation and the radius of the active search in Watertown, the cities were shut down voluntarily - there was no Marshall Law, no order that people were not allowed to move. It was advised for their own safety and to assist in apprehending two people who had bombed a crowded international event, executed a cop and shot it out with other cops. I don't think asking people to stay inside was an over-reaction, nor does it matter because nobody was forced to stay inside.

And again, I've not said the government was 100% correct in their actions - I think they were reacting to a unique difficult situation that was evolving quickly. And I've seen more credible evidence of them respecting rights than I have of them violating rights. Doesn't mean that no violations occurred, but I'd like to see a little more than a second hand account of a homeowner's statement in a comment section on YouTube.

What should be happening now is a reasoned postmortem of the entire situation. If rights were violated, it needs to be addressed both from a punishment or reimbursement status as well as learning a lesson for the next time. What I'm not willing to do is jump on the anti government bandwagon and just make wild assumptions of the worst case scenario.

Derek, if I erred in my statement that you were a .gov employee, I apologize. I thought you had once told me you were a retired teacher - if that is not the case, that was my mistake and I fully retract my statement.
 
Mass-diver said:
Sarcasm my friend

Yes I know but i was only pointing out the BS in watertown

Again today I was at D/D with my grandson 3 guys there talking about the AWB 1 said who the hell needs a AR-15 Isaid anyone who wants one he said its a ASSTAULT RIFLE Isaid who told you that he said its on the f@@king gun AR-15 I smiled and said the AR stands for AMERICANS RIGHT he looked at me and walked out the door
Click to expand...
 
economist said:
Yet. It's important that we remember that. A real leader would have stepped out and calmed the public, told them that we are better than livestock to be herded into shelter when fearful, and made clear that our liberties will never be sacrificed in response to terror. A leader would have said that we are too strong, too resilient, and our liberties too important to allow one little man to bring down our way of life even for an instant. We should be moving toward a well armed and peaceful society -- a society that hates war, death, and conflict, but stands ready to deal the same when attacked. Instead America projects the image of a cowardly bunch, always willing to go kill offshore, but recoiling in horror and weakness when a hint of that killing comes here. We show the spirit of a fattened schoolyard bully when we should aspire to the role of enlightened defenders of freedom. It very much matters what we do in these isolated events. They set the pattern for our future acts. They define who we are.
Click to expand...

That is quite possibly the best thing I've read on this forum. Thank you. I want to live in that place.
 
Here's a question for people in this thread: What would have been the appropriate course of action for the authorities to take? They had two people who bombed a crowded sporting event, executed a cop and shot it out with other police officers. One of them was still on the loose in a specific area.

I'm not asking this in a factitious way. I'm genuinely curious what those here view as the appropriate course of action for the government to take in the specific situation that unfolded. It's all well and good to tell us what leaders should have said, but I want to know what the leaders should have had the police doing.
 
That Guy said:
Here's a question for people in this thread: What would have been the appropriate course of action for the authorities to take? They had two people who bombed a crowded sporting event, executed a cop and shot it out with other police officers. One of them was still on the loose in a specific area.

I'm not asking this in a factitious way. I'm genuinely curious what those here view as the appropriate course of action for the government to take in the specific situation that unfolded. It's all well and good to tell us what leaders should have said, but I want to know what the leaders should have had the police doing.
Click to expand...

Warn the public about the risk and go about finding the loose 19 year old while acting within the law. Try not to shoot too wildly in crowded residential areas. Try to keep things as close to business-as-usual as reasonably possible given the circumstances. That means don't shut down the T. Don't pull all cabs off the streets. Don't shut down the city of Boston because some kid is loose in Watertown. Don't keep the NG deployed for nearly a week. Don't shut down the back bay for a full week. Etc.
 
That Guy said:
Here's a question for people in this thread: What would have been the appropriate course of action for the authorities to take? They had two people who bombed a crowded sporting event, executed a cop and shot it out with other police officers. One of them was still on the loose in a specific area.

I'm not asking this in a factitious way. I'm genuinely curious what those here view as the appropriate course of action for the government to take in the specific situation that unfolded. It's all well and good to tell us what leaders should have said, but I want to know what the leaders should have had the police doing.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with knocking on doors, but forced searches is a whole different story and completely inappropriate.

Probably would have been a good idea to check obvious hiding places within the search area, and not fire hundreds of rounds accidentally.
 
That Guy said:
Here's a question for people in this thread: What would have been the appropriate course of action for the authorities to take? They had two people who bombed a crowded sporting event, executed a cop and shot it out with other police officers. One of them was still on the loose in a specific area.

I'm not asking this in a factitious way. I'm genuinely curious what those here view as the appropriate course of action for the government to take in the specific situation that unfolded. It's all well and good to tell us what leaders should have said, but I want to know what the leaders should have had the police doing.
Click to expand...

Track them by cell phone I also think the car had onstar or something like that so yes they could have tracked them I also hear the cops fired first THATS NOT GOOD SORRY TO SAY
 
That Guy said:
Here's a question for people in this thread: What would have been the appropriate course of action for the authorities to take? They had two people who bombed a crowded sporting event, executed a cop and shot it out with other police officers. One of them was still on the loose in a specific area.

I'm not asking this in a factitious way. I'm genuinely curious what those here view as the appropriate course of action for the government to take in the specific situation that unfolded. It's all well and good to tell us what leaders should have said, but I want to know what the leaders should have had the police doing.
Click to expand...

All questions, no answers. Again, indecision and claiming the middle ground are not the same thing as being reasonable. Do you approve of the actions taken, or are you still waiting for information you will never have to decide?

I think I was clear before. We begin by defining what government shall not do. This is the reality in a world where enumerating the powers of government is so very broken.

No order or request to stay inside. No deviation from normal daily American life. No canceled events. No searching of any people or private property without a warrant (not rubber stamped, but based on actual sworn statements or evidence). In sum, it's just another day for the citizenry. Police and government should take their considerable manpower and resources and target the threat within these bounds. The public should be informed, but not controlled. Tell them what is believed to be out there, where it is believed to be, etc. Encourage those with information or knowledge to share it with authorities.

I can't believe that I need to spell this out -- my radical plan to NOT panic, to NOT cease normal life, to NOT go door-to-door in America.

I said earlier that we don't have liberty. What we have is anonymity masquerading as freedom. When the lifeless eye of government falls on us we find out that we are just serfs absent an attentive master. In the recent gun control debates, Dick Durbin (D, IL) said "None of these rights are absolute, none of them." A right that is not absolute is just a privilege waiting to be taken away.

Now you can say that everyone in Watertown complied willingly, that there was no order to stay inside, just a strong suggestion. But as a practical matter there is little difference. The man who flaunts the suggestion gets noticed. The anonymity falls, and rights go with them. And regardless, the image of a lockdown and house-to-house searching should be one we never tolerate.

When I listed primarily the things a leader should have said it was intentional. The message drives the results. That message should be that no liberties will be relinquished, even for a moment, due to terror or panic. Police have no new power. The people have no fewer rights. Simple.
 
Last edited:
economist said:
I said earlier that we don't have liberty. What we have is anonymity masquerading as freedom. When the lifeless eye of government falls on us we find out that we are just serfs absent an attentive master. In the recent gun control debates, Dick Durbin (D, IL) said "None of these rights are absolute, none of them." A right that is not absolute is just a privilege waiting to be taken away.
Click to expand...

Truth.
 
new guy said:
Warn the public about the risk and go about finding the loose 19 year old while acting within the law. Try not to shoot too wildly in crowded residential areas. Try to keep things as close to business-as-usual as reasonably possible given the circumstances. That means don't shut down the T. Don't pull all cabs off the streets. Don't shut down the city of Boston because some kid is loose in Watertown. Don't keep the NG deployed for nearly a week. Don't shut down the back bay for a full week. Etc.
Click to expand...



Everyone here acts like their such an expert, you don't know **** about what to do when 2 terrorists are runnin around throwin IED's, bombs strapped to their bodies, etc, etc, etc.

Just a couple Bombs, that killed 3 and injured 180, and lost limbs, no big deal, buisness as usual in Bean Town!!!

Think before you speak, but don't hurt yourself.
 
rkwjunior said:
Everyone here acts like their such an expert, you don't know **** about what to do when 2 terrorists are runnin around throwin IED's, bombs strapped to their bodies, etc, etc, etc.

Just a couple Bombs, that killed 3 and injured 180, and lost limbs, no big deal, buisness as usual in Bean Town!!!

Think before you speak, but don't hurt yourself.
Click to expand...

Spoken just like a cop
 
Last edited:
economist said:
All questions, no answers. Again, indecision and claiming the middle ground are not the same thing as being reasonable. Do you approve of the actions taken, or are you still waiting for information you will never have to decide?

I think I was clear before. We begin by defining what government shall not do. This is the reality in a world where enumerating the powers of government is so very broken.

No order or request to stay inside. No deviation from normal daily American life. No canceled events. No searching of any people or private property without a warrant (not rubber stamped, but based on actual sworn statements or evidence). In sum, it's just another day for the citizenry. Police and government should take their considerable manpower and resources and target the threat within these bounds. The public should be informed, but not controlled. Tell them what is believed to be out there, where it is believed to be, etc. Encourage those with information or knowledge to share it with authorities.

I can't believe that I need to spell this out -- my radical plan to NOT panic, to NOT cease normal life, to NOT go door-to-door in America.

I said earlier that we don't have liberty. What we have is anonymity masquerading as freedom. When the lifeless eye of government falls on us we find out that we are just serfs absent an attentive master. In the recent gun control debates, Dick Durbin (D, IL) said "None of these rights are absolute, none of them." A right that is not absolute is just a privilege waiting to be taken away.

Now you can say that everyone in Watertown complied willingly, that there was no order to stay inside, just a strong suggestion. But as a practical matter there is little difference. The man who flaunts the suggestion gets noticed. The anonymity falls, and rights go with them. And regardless, the image of a lockdown and house-to-house searching should be one we never tolerate.

When I listed primarily the things a leader should have said it was intentional. The message drives the results. That message should be that no liberties will be relinquished, even for a moment, due to terror or panic. Police have no new power. The people have no fewer rights. Simple.
Click to expand...

I think you should have been leading the investigation with your vast knowledge of how to deal with Terrorism, we would have been so much safer.
 
rchap36 said:
Track them by cell phone I also think the car had onstar or something like that so yes they could have tracked them I also hear the cops fired first THATS NOT GOOD SORRY TO SAY
Click to expand...

Another Expert!!!

Circle jerk is getting pretty full, anymore Experts???
 
rkwjunior said:
I think you should have been leading the investigation with your vast knowledge of how to deal with Terrorism, we would have been so much safer.
Click to expand...

No, you would probably be less safe. Safety is not my primary concern. Safety is an illusion. There is always risk, always another guy out there who wants to do harm. More important than that is how we live and where we limit our government. We should err on the side of freedom, even if that means incrementally more risk. The alternative is not worth the trade. But I don't work for the government, I don't wear a uniform, and I don't live off of taxpayers, so what do I know? I'm just a taxpaying working American who wants to live my life without interference from others and all I offer is the same in return. Too little for you, no doubt.
 
economist said:
No, you would probably be less safe. Safety is not my primary concern. Safety is an illusion. There is always risk, always another guy out there who wants to do harm. More important than that is how we live and where we limit our government. We should err on the side of freedom, even if that means incrementally more risk. The alternative is not worth the trade. But I don't work for the government, I don't wear a uniform, and I don't live off of taxpayers, so what do I know? I'm just a taxpaying working American who wants to live my life without interference from others and all I offer is the same in return. Too little for you, no doubt.
Click to expand...

So safety is an illusion?? So, As gun Owner, i assume you are, have disillusioned his family and himself into believing thay are safe because you own guns!!

You live in a Fantasy World!!!!

So you would rather ignore it??

- - - Updated - - -

Madball13 said:
I'll chime in.

Looks like you love large entities to offer you protection:

Pipefitters Local 537 member
Click to expand...

Nothing but a good paycheck myfriend, thats it.
 
rkwjunior said:
So safety is an illusion?? So, As gun Owner, i assume you are, have disillusioned his family and himself into believing thay are safe because you own guns!!

You live in a Fantasy World!!!!

So you would rather ignore it??
Click to expand...

Why would you assume I believe guns make me safe? Incrementally more safe, perhaps. Absolutely safe, no.
 
rkwjunior said:
Another Expert!!!

Circle jerk is getting pretty full, anymore Experts???
Click to expand...

But to your point no I am not a expert But I do have family that are cops (and I call them every day ) to make sure they came home But you have to wonder were all the rounds went . as a police officer you should be better trained the the average joe
 
rkwjunior said:
Everyone here acts like their such an expert, you don't know **** about what to do when 2 terrorists are runnin around throwin IED's, bombs strapped to their bodies, etc, etc, etc.

Just a couple Bombs, that killed 3 and injured 180, and lost limbs, no big deal, buisness as usual in Bean Town!!!

Think before you speak, but don't hurt yourself.
Click to expand...

We're thinking about it and offering alternatives. What are you bringing to the table for all this talk of hurting ourselves thinking?
 
economist said:
Why would you assume I believe guns make me safe? Incrementally more safe, perhaps. Absolutely safe, no.
Click to expand...

Don't patronize me, i'm maybe dumb but i'm not stupid.

Lets not kid ourselves or get off the subject, we all know guns make a safer society. People like terrorist, make it "un safe".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Chicago police officer shot dead and has car taken during commute home: Officials
Replies
1
Views
176
gerrycaruso
gerrycaruso
The new NES stud club member badge - the blue envelope from state police!
2
Replies
54
Views
1K
headednorth
headednorth
Sheriff encourages citizens "to arm themselves and protect themselves" from home invaders
Replies
7
Views
467
LT5
L
Correct way to get guns back from police?
Replies
16
Views
751
appraiser
appraiser
Additional new caselaw affirms: the police and the courts believe cops are allowed to kill people
2 3 4
Replies
91
Views
1K
ThePreBanMan
ThePreBanMan
Back
Top Bottom