Abiding by lockdown is letting the terrorists win?

[KitchenKitten99]

I guess I am having a hard time understanding this mentality.

There was a nutjob on the loose, armed, and dangerous. So much so, we had guys armed, and fully fitted with armor to chase him down. So they asked all citizens to stay indoors if possible until they could get him.

Yet, I am hearing more than one conservative person say that the lockdown request is only just Big Brother type police-state situation and not to change your day for the situation. Meaning ignore the request.

So lemme get this straight... the same people that say if police had more authority, crime would be less prevalent. Yet now they are advocating ignoring a request that is out there for the general safety and concern to avoid more potential victims?

Things like what happened in the last 48 hours don't have a predictable path of destruction. Why would you knowingly go out of your own home, which is probably the safest place for you at this time, and put yourself, and potentially your children/family at risk? If the situation wasn't that dangerous, why did the ones hunting him wear their protective gear and have firearms?

How would you feel if you were out and about with someone, like a child, and the nutjob crossed your path and decided to either use you or your child as a hostage? Now you have created an even worse situation because you just had to rebel against the authorities.

I think there is a time and place to rebel against government oppression, but I don't think a 'suggestion' or 'request' such as was issued, is anything like that. If they hadn't issued the request, and people did go out and about, and something happened to where more injuries or fatalities occurred, you can bet your life someone involved would sue the city for it.

Call me what you want but given the level of psycho that they were chasing, I would rather stay in my home and not take the chance until they get him. Even if I didn't have firearms, I have other methods of defense should he intrude. Methods I wouldn't have in public because I don't generally carry my chef knives or screwdrivers with me.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I guess I am having a hard time understanding this mentality.

There was a nutjob on the loose, armed, and dangerous. So much so, we had guys armed, and fully fitted with armor to chase him down. So they asked all citizens to stay indoors if possible until they could get him.

Yet, I am hearing more than one conservative person say that the lockdown request is only just Big Brother type police-state situation and not to change your day for the situation. Meaning ignore the request.

So lemme get this straight... the same people that say if police had more authority, crime would be less prevalent. Yet now they are advocating ignoring a request that is out there for the general safety and concern to avoid more potential victims?

Things like what happened in the last 48 hours don't have a predictable path of destruction. Why would you knowingly go out of your own home, which is probably the safest place for you at this time, and put yourself, and potentially your children/family at risk? If the situation wasn't that dangerous, why did the ones hunting him wear their protective gear and have firearms?

How would you feel if you were out and about with someone, like a child, and the nutjob crossed your path and decided to either use you or your child as a hostage? Now you have created an even worse situation because you just had to rebel against the authorities.

I think there is a time and place to rebel against government oppression, but I don't think a 'suggestion' or 'request' such as was issued, is anything like that. If they hadn't issued the request, and people did go out and about, and something happened to where more injuries or fatalities occurred, you can bet your life someone involved would sue the city for it.

Call me what you want but given the level of psycho that they were chasing, I would rather stay in my home and not take the chance until they get him. Even if I didn't have firearms, I have other methods of defense should he intrude. Methods I wouldn't have in public because I don't generally carry my chef knives or screwdrivers with me.

I see your point, I really do.
However locking down an entire large city to catch one armed man seems to be bad judgement IMHO.
IMAGINE 200 such muslim terrorists in 200 of our large cities getting that action taken by their actions combined with bomb blasts..

We need to face the problem that Islam brings with its teaching of death, destruction and THAT all unbelievers are less than human THAT SHOULD BE EITHER KILLED OR CONVERTED.!
If we do not actively and openly start a campaign to stop that teaching of jihad by their top RELIGIOUS/POLITICAL LEADERS we will lose and DESERVE IT IMHO.. -Tyr

[KitchenKitten99]

I have a few customers who are police officers of different levels (city, county, state trooper etc).

I asked one who just came in tonight and he said that it was purely because of potential lawsuits from stupid people who think they're invincible then find themselves in a hostage situation or worse. It has all to do with keeping down the cost of liability to the city and state dept.

[KitchenKitten99]

I see your point, I really do.
However locking down an entire large city to catch one armed man seems to be bad judgement IMHO.
IMAGINE 200 such muslim terrorists in 200 of our large cities getting that action taken by their actions combined with bomb blasts..


How is it bad judgement? I guess I really cannot connect the dots on that one. Neither can I understand what you mean about 200 terrorists in 200 cities...?? :confused:

So you're saying that the city should not have asked citizens to stay in the safety of their homes to avoid a potential escalation or more casualties?

Or do you mean you know exactly where this kid was going and how far he could toss those explosive devices and you could predict his every move so he really wasn't a threat to anyone anymore? So the squads called to chase this guy down really didn't need all their protective gear either?

Ok, well then if that's the case, take your kids to the park nearby while all this is going on. I mean, 200 shots fired in a shoot-out isn't really that much and the guy ends up disappearing for several hours, and it is unknown if he has any weapons or explosives on him. Sure, it is SO worth the risk and chances of him doing anything to you are slim right? Like the chances of getting hit with a home-made bomb at a MARATHON of all places, right?

Police are there to protect and serve and so far I have read most of the conservatives here siding with police. So now when they are doing what they feel is best to PROTECT them from this idiot, they turn around and beat their chests & say "Fuck Big Brother" I am not gonna let the terrorist bully me!!"

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

How is it bad judgement? I guess I really cannot connect the dots on that one. Neither can I understand what you mean about 200 terrorists in 200 cities...?? :confused:

So you're saying that the city should not have asked citizens to stay in the safety of their homes to avoid a potential escalation or more casualties?

Or do you mean you know exactly where this kid was going and how far he could toss those explosive devices and you could predict his every move so he really wasn't a threat to anyone anymore? So the squads called to chase this guy down really didn't need all their protective gear either?

Ok, well then if that's the case, take your kids to the park nearby while all this is going on. I mean, 200 shots fired in a shoot-out isn't really that much and the guy ends up disappearing for several hours, and it is unknown if he has any weapons or explosives on him. Sure, it is SO worth the risk and chances of him doing anything to you are slim right? Like the chances of getting hit with a home-made bomb at a MARATHON of all places, right?

Police are there to protect and serve and so far I have read most of the conservatives here siding with police. So now when they are doing what they feel is best to PROTECT them from this idiot, they turn around and beat their chests & say "Fuck Big Brother" I am not gonna let the terrorist bully me!!"

The terrorists now have a new realization and that is that two small bombs exploded ,two terrorists on the loose can now lock down a major U.S. city. Not a comforting though if you ask me.
What they gonna do when ten terrorists with five well planted small bombs blow up part of Washington?
They won by getting the city locked down IMHO.-Tyr

[Robert A Whit]

I see your point, I really do.
However locking down an entire large city to catch one armed man seems to be bad judgement IMHO.
IMAGINE 200 such muslim terrorists in 200 of our large cities getting that action taken by their actions combined with bomb blasts..

We need to face the problem that Islam brings with its teaching of death, destruction and THAT all unbelievers are less than human THAT SHOULD BE EITHER KILLED OR CONVERTED.!
If we do not actively and openly start a campaign to stop that teaching of jihad by their top RELIGIOUS/POLITICAL LEADERS we will lose and DESERVE IT IMHO.. -Tyr

I believe they locked down more than one large city, but other cities as well. Scared people do things like that.

I think she is speaking as a mother and wants safety for her kids and herself.

As it turns out, the lock down did not last long and the perp was captured. I dunno, but maybe this was the best way to handle it.

[Drummond]

I'm all for doing whatever it takes to crack down on terrorists .. to make their ability to operate AS terrorists as impossible as it can be.

'Locking down' Boston, IF proven necessary, is reasonable, IF there was intel to show that the entire city was in danger. But, did that intel exist ? In the absence of it, the measure taken was surely excessive. Cordoning off an area known to be under direct threat is one thing, but to presume an entire city could be bombed from just two bombs detonated in a small area ?

How far do you take that sort of reasoning ? Do you say, OK, we believe a terrorist cell is active, so we must presume that many more are, or will be very soon ? Do you lock down an entire country from presumptive extrapolation drawn just from somebody's imagination ?

We, in the UK, had the IRA to deal with. We knew they could strike anywhere, at any time. At NO time did we ever lock down an entire city.

We also had the 7/7 bombings, which targeted the London transport system .. principally the Tube network, but with one bomb exploded on a bus (.. and we think this only occurred because that bomber hadn't reached the Tube by his planned-for time). Our response ... to stop public transport in London, in its entirety, for a number of hours. Though the bombs were detonated in various parts of London, we didn't lock down the entire CITY.

We managed, we coped. We did what was necessary, as should ALWAYS be the response to terrorism, or the threat of it. The authorities' action was appropriate to the situation. Terrorists gained nothing worthwhile from the proportionate response undertaken. To act DISproportionately is to over-react, to give terrorists a victory they NEED NOT HAVE.

What matters is that you do what you must to deter further such outrages. Work hard at gaining intel. Crack down on cells known to exist. And, act to neutralise their backers.

[KitchenKitten99]

I believe they locked down more than one large city, but other cities as well. Scared people do things like that.

I think she is speaking as a mother and wants safety for her kids and herself.

As it turns out, the lock down did not last long and the perp was captured. I dunno, but maybe this was the best way to handle it.
The lockdown was not mandatory. It was a suggestion. It was while they were chasing the suspect both on car and foot. You know damn well had they not issued that request and not told a soul about the situation, anyone caught up in it would be a lawsuit waiting to happen for injuries and deaths.

Did you not see/read that the guy was running from them tossing explosives out the window of the car? Or is that path of his car so easily predictable that you could just move out of the way when it showed up behind you?

They had no idea what this guy was gonna do next or what help he might have.

Then once he was on foot, 200 shots were fired in a shoot-out, and he still managed to survive the wounding he got, and made his way into some homeowner's boat. I bet that guy never thought he'd have a terrorist taking refuge on his property. Would you have told those homeowners and their neighbors to disregard warnings to stay inside and just go about their business while authorities in riot gear and fully loaded weapons are in a stand-off with the nutjob hiding wounded in the boat, not knowing whether or not he still had any explosives on him? Or do the residents there have a magic shield around them that makes them impossible to kill with such methods?

Again, given the fact he was actively on the loose, has no issues with killing people, why put yourself and/or your family in the situation to potentially cross paths?

This is different than the other situations because the suspects were found and when found, they ran and put up a fight while doing so.