Boston bombing manhunt: how far is too far?

[Shryke]

An active manhunt for an on-the-loose and armed suspect seems like exactly the kind of situation where this kind of action is fine and a limited enough criteria to not be any sort of scary civil liberties danger.

I mean, jesus christ, can you imagine if last night's chase had happened during the day? Bombs being chucked out car windows and all?

"Stay the fuck inside while we find this lunatic" seems pretty fucking sensible.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Alguien,

No basement in my house, just a crawl space that someone could be in. I've already said I'd have no problem with someone searching that area. My 1800 sq ft house that I'd know somone was in without difficulty. I'd have a problem with consenting to that search without some evidence that there was a reason for the search beyond "you're the next house on the list."

Let me put it another way, if you are presumed to be a best an asshole at worst some sort of criminal for having the timerity to insist upon a warrent that issues upon probable cause before consenting to a search, what is the point of the civil liberty in the first place?

[Free Northman]

You cannot guarantee the safety of everyone all the time. That's life. At some point the marginal benefit of deploying 5000 more police or shutting down 100 more city blocks is no longer worth it.

I think it is the need to continually propogate the illusion of a government that is in charge and will keep me safe under all circumstances that is at the root of the problem.

All risk cannot be mitigated. That's life.

[Gold Storm]

That was different. That was an active (albeit large) investigation, the same as in any sort of criminal case. This is a massive manhunt for a known individual.

If you're concerned about civil liberties, you should be more concerned about the recent tweets Senator Lindsay Graham has sent out:

Now that's the kind of troubling thing that would set a bad precedent.

I agree, I am more troubled by some of these ideas behind these tweets than the police doing a house by house search.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I would think that if he is in some house, it is likely that the people inside may essentially be hostages. The door to door may actually be to help whomever owns the house in which he is holed up. Half rescue/half search.

[Switchback]

Alguien,

No basement in my house, just a crawl space that someone could be in. I've already said I'd have no problem with someone searching that area. My 1800 sq ft house that I'd know somone was in without difficulty. I'd have a problem with consenting to that search without some evidence that there was a reason for the search beyond "you'res is the next house on the list."

Here's the thing - why would you have a problem with this? Is it because there is something illegal in your house, or are you defaulting to the generic "4th amendment, I know my rights, Constitution says so!!" argument? And if it's the latter, you're completely unwilling to back down from that stance for a 5 minute search of your home so the cops can clear it and move on? Do you imagine they will want to come back to yoru place in 2 weeks with some other "trumped up reason" to search? How many times have the cops come to search your place with no reason before today???

This is my problem with your crowd, you have no ability to step out of your narrow worldview to see a bigger picture. Help out the cops for a couple minutes and keep the search moving forward. Why not just do that in order to help?

And "slippery slope" is the absolute laziest argument ever.

[Fez]

Fez,

You say that like I've ever voted for Graham.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that a sitting US Senator is suggesting that the government start stripping the rights of US citizens arrested for committing criminal acts is a lot more troubling that the police trying to apprehend an extremely dangerous individual.

There's too many of us that think only about rights, and not about responsibilities.

I agree with what you're trying to saying, but that's eerily similar to a quote Clarence Thomas once gave.

[alguien]

Alguien,

No basement in my house, just a crawl space that someone could be in. I've already said I'd have no problem with someone searching that area. My 1800 sq ft house that I'd know somone was in without difficulty. I'd have a problem with consenting to that search without some evidence that there was a reason for the search beyond "you'res is the next house on the list."

Fair enough. I myself wouldn't even have a problem with that rationale--civic duty and all that--but in your case, I'd hope the police would check the crawl space, glance past you, be confident of your assessment, and leave.

We haven't heard of anyone's civil liberties being violated or innocent houses being raided, so I tend to think this typ of discussion is a bit premature.

Also, FLoW's rationale for the door-to-door search makes a lot of sense--provides a potential hostage with the means of asking for help.

[Arbor Gold]

There's too many of us that think only about rights, and not about responsibilities.

Just feels like an incredibly self-centered approach to the situation, imo.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Switchback,

I repeat:

Let me put it another way, if you are presumed to be at best an asshole at worst some sort of criminal for having the timerity to insist upon a warrent that issues upon probable cause before consenting to a search, what is the point of the civil liberty in the first place?

[kairparavel]

What about the DC Sniper situation. Should we have shut down DC during that "potential threat" situation?

You know what Scott? Maybe. That way law enforcement would have a little more time to share information, leads and track the vehicles down. A few days of shut down might have helped authorities catch them sooner, and people wouldn't have been near shitting their pants trying to do everyday things like pumping gas.

But really? This is a unique situation. Bombs on Monday. Crazypants shootout Thursday. Pleas to stay at home for one day Friday. It's been hours. Scott. Hours. Were civil liberties as much on your mind during the reprehensible and shoddy reporting of brown-skinned suspects? For the wINNOCENT teenager whose face was circulated on social media and the front page of the New York Post?

I'm not in Boston. I wasn't living in DC during the sniper attacks. But I do know that if something like this was going on around me or near my family, I'd rather a few hours/days of inconvenience instead of ongoing, indefinite fear.

I hope you never have to weigh your civil liberties and your safety at the same time. Probably be a tough call, eh?

News conference on now.

Oh hey. People are free to move about Watertown now.

Hours Scott.

Hours.

[Shryke]

Exactly KP.

If a month from now Boston is still locked down, yeah, that's crazypants. One fucking day for a dangerous suspect at large? What's the big deal.

You can't save all the people all the time, but you can certainly drastically reduce the chance of anyone getting hurt for a day or so while you hunt a dangerous subject.

[The Progressive]

Just feels like an incredibly self-centered approach to the situation, imo.

I think the word "self-centered" is so succinct here. To people like Scot, there's no sense of communal responsibility to assist in the capturing of a very dangerous criminal which pose significant risk to the community ............ instead, we're getting objections about 4th amendment right.

sad

[Tempra]

Switchback,

I repeat:

Let me put it another way, if you are presumed to be a best an asshole at worst some sort of criminal for having the timerity to insist upon a warrent that issues upon probable cause before consenting to a search, what is the point of the civil liberty in the first place?

What's the point of free speech if I can't yell fire in a crowded theater?

There are reasonable limits on all of our rights. I don't know a good reason to deny a search in this situation unless you are actually a criminal. Key words in the last sentence: in this situation.

[Switchback]

FIne, I'm done with this argument. I'm glad it appears that the majority of those people in that neighborhood disagree with you, and hope this maniac gets caught before he hurts anyone else.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Switchback,

I hope they catch him too.

Kair,

But really? This is a unique situation. Bombs on Monday. Crazypants shootout Thursday. Pleas to stay at home for one day Friday. It's been hours. Scott. Hours. Were civil liberties as much on your mind during the reprehensible and shoddy reporting of brown-skinned suspects? For the wINNOCENT teenager whose face was circulated on social media and the front page of the New York Post?

What? I hope he sues the shit out of them and wins.

[Free Northman]

Putting the civil liberties issue aside, to me the issue of reaction to events like these is an interesting one.

I've never been there, but I imagine that Tel Aviv for example does not shut down even for much larger events than this.

Is the American public merely so used to an utterly protected lifestyle that there are overreactions in terms of the scale of a potential threat?

[Shryke]

Putting the civil liberties issue aside, to me the issue of reaction to events like these is an interesting one.

I've never been there, but I imagine that Tel Aviv for example does not shut down even for much larger events than this.

Is the American public merely so used to an utterly protected lifestyle that there are overreactions in terms of the scale of a potential threat?

That assumes it's an overreaction in the first place.

[kairparavel]

Why does it matter what other countries do in these situations?

Women here generally don't get shot for trying to go to school or have acid thrown in their face for being unfaithful either. Is that something that should be adopted in North America, to keep up with other places in the world?

I'm certain the people of Cambridge, Watertown, Boston and the like care not how things are handled in Tel Aviv.

[Lord Flashheart]

If it was my family members who died or lost limbs I think I would say it isn't enough.