And now the disturbing thought; surveillance society just vindicated?
By
quade, in Speakers Corner
GeorgiaDon 340
Maybe they should have sent a bunch of lawyers after him, instead of cops. Lawyers always seem to know exactly the right thing to do. I'm pretty sure they would have gone straight for that boat.Quote> The cops weren't in a fog. Were not in a war environment.
Well, they were going after a guy who killed 3 people and injured hundreds in a bombing. Then they shot and killed a cop. Then they drove through the streets shooting at cops and throwing bombs at them.
That might get a Cambridge cop a little out of his usual environment and lead to bad decisions. When your job is to protect the public and there are two guys blowing up bystanders, shooting at people and throwing bombs out of cars, I could see them erring on the side of "find them whatever it takes!"
If you were chasing such a person I would imagine you might get a little hepped up. Might even push someone out of the way to get to them a little faster. That might technically be battery, but I'd give you the benefit of the doubt.
>When it comes to infringement of rights I presume badness.
I don't. Hanlon's Razor.
Not to mention, if perp #2 had managed to kill or injure even one "civilian" (i.e. not law enforcement) while on the run, they'd also be falling all over themselves to represent the victim in suing the police.
Don
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Andy9o8 0
QuoteMaybe they should have sent a bunch of lawyers after him, instead of cops. Lawyers always seem to know exactly the right thing to do. I'm pretty sure they would have gone straight for that boat.
I certainly would have. You guys are such lightweights.
Yes. Problem is that lthere are rules to exist within. When the people that enforce rules of conduct operate outside of them we have a big problem.
>>>If you were chasing such a person I would imagine you might get a little hepped up. Might even push someone out of the way to get to them a little faster. That might technically be battery, but I'd give you the benefit of the doubt.
Of course. But it takes a cooler head to manage the logistics of deploying several hundred/thousand LEO's with APCs and weapons of war and a plan to go house-to-house like it's 2005 in Ramadi.
Again - it's ONE guy. Shut down a city and form a police state for one guy. And it turned out the LEOs were utterly ineffective until curfew was lifted and some liberty restored.
>>>When it comes to infringement of rights I presume badness. - I don't. Hanlon's Razor.
I didn't say I presumed evil. I meant that I hold rights sacrosanct and I don't give the benefit of the doubt to those that violated rights. I don't presume that rights are not violated. I presume a violation and I think viilation of rights is bad. That is all.
The bar for me to justify the violation is very high. I certainly don't ascribe it to government stupidity. I don't ascribe it to government misanthropy. I simply ascribe it to government pulling the "by any means necessary" thing and saying, "screw the rules."
They were doing what they thought was right, good and appropriate - that in this situation the limitations need not apply. I have a problem with that. Because it was one fucking guy. I've seen lesser responses to full-scale riots.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Quote
They were doing what they thought was right, good and appropriate - that in this situation the limitations need not apply. I have a problem with that. Because it was one fucking guy. I've seen lesser responses to full-scale riots.
What if it was 12 guys? Where is the demarcation point?
I.E. - it may be seen as necessary to torture this guy to gather information. Necessary to make this guy talk. A lawyer, of course, would stand in the way (despite that he has certain constitutional guarantees).
No - I cannot think of any way to force the guy to talk in a Constitutional way. How about you? I can tell you all the reasons why the government is prohibited from forcing him to talk.
I know, I know. Another example of due process and Constitutional guarantees standing in the way of effective government an ensuring peoples' safety.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
skypuppy 1
QuoteQuote
They were doing what they thought was right, good and appropriate - that in this situation the limitations need not apply. I have a problem with that. Because it was one fucking guy. I've seen lesser responses to full-scale riots.
What if it was 12 guys? Where is the demarcation point?
Yeah, where were all those cops when LA was falling apart and people had to stand in front of their businesses with AKs while cops actually walked away>?
And how'd that 'one guy' get away from all them cops while they were handcuffing his brother in the first place? That was no small police presence even at that early point.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone
billvon 2,400
?? No.
billvon 2,400
>rules of conduct operate outside of them we have a big problem.
I agree. And afterwards it would make a lot of sense to get those people together and tell them "OK good job in finding this guy, now here's what you did wrong."
>I meant that I hold rights sacrosanct and I don't give the benefit of the doubt to those
>that violated rights.
Ah well. In a similar case I'd give you the benefit of the doubt.
ryoder 1,388
Quote
And how'd that 'one guy' get away from all them cops while they were handcuffing his brother in the first place? That was no small police presence even at that early point.
The cops had the guys cornered in a cul-de-sac.
The perps were shooting at the cops from behind the stolen car.
Then the older brother crazily burst out from behind the car, rushing toward the cops, blazing away.
He ran out of ammo, and the cops tackled him.
At this point little brother jumped back in the stolen car, rammed through the squad cars blocking the street, and got away.
There is a series of photos taken by a witness from an overlooking window that shows all this.
Ah...found it: http://www.getonhand.com/blogs/news/7743337-boston-bombing-suspect-shootout-pictures
Andy9o8 0
Quote>So your calling the police stupid?
?? No.
I think he was asking in light of your reference to Hanlon's Razor (and the definition thereof).
QuoteQuote
They were doing what they thought was right, good and appropriate - that in this situation the limitations need not apply. I have a problem with that. Because it was one fucking guy. I've seen lesser responses to full-scale riots.
What if it was 12 guys? Where is the demarcation point?
Now you are thinking. Admittedly, I don't have a test.
I can see ten to one. I can even see a justification for 100:1. But it looked like there may have been THOUSANDS of police/FBI/National Guard/BATFE/Sheriffs trying to find him.
I don't think we've seen a response like this - ever. It exceeds even the apprehension of OJ.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
rehmwa 2
QuoteI know, I know. Another example of due process and Constitutional guarantees standing in the way of effective government an ensuring peoples' safety.
I appreciate everything you are saying here. with one exception
giving the cops the benefit of the doubt is also an example of due process etc. Once it's proven otherwise (in each individual case) then you can go to town on them.
I think upholding the process matters whether it's one, two, or hundreds of guys also.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
Well, they were going after a guy who killed 3 people and injured hundreds in a bombing. Then they shot and killed a cop. Then they drove through the streets shooting at cops and throwing bombs at them.
That might get a Cambridge cop a little out of his usual environment and lead to bad decisions. When your job is to protect the public and there are two guys blowing up bystanders, shooting at people and throwing bombs out of cars, I could see them erring on the side of "find them whatever it takes!"
If you were chasing such a person I would imagine you might get a little hepped up. Might even push someone out of the way to get to them a little faster. That might technically be battery, but I'd give you the benefit of the doubt.
>When it comes to infringement of rights I presume badness.
I don't. Hanlon's Razor.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites