Boston Terror Attacks

[Formless]

What you describe as "defaulting to their upbringing" is pretty much equivalent, psychologically speaking, to identifying with a certain ethnicity.

No its not, moron. Demonstrate that you have any clue what "psychology" says on the matter before front-loading your posts with bullshit.

So again, who cares? A de-facto Muslim who doesn't really care that much about religion, but sill identifies as "Muslim" out of habit or cultural ties is pretty much analagous, psychologically speaking, to an atheist Jew who still calls himself "Jewish" out of convenience - like myself. Again, what point are you trying to make?

Now you're just flat out ignoring the issue. These two people ARE NOT EQUIVALENT. The Jew knows he is an atheist or agnostic, but keeps calling himself a Jew because that's their race and they cannot change it. The Muslim or Christian keeps calling themselves that because they don't know that they are irreligious, but have a lifetime of indoctrination supporting their identity. Its the exact fucking opposite, you simpleton.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I'm aware of your procedures, so I don't see what actual utility is has not doing it. Don't people literally read it from a card while people are being led away? Its a dead and meaningless ritual that is nevertheless a part of your system... and its been suspended for a reason that doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me.

I mean you haven't told him about the rights he certainly knows about but you always tell people because it's due process and rights are important. The end result of this needless omission is that the requirement that evidence he gives after you didn't do something for no reason won't be ignored, as would otherwise be necessary. Um, yay?

How does a concern over outstanding explosive devices in a neighborhood not make much sense to you?

You're assuming he knows. I, and any other cop in the US, can tell you from personal experience that a significant portion of suspects are more than willing to talk but then you remind them of their rights and they realize that it is in their best interest to not say anything. They're right too. You'd be an idiot to continue talking when you don't have too. However, in this case a special concern exists and reminding him to keep silent does not make sense when lives are at risk and the only questions you can ask are about that existing threat.

I don't know if people forget that they have the right to remain silent or what the reasoning is but reminding them that they do is important. Just not more important than life.

Maybe you should just stop doing it all the time, because skipping it and then skipping the ramifications of skipping it just shows how meaningless it is, along with turning on the big sign that says RESPECT FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

What are the ramifications for skipping it? Keeping in mind that the questions have to be limited to current threats to public safety. It seems like you just don't understand this exemption.

It just sounds like he wasn't read his rights because we hate him and we'd rather he didn't have any, which is... absolutely comical.

It's hilarious how you lecture someone over speculating what the motive is for the two suspects but then turn around and do the same thing about why the government decided to do this. Their reason for doing so can be articulated and seems reasonable to me. Unless you feel that the risk posed by discarded explosive devices in a neighborhood doesn't count as an immediate threat to public safety. Look at the facts. They used bombs at the marathon. When engaged by police they used a number of explosives. Is it unreasonable to believe that they may have more, may have attempted to place them to cause more damage, may have discarded them in the neighborhood?

If you don't believe those concerns are reasonable then please explain why.

[Formless]

You know what, Channel72 is probably typing up some post even as I write this, but I'm done. Really, re-reading this its amazing how little awareness he has about other people's arguments. I should have stopped arguing with him the instant he accused everyone of "bending over backwards to entertain unlikely alternatives." Nice way to both prop up a strawman of skepticism while also propping up your own beliefs as most likely in one elegant sentence.

In the future, can we get to hear about how a terrorist whose family is Christian must have been motivated by Evangelical Extremism? Because somehow I'm guessing that ain't going to happen.

[weemadando]

KS, I can't speak for Stark, but for me it makes no sense - we had a massive debate about whether stopping a car on a public road to check if the driver was qualified and fit/able to drive was the police/gov't overstepping (and let's face it, every single day drink/unqualified drivers kill far more than terrorists in any first world country). But the people who are all "CANNOT ASK ME TO BLOW INTO A TUBE!" are fine with these intrusions when it's a case of "TERRYWRISTS MIGHT HAVE DONE SOMETHING SOMEWHERE!"

It's cognitive dissonance. I can understand it - part of my job has me training regularly in public safety issues and threat assessments, but it makes no sense to me that people are so flexible about when they choose to make an issue of these rights/responsibilities.

[Stark]

It's hilarious how you lecture someone over speculating what the motive is for the two suspects but then turn around and do the same thing about why the government decided to do this. Their reason for doing so can be articulated and seems reasonable to me. Unless you feel that the risk posed by discarded explosive devices in a neighborhood doesn't count as an immediate threat to public safety. Look at the facts. They used bombs at the marathon. When engaged by police they used a number of explosives. Is it unreasonable to believe that they may have more, may have attempted to place them to cause more damage, may have discarded them in the neighborhood?

If you don't believe those concerns are reasonable then please explain why.

So long as you're on board that the only possible reason I can see to not inform the suspect of his rights (and then waive the consequences that are supposed to make informing a suspect of his rights important) is that you want him to just up and tell you about bombs (with 100% no beatings lol) and still be able to charge him regarding those bombs. Except the act of reading someone their rights shouldn't really change the rights they automatically have, so .... ? Can you actually explain how not reading the magic spell (I mean miranda rights) assists in the acquisition of information regarding the charges to be bought against him or (more importantly) the possible or actual threat to the public?

Please note I don't actually expect a meaningful answer.

[Kamakazie Sith]

KS, I can't speak for Stark, but for me it makes no sense - we had a massive debate about whether stopping a car on a public road to check if the driver was qualified and fit/able to drive was the police/gov't overstepping (and let's face it, every single day drink/unqualified drivers kill far more than terrorists in any first world country). But the people who are all "CANNOT ASK ME TO BLOW INTO A TUBE!" are fine with these intrusions when it's a case of "TERRYWRISTS MIGHT HAVE DONE SOMETHING SOMEWHERE!"

It's cognitive dissonance. I can understand it - part of my job has me training regularly in public safety issues and threat assessments, but it makes no sense to me that people are so flexible about when they choose to make an issue of these rights/responsibilities.

I wouldn't call our discussion a debate really. I clarified case law and definitions but my personal opinion on that matter is that safety/licensing check would not be a bad thing. I also share your confusion of those type of people.

That being said I think your assessment is limited. There are many of the "can't ask me to blow into a tube" people that are also very much against this guy being questioned without being advised of his rights. There are also many of the type I described in my reply to Dalton - they only care that their rights are respected...your rights do not matter. Then there are the type that you described which demonstrate a cognitive dissonance.

Just to be clear do you feel the governments decision to utilizing the public safety exemption is unreasonable in the case of the remaining suspect in the Boston Marathon?

[Kamakazie Sith]

It's hilarious how you lecture someone over speculating what the motive is for the two suspects but then turn around and do the same thing about why the government decided to do this. Their reason for doing so can be articulated and seems reasonable to me. Unless you feel that the risk posed by discarded explosive devices in a neighborhood doesn't count as an immediate threat to public safety. Look at the facts. They used bombs at the marathon. When engaged by police they used a number of explosives. Is it unreasonable to believe that they may have more, may have attempted to place them to cause more damage, may have discarded them in the neighborhood?

If you don't believe those concerns are reasonable then please explain why.

So long as you're on board that the only possible reason I can see to not inform the suspect of his rights (and then waive the consequences that are supposed to make informing a suspect of his rights important) is that you want him to just up and tell you about bombs (with 100% no beatings lol) and still be able to charge him regarding those bombs. Except the act of reading someone their rights shouldn't really change the rights they automatically have, so .... ? Can you actually explain how not reading the magic spell (I mean miranda rights) assists in the acquisition of information regarding the charges to be bought against him or (more importantly) the possible or actual threat to the public?

Please note I don't actually expect a meaningful answer.

I gave you an answer and you ignored it. Did you not comprehend it? I'll try again. Does the following not make sense to you. Specifically, that reminding someone that they have the right to remain silent will increase the likelihood of them actually doing so? The effectiveness of this probably comes down to the individual. Some people are naturally predisposed to answering questions, others are just the opposite. However, regardless of their disposition when you remind them that they have a right to remain silent and include "hey what you tell me will be used against you" the possibility of even the ones disposed to answering questions drops. Is there something about this that you do not understand or disagree with?

I'm not on board with it being the only reason to do so. Maybe for certain law enforcement individuals that don't give a damn about public safety they only care about what else they can charge him with. If it were me asking the questions it would be because I didn't want some child having his hands blown off by a pipe bomb. That safety concern is probably in the minds of any of those officers that are parents.

It also seems like you're still not comprehending that the questioning is limited. The questioning isn't about "tell me how you made the bombs" it is about "do you place any live bombs anywhere?"

Now do you actually have a rebuttal or are you going to whine vaguely about the quality of my answer?

EDIT - I want to add that if you don't believe me when I talk about my experiences with suspects, specifically, that a cooperative suspect will become silent after being advised of their rights then just say so and let's move on. Stop playing stupid.

[Questor]

I think cognitive dissonance is a huge part of this exception at every level.

I've only ever seen it in an american context, but I can't really think of any reason why this wouldn't be true for all humans: When people are asked to do or say something by someone in authority, they are predisposed to do it. This can be anything from taking a survey to making a donation to answering a question. As soon as you remind someone that they are not required to do what is asked, compliance rates go down.

A question for KS: Do you find that people are more willing to answer questions a significant amount of time after being mirandized vs. immediately afterwards? (I'm not sure how possible this would be in a police context, really.) I'm thinking that if you mirandized a person, and then for some reason were unable to interrogate them for a few days, a lot of the effect of the warning would have worn off. This is based on my experience in a drastically different area, so I'm not entirely sure it would apply to law enforcement.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I think cognitive dissonance is a huge part of this exception at every level.

I've only ever seen it in an american context, but I can't really think of any reason why this wouldn't be true for all humans: When people are asked to do or say something by someone in authority, they are predisposed to do it. This can be anything from taking a survey to making a donation to answering a question. As soon as you remind someone that they are not required to do what is asked, compliance rates go down.

A question for KS: Do you find that people are more willing to answer questions a significant amount of time after being mirandized vs. immediately afterwards? (I'm not sure how possible this would be in a police context, really.) I'm thinking that if you mirandized a person, and then for some reason were unable to interrogate them for a few days, a lot of the effect of the warning would have worn off. This is based on my experience in a drastically different area, so I'm not entirely sure it would apply to law enforcement.

One of the requirements for Miranda is that the suspect understands their rights and decides to waive them. If a suspect tells you that they want a lawyer or wish to remain silent then all questioning must cease. At this point they would have to approach you and tell you that they have changed their mind and wish to answer questions. However, if they don't give you an answer but remain silent you could come back to them a couple days later but you'd have to advise them of their rights again.

[Broomstick]

So long as you're on board that the only possible reason I can see to not inform the suspect of his rights (and then waive the consequences that are supposed to make informing a suspect of his rights important) is that you want him to just up and tell you about bombs (with 100% no beatings lol) and still be able to charge him regarding those bombs.

Given the photographic and physical evidence there is probably enough to convict this guy whether he says a word or not.

Perhaps you are laboring under the assumption that this public safety exemption is something new or exclusive to the war on terror. It's not. It dates back to a court case in the 1980's, New York v. Quarles. This is not the first time it has been invoked.

And your insinuation that a man in serious condition in a hospital that authorities very much want alive would be subjected to beatings is just sick.

Except the act of reading someone their rights shouldn't really change the rights they automatically have, so .... ? Can you actually explain how not reading the magic spell (I mean miranda rights) assists in the acquisition of information regarding the charges to be bought against him or (more importantly) the possible or actual threat to the public?

He already did explain it - when reminded of the right to remain silent people can and do shut up. Prior to that, they sometimes have loose lips. Given the abundance of bombs, some of them successful, these two cooked up, left in public, threw at police, and had back at their residence is it really that unreasonable to ask the guy "Hey, by the way, did you have any more of these or leave any lying around the city?". If you, personally, think that's unreasonable I can live with you having that opinion but I doubt you're going to convince people who feel the opposite way.

[Channel72]

What you describe as "defaulting to their upbringing" is pretty much equivalent, psychologically speaking, to identifying with a certain ethnicity.

No its not, moron. Demonstrate that you have any clue what "psychology" says on the matter before front-loading your posts with bullshit.

Demonstrate that the distinction matters at all for the purpose of this discussion.

So again, who cares? A de-facto Muslim who doesn't really care that much about religion, but sill identifies as "Muslim" out of habit or cultural ties is pretty much analagous, psychologically speaking, to an atheist Jew who still calls himself "Jewish" out of convenience - like myself. Again, what point are you trying to make?

Now you're just flat out ignoring the issue. These two people ARE NOT EQUIVALENT. The Jew knows he is an atheist or agnostic, but keeps calling himself a Jew because that's their race and they cannot change it. The Muslim or Christian keeps calling themselves that because they don't know that they are irreligious, but have a lifetime of indoctrination supporting their identity. Its the exact fucking opposite, you simpleton.

Again, why am I reading this? I don't care if this hypothetical Jew "knows he's agnostic". What does the distinction between a non-religious Jew who identifies himself as Jewish based on ethnicity, versus a non-religious Muslim who identifies himself as "Muslim" based on upbringing have any bearing whatsoever on the issue at hand? What is your actual argument?

[fgalkin]

A friend posted this on the matter:

I have a confession to make. I am a criminal procedure geek. I know that is probably a shock to many of you. It’s a problem, but I try to control myself. With all this discussion about Miranda, I have found it hard not to discuss it, so here it goes.

I think there are many misconceptions of Miranda "rights" even among attorneys. And I must say at the outset I am a liberal and when I speak on the subject many of my fellow attorneys disagree with me on this, but this is not about being conservative or liberal. It is just understanding the basic nature of the law on Miranda.

I love Miranda. It is an area of law that has been twisted to the point where we think the Court actually cares. I wish it did and I wish being read your rights was a “right.” But the Supreme Court does not care about Miranda. You have these rights called the right to remain silent and the right to counsel. These are great. But unless you are a constitutional lawyer, you probably do not know they exist, or when and if they apply to you.

And when they apply is not so simple. There are some rights that are “trial” rights. They apply only during trial, like the right to confront your witnesses, the right to a jury, and double jeopardy. But then there are “pretrial” rights, that in order to make these rights meaningful at trial, you must know they exist before trial. What good would the right to remain silent be at trial if you were able to be interrogated before trial and then just have those statements come in during trial. Then you might feel forced to testify at trial to refute what you said, thereby eroding your trial right. So what the Court is worried about is coercion. Now coercion definitely includes torture. No one disagrees with that and even the military commission in Gitmo has said that any statement from torture will not be used as coercion might lead to fabrication by the defendant.

But how do we get to coercion in interrogation? How is coercion just simply asking questions without physical violence or the threat of? The Court believes that the accused might feel that they MUST talk to the police or else they will make things worse for them. So the Court said it is the state’s obligation to let the accused know about their rights to remain silent and to counsel in order for them to having a voluntary and knowing waiver of their rights (we can have a whole discussion on voluntary and knowing waiver, but all that needs to be said is that I have located case law that even in New York, with a suspect who refused medical attention and is bleeding in the precinct from his wounds can still be able to waive his rights; nevertheless, I believe the suspect’s wounds in Boston are more serious than that case, so meaningful waiver might not be there yet).

Thus, Miranda is not a right. You have no right to be read your rights. It is just a protection of your trial rights and under the exclusionary rule, those statements cannot be used against you in court. So if they really do wish to question him without letting him know about his rights then they will become inadmissible. Again, as a liberal it would be nice if it was that way. But as a lawyer I cannot say that that is the state of the law, especially if you have practiced in a prosecutor’s office and as a defender in Boston as I have.

As a caveat to all this, this only applies to custodial interrogation. Just because he is in the hospital, make no mistake he is under custody. But what is interrogation? Explicit questioning about the crime is interrogation, but asking for someone’s name and basic personal info for processing is ok. Also placing a piece of evidence near a suspect without outright questioning can also force or “coerce” the suspect to talk (remember this is what the Court is actually worried about). So if there are a few police standing around and the suspect wants to talk, the police do not have to rush and say “no, don’t say anything until we read you your Miranda rights!” (although most police practice is to do so so that there are no issues later at trial). Spontaneous and voluntary statements are admissible. In one of my most favorite cases, an officer with an Irish look and name (Officer Kelly) arrested two Hassidic Jewish men in Williamsburg. On the way to the precinct in the car, the men decided to talk in the back of the car in Hebrew the entire way, conspiring how to lie once they get to the precinct house. They had not been read their Miranda rights yet. Unfortunately for these two men, Officer Kelly’s mother was Jewish. Without elaborating on how your religion comes from your mother and that Officer Kelly had been mitzvah’ed, Officer Kelly knew every word they spoke. Custody? Yes. Interrogation? No. Voluntary? Yes. Admissible.

Finally we have to say a word about police practice. Though many people might leave this conversation thinking, “oh boy we have no rights,” police take this very seriously. The fact that it needs serious discussion before they figure out what to do, tells you they understand their obligations (and Miranda is more of an obligation for police, than a right to the accused). It is so serious, that most police are not allowed to read the accused their Miranda rights. If the accused continue to speak, most departments warn them that the statements will be used against them, and then if they continue still, then they are admissible (even though the police really do not need to say anything at all if there is no interrogation).

The duty of reading Miranda and getting a meaningful waiver of your rights are left to highly trained detectives and done only at the precinct house under more calmer conditions. The reason for this is because the police have a set of questions they must ask to determine if the waiver is voluntary and knowing. Many states, including NY and MA, require that the accused, beyond being read his rights, are also asked if they understood the nature of their rights, did they understand the consequences of waiving them, and finally ask them if they want to explicitly waive them (nodding of head does not count). Being dragged from a boat wounded with a 100 officers around you, is not the ideal place where you can yell: “you have the right to remain silent do you understand? do you understand the consequences? Do you waive your rights?!” (gun pointed to head). It would be a little silly don’t you think? And his waiver, if any, would be a joke. So the fact that he was not read Miranda in this situation is not extraordinary and quite in line with the essence of Miranda waiver. No statement from the Boston suspect would have been admissible in the ensuing hours of his arrest because no court would find with his injuries that a waiver was voluntary. The police would have been damned if they do, damned if they don’t in this situation.

Much more can be said on the topic. I will not speak about the “public safety exception” because I believe there are no consequences for the police if they get statements without Miranda waiver other than the fact that those statements will be inadmissible. The exclusionary rule is the only protection from Miranda violations that the Court has set up. The Court has even said that a defendant cannot sue under 1983 for a violation of their civil rights as not being read Miranda is not a violation of a right. Unfortunate as it might be, it is the law as it stands, and I know it is difficult for many lawyers to accept that. But it only takes 10 minutes in a criminal courtroom to see there are many unfortunate aspects of our criminal justice system, and you do not need to be a liberal or conservative, or even a prosecutor or defender, to agree on that.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Simon_Jester]

Honestly, I think the idea that the police are legally required to read the Miranda rights to a suspect the moment they're arrested comes from Dragnet more than anything else.

[The Xeelee]

Miranda is meant to be read before questioning, not the arrest.

Also if you call for a lawyer the police don't have to stop questioning you until the lawyer arrives.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Miranda is meant to be read before questioning, not the arrest.

Also if you call for a lawyer the police don't have to stop questioning you until the lawyer arrives.

Wrong on both.

Miranda must be read when a reasonable person would feel they aren't free to leave and is being questioned about a crime.

If a person requests an attorney or chooses to remain silent any information obtained after this point will be suppressed.

Honestly, I think the idea that the police are legally required to read the Miranda rights to a suspect the moment they're arrested comes from Dragnet more than anything else.

A lot of public perception on police procedure is gathered from TV and movies. I can't tell you how often I've arrested someone and on the way to jail they say "HEY! You didn't read me my rights. You have to let me go or You've fucked up or I'm going to sue you.

[Flagg]

And Peter King is being a racist shit on Fox News...

[Col. Crackpot]

And Peter King is being a racist shit on Fox News...

I still can't fathom how the former New York bagman for the IRA is taken seriously in a counter terrorism debate.

[bilateralrope]

Surviving Boston bombing suspect shot himself

The surviving Boston Marathon bomber shot himself in the throat as police approached, according to a US report, as officials say more attacks were planned.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, remains in a serious condition two days after being pulled bloody and wounded from a tarp-covered boat in a Watertown backyard. The capture came at the end of a tense Friday that began with his brother Tamerlan, 26, dying in a gun battle with police.

Last week's twin bombings killed three people and wounded more than 180 at the marathon's finish line.

Investigators believe the two brothers were likely planning other attacks based on the cache of weapons uncovered, Boston's police commissioner Ed Davis said overnight.

Questions are also being raised at a national level of what more the FBI could have done to prevent the bombings, after it was revealed they interviewed Tamerlan in 2011 following a request from Russia.

CBS News reported Dzhokhar had put a gun in his mouth and fired as police surrounded him, but the bullet passed out his throat. It was feared he would not be able to speak again nor recover enough to communicate in anyway. He remains under guard at a Boston hospital.

There was no word on when he might be charged and what those charges would be. The most serious charge available to federal prosecutors would be the use of a weapon of mass destruction to kill people, which carries a possible death sentence. Massachusetts does not have the death penalty.

Davis told CBS' Face the Nation authorities had found an arsenal of homemade explosives after Friday's gun battle between police and the two suspects.

''We have reason to believe, based upon the evidence that was found at that scene - the explosions, the explosive ordnance that was unexploded and the firepower that they had - that they were going to attack other individuals,'' Davis said. ''That's my belief at this point.''

The gun battle scene was filled with unexploded bombs, and authorities had to alert arriving officers to them, Davis said. One improvised explosive device was found in the Mercedes the brothers were accused of carjacking.

FBI TRAWLS THE PAST

Investigators have not offered a motive for the Boston attack. But in interviews with officials and those who knew the Tsarnaevs, a picture has emerged of the older brother as someone embittered toward the US, increasingly vehement in his Muslim faith and influential over his younger brother.

The Russian FSB intelligence service told the FBI in 2011 about information that Tamerlan was a follower of radical Islam.

According to an FBI news release, a foreign government said that Tamerlan appeared to be a strong believer and that he had changed drastically since 2010 as he prepared to leave the US for travel to a region in Russia to join unspecified underground groups.

The FBI said that in response, its agents interviewed Tamerlan and relatives, and did not find any domestic or foreign terrorism activity. The bureau said it looked into such things as his telephone and online activity, his travels and his associations with others.

Tamerlan studied accounting as a part-time student at Bunker Hill Community College in Boston for three semesters from 2006 to 2008, the school said. He was married with a young daughter.

Dzhokhar was a student at the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth.

Republican lawmakers questioned whether the FBI had fumbled the case of one of the two Boston Marathon bombing suspects, saying it was one of a series in which someone the agency had investigated had gone on to participate in terrorist attacks.

House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul said he wrote to the FBI and other officials asking why more wasn't done after the FBI's 2011 interview with Tamerlan, 26.

''Because if he was on the radar and they let him go, he's on the Russians' radar, why wasn't a flag put on him, some sort of customs flag?,'' McCaul, of Texas, said on CNN's State of the Union program. ''And I'd like to know what intelligence Russia has on him as well.''

McCaul said he believed Tamerlan had ''received training'' while on a trip to Russia last year.

Sounds like he tried to kill himself.

[Broomstick]

Yep. Funny, it can be surprisingly hard to kill yourself.

Even if his ability to speak has been destroyed if he has at least one functional hand he can still write out the answers to questions.

[weemadando]

http://www.storyleak.com/video-shows-ho ... voluntary/

Context may be lacking without being able to hear all involved parties, but they're right in saying that doesn't look very voluntary.

[CaptHawkeye]

The above just serves to remind people who really won the War on Terror. Bin Laden routinely stated his goals were to sink America's values by increasing public paranoia and bloodlust for vengeance. While I don't doubt this was little more than a means to an end for other goals how sad is it that the US can't even win against a dead man?

Sadly i'm already seeing the conspiracy nutters hijack civil rights controversies with "overthrow the government" rhetoric. These people missed the real culprit for America's problems back in 2001 and of course they'll miss it again.

The real culprit here is Americans themselves. It's tempting for them to blame the government or blame foreigners, but the reality is the state is only doing what they want it to do. Which is bring them the blood of wanted criminals. Their is just one problem, that's not justice, it's vengeance.

[Broomstick]

http://www.storyleak.com/video-shows-ho ... voluntary/

Context may be lacking without being able to hear all involved parties, but they're right in saying that doesn't look very voluntary.

Context is important. Sure, guys in black clothing with guns can be very frightening. Were they kicking down doors, or asking occupants to open them? Just as you can ask how willing were the homeowners, you can also how UNwilling were they? Unless you interview the homeowners themselves you don't really know how they viewed it.

Police searching private residences in pursuit of fugitives isn't something new with the "war on terror". People are acting like nothing of this sort was ever done before 2001 but in fact it was. It's become a lot more common since 2001, undeniably. It's like the "no fly zones" that pop up - there have been "no fly zones" set up over emergency sites or over certain events for decades.

The question is whether they are using these things excessively or inappropriately. I don't know, if the people of Boston want these guys caught within a week and are willing to make the necessary sacrifices I'm not sure it's up to anyone else to gainsay that. If Bostonians are pissed off about it that's a different matter entirely.

[Alyeska]

Yes, how willing were home owners when the police showed up with guns drawn. There was no fucking choice for almost every home owner.

Home to home searches on a block for a suspect? Could be reasonable. Home to home searches on thousands of homes to find a single suspect? Massively unreasonable. Unless the guy had a backpack nuke or something.

I hope those searches get challenged and go to court. The police need to be reigned in.

[CaptHawkeye]

The police or Americans? This is a serious question. Are the police simply the most convenient scapegoat for what is ultimately a serious cultural problem? Would they have searched as many houses as invasively as they had if the public clamor for finding these guys wasn't so loud?

[Broomstick]

Yes, how willing were home owners when the police showed up with guns drawn. There was no fucking choice for almost every home owner.

I think you're mistaking "resistance is futile" for "this homeowner approves of searching for the bad guys even with personal inconvenience".

I hope those searches get challenged and go to court. The police need to be reigned in.

But what if most of Boston approves of the tactics? If most people approve - regardless of whether they should or not - then it will not be taken to court and challenged. The issue here is whether or not people are trading their rights for security, and whether or not they approve of such a trade.

If most of Boston approves of what was done then the blame is not with the police it's with the populace who approves such an action.