0
quade

And now the disturbing thought; surveillance society just vindicated?

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote

We now have conclusive proof living in a surveillance society works.

Hmmm...I don't even know what to make of that right now.

Yes, it was an amazing thing to watch unfold and right now people in Boston are literally cheering police as they drive by -- and rightly so. I just don't know what this means long term.

Does this mean more formalized security cameras placed throughout society or does it mean more societal involvement in crowd sourced data? Both?



keeping in mind the fact that it was one of the victims that watched the guy drop a bag at his feet and told cops within hours who and where it was so that they knew where to look and who to look for, the cameras were useful for disseminating pictures to the public, but they don;t get all the credit for the speed of the investigation.



FWIW, in some countries where bombings are a lot more common, everyone- not just LEOs, but ordinary citizens, are trained to consider any unattended bag, etc. in a public place as a potential bomb, and anyone they spot leaving a bag and walking away from it as a potential bomber. Americans aren't conditioned that way (yet). If we had been, then the instant one of those guys set his bag down and moved away from it, someone might have seen it and screamed-out a warning, causing everyone to make a big hole in the crowd and warn a cop. Might have helped save lives and limbs by getting people farther away from the blasts. Might even have resulted in immediate apprehension of a perp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't say it was "trained" here, but going back at least a couple of years there was a local campaign around public transport with the slogan "Bags without People don't make sense"... No events that made it pay off but cheap a cheap and easy way to make people more mindful...
You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I've been around long enough to have observed that public education campaigns often do have some effect; generally some pretty good benefit for the cost.



I agree. Hence, a dude noticing that his boat doesn't look right and seeing a bleeding guy in it was much more effective and cost-effective than creating de facto martial law and going dorr to door with every LEO that could be found. Door to door search didn't work. Public eyes and ears did.

I trust that I am not alone in thinking that the police response was a bit much.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I trust that I am not alone in thinking that the police response was a bit much.



At the moment I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they were operating in a fog of war environment. If it comes to pass that this response becomes the norm for any unusual situation, then I'd be quite concerned.

I still think homeowners had the right to refuse police entry. They also had the right to go walking down the street, or drive their cars wherever they wanted. The lockdown was a request, not a lawful order.

- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I trust that I am not alone in thinking that the police response was a bit much.



I'm still pondering. In the grey zone right now.



Have you checked the video I posted? That cleared it up for a lot of folks.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I trust that I am not alone in thinking that the police response was a bit much.



At the moment I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they were operating in a fog or war environment. If it comes to pass that this response becomes the norm for any unusual situation, then I'd be quite concerned.




It's not a %^&*(! war. It's a suspect on the run. I'm sick to damn death of people calling it a homefront, and acting like every crime by a Muslim is a war.

Quote

I still think homeowners had the right to refuse police entry. They also had the right to go walking down the street, or drive their cars wherever they wanted. The lockdown was a request, not a lawful order.



Tell that to the people who had guns pointed at their face and were told to get off the street "or else". It may ahve been more of a request in most of Boston, but that's not what is was anywhere within miles of Watertown.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It's not a %^&*(! war. It's a suspect on the run. I'm sick to damn death of people calling it a homefront, and acting like every crime by a Muslim is a war.



I made a typo. I meant "fog of war" environment. I didn't say (or at least didn't mean to say) it was a war. It's a common phrase. I realize I typed it wrong, but I'm the last person who would claim that we're at war with Muslims.

Quote

Tell that to the people who had guns pointed at their face and were told to get off the street "or else". It may ahve been more of a request in most of Boston, but that's not what is was anywhere within miles of Watertown.



I understand that's what happened. It doesn't make it lawful. I said the order was not lawful, not that it didn't happen.

- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I've been around long enough to have observed that public education campaigns often do have some effect; generally some pretty good benefit for the cost.



I agree. Hence, a dude noticing that his boat doesn't look right and seeing a bleeding guy in it was much more effective and cost-effective than creating de facto martial law and going dorr to door with every LEO that could be found. Door to door search didn't work. Public eyes and ears did.

I trust that I am not alone in thinking that the police response was a bit much.



Yes, it is ironic that little brother was caught only *after* the curfew was lifted and people came out of their homes.

And earlier, the perps were identified only *after* the authorities released the photos of the suspects, (in order to quash the crowd-sourcing), which resulted in the aunt in Canada immediately calling in with the identification.

So it would seem identification and apprehension were both delayed by the actions of the authorities.
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[Reply]that they were operating in a fog or war environment



Against one guy. They were after two guys. Then it was one guy. One fucking guy they were after. And seeing the vehicles and equipment and overall presence, yes, it was a war. Martial law.

That's the response for one guy that they had no idea whether he was there (he wasn't in the search area). The cops weren't in a fog. Were not in a war environment. They were going to get him no matter what the cost. That wasn't "fog of war." That was "on the offensive."

[Reply] I'll give them the benefit of the doubt



When it comes to infringement of rights I presume badness. That's just how I see things. Presumed rights violations unless proven not violated.

That's my way of seeing things.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
> 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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.

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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.



I certainly would have. You guys are such lightweights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>>> 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!"

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We don't have all the answers to how things should be done. We lawyers merely look at a document like the Constitution that says how things should not be done.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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?



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.
If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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?



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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0