The State of Boston

[Witch_Doctor]

People die at random all the time. It could be me or one of thousands of other people that will be hit by a bus tomorrow. It doesn't mean I'm afraid to cross the street.
And surely by closing down the city, giving into the fear, they win. During the Blitz in britain we got the crap bombed out of us at night.
In the morning people would go to work and get on with their lives. In fact signs began to appear on people doors and in their gardens saying "Business as usual".

So witch Doctor whats the diagnosis, will you prescribe a spoonful of stiff upper lip?

Again, pragmatically speaking, closing down the city wasn't done solely to keep the public safe out of fear but to also give the authorities a better chance at catching the perpetrators. The fewer people on the street would mean fewer crowds for the bombers to hide in.

Here is another way of looking at it;
You have a couple of moral options:
1) Cower and hide. Or...
2) Be brave and don't allow fear to change your life.

At the same time...

You have pragmatic (strategic and tactical) options:
A) Man hunt within an active city. Or...
B) Man hunt within a inactive city.
Both set of options are ways of dealing with the situation but you make make better choices when the options are from the same set. That is, choose between 1 & 2 (Moral), or choose between A & B (Practical).

Lathough I understand the rational behind the means used and although I am glad that the measures taken made sure that the suspect (and soon convict-to-be) was captured, and although I do not want to question the police work in this particular case, I still have a couple of questions which cannot be answered:

a) What, if the police work was focussed on someone else who was not the suspect after all, but the media would have 'blamed' him and disclosed his private life to the public in a similar way like what did happen to this Bosten-bombing-brother? His life would have been destroyed ...
b) Since there are other major assaults going on in other places (even in the US), why does the police not deploy tousands of men to capture other criminals doing serious crimes (murder, rape, other serious shit) in the same way? Or will this special case be the first in a row of future police-work activities?
c) I wonder if something comparable would be possible in any other Western democratic nation? I mean, consider this: Do you remember the shit from Norway, when this madman Breivik bombed a city and slaughtered dozens of children in a holiday camp? The police did not close down any city-part for a day or something ... Ok, simply, because Breivik was not hiding or shit ... But even then I guess things would not have come close to what has happened in Boston; the terrorist bombings of Madrid and London many years ago are better examples for what I try to tell you ...

All in all: Does the outcome of this manhunt justify the means? And what did happen to US-citizens who did not follow ht order of the curfew?

Anyway: I am glad Mr Tsarneav is caught and that he seems to cooperate now; this makes things a lot easier. But I wonder what will happen if he does not get the sentencing some people may think he has "deserved" himself ... :/

Living for a better world and wishing all of you all the best!
Liam

As far as using the same tactics for other crimes, there are plenty of factors that would not make it practical or effective. In the Bombing, there were a lot of resources used because the public-at-large was in danger and suspects were relatively quickly identified. The same amount of resources, witnesses (electronic and personal) are not likely to be available for most other crimes. Few people are going to rape, rob and steal around so many potential witnesses. And lastly, the approach taken by Boston PD and the FBI is not the only effective one, as you pointed out, and it is not even a sustainable choice either. It is likely that if the bombers were not captured soon that the city would have returned to it's normal level of activity. Since the bombers were captured as quickly as they were, it is likely that they were suspected to have still been in the city.

[Solanine]

And the money lost by shutting down a city? They wouldn't even of found the culprit before he'd died if a guy hadn't broken the curfew.
The fact is that so far we've been beaten by the terrorists. We cower in fear where there should be a show of defiance.
Lets just be glad that isolated criminals like these cannot, by definition, exact a large scale terror campaign.
We might see every city in the US shut down.

Just thinking about how come Americans are willing to give up the right to even leave their houses or even swiss cheese but not the right to firearms?
It seems a little absurd. For a long time Scottish Whisky was banned. Whats the point of hanging onto your gun if you give up the freedom to a wee dram in return?

[Witch_Doctor]

And the money lost by shutting down a city? They wouldn't even of found the culprit before he'd died if a guy hadn't broken the curfew.
The fact is that so far we've been beaten by the terrorists. We cower in fear where there should be a show of defiance.
Lets just be glad that isolated criminals like these cannot, by definition, exact a large scale terror campaign.
We might see every city in the US shut down.

Just thinking about how come Americans are willing to give up the right to even leave their houses or even swiss cheese but not the right to firearms?
It seems a little absurd. For a long time Scottish Whisky was banned. Whats the point of hanging onto your gun if you give up the freedom to a wee dram in return?

Shutting down the city is more analogous to pulling over to the side of the road so that police can respond to an accident, as opposed to making all drivers park their cars in their garages because driving cars can lead to auto accidents.

It's more likely that shutting down the city was a better option for that specific incident of terrorism. They were able to capitalize on the info and resources available to them at that time. Other situations and locations might be different, so that what was done in Boston would have not been effective.

Had the terrorists not been captured or killed they could have, according to the survivor, killed even more people in Times Square in New York City, as that was their plan.

And the money lost by shutting down a city? They wouldn't even of found the culprit before he'd died if a guy hadn't broken the curfew.
The fact is that so far we've been beaten by the terrorists. We cower in fear where there should be a show of defiance.

Terrorism is too strictly defined by its root word, terror. We must remember that the actual violence does serious harm too. I would like to think that I would show courage by standing up to an attacker wielding a baseball bat, but not at the expense of standing tall and getting whacked on the head.

[Litmaster]

This is obviously a terrible occurrence but it raises some interesting questions such as how can a city be shut down like that because two armed criminals are on the run?

That's easy: because the media picked up the story and ran with it. Terrorists on the loose is far more sexy, media-wise, than a lone rapist or murderer.

And what did happen to US-citizens who did not follow the order of the curfew?

Nothing happens to them. I was there for the 'Shelter in Place' directive, and yet there were still many people on the streets of Boston, doing as they pleased. This is not a police state, Liam. The government doesn't wield as much power as you seem to assume.

[Solanine]

Shutting down the city is more analogous to pulling over to the side of the road so that police can respond to an accident, as opposed to making all drivers park their cars in their garages because driving cars can lead to auto accidents.

It's more likely that shutting down the city was a better option for that specific incident of terrorism. They were able to capitalize on the info and resources available to them at that time. Other situations and locations might be different, so that what was done in Boston would have not been effective.

Had the terrorists not been captured or killed they could have, according to the survivor, killed even more people in Times Square in New York City, as that was their plan.




Terrorism is too strictly defined by its root word, terror. We must remember that the actual violence does serious harm too. I would like to think that I would show courage by standing up to an attacker wielding a baseball bat, but not at the expense of standing tall and getting whacked on the head.

Not really. Its more like shutting down a major motorway for a few hundred miles to catch one drunk driver.

[Witch_Doctor]

Not really. Its more like shutting down a major motorway for a few hundred miles to catch one drunk driver.

YES! YES! That's absolutely right!

[Solanine]

Instead of just dropping stingers? I'm sure in hindsight there is probably a more efficient way of doing it but its over now.
The bombers have been caught and we might even get some answers in the future.