With Regard to the Police Search of That Particular Watertown House

[MineralMan]

I have questions:

1. What is the source of the video? Who took it? What is that person's comment?
2. Is that house even in Watertown, and was that search connected to the Marathon Bombing suspect search?
3. Why has nobody who lived in that house posted anything at all on the Internet?
4. Why are the only objections to that search coming from people who are not even from the area?
5. Where is even one resident of that area or neighborhood raising a stink about that search?
6. Why is that the only video being used to "prove" that the police were violating people's rights?
7. Could there have been a 911 call saying, "I just saw someone run into the house at {address}?
8. Why are there no other examples of police misbehavior during that period.
9. Why are all of those Boston area residents cheering the police?
10. Can we please move on to the next story?

[MineralMan]

1. And, No, I Will Not Post Another Copy of That Video. nt

[NCTraveler]

2. "Can we please move on to the next story?"

Let me know when you are ready.

[arcane1]

3. I asked similar questions about that vid recently, but got no answers from the poster

[MineralMan]

4. Yah. I saw that.

Apparently, nobody has those answers, which leads me to think: "Much ado about nothing."

[Bragi]

5. You mean this video?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2742634

If so, I think your questions (at least the ones about why Americans don't complain any more when their rights are trampled) are answered here:

How Boston exposes America’s dark post-9/11 bargain
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/20/how_boston_exposes_americas_dark_post_911_bargain/

[MineralMan]

6. Uh, no. Your second link explains nothing about what I asked.

Sorry, but thanks for the try.

[Bragi]

7. Sure it does

It answers any questions about why it is that Americans don't complain about armed police in military gear locking down their city, seizing control of their neighborhoods, and telling them to stay in their houses until the (warrantless) house-by-house search gets to their doorstep.

There was a time when this kind of government activity was seen as something that happened in distant totalitarian countries, but couldn't happen in America.

Now it has happened, it turned out to be surprisingly easy to do, and it will certainly happen again in the future.

Why did Americans comply with police in such a craven manner, you asked?

As the article states, it's because Americans have traded in their rights for the promise of security. To paraphrase Ben Franklin, they will end up with neither.

[MineralMan]

8. Nope. I read it. None of my questions were answered.

Can you answer any of them?

"Why did Americans comply with police in such a craven manner, you asked? "

No, I didn't ask that. Please reread my post. That was not one of my questions at all. I think you're not even trying.

[Bragi]

9. You are obtuse or disengenuous. Have a nice day /nt

[MineralMan]

10. No, I'm neither of those things.

I asked some specific, pertinent questions. You chose to ignore them in an attempt to answer a question I did not ask.

That is the very definition of obtuse and disingenuous, actually. But that's OK. I won't wait for any replies to my actual questions from you.

[onenote]

11. Most searches are and always have been conducted without a warrant

And it is a rare instance indeed in which a search of a person's property when the object of the search is something that the property owner wants the police to find is not consented to or otherwise deemed to be a reasonable search. And the fourth amendment guarantees persons the right to be secure "against unreasonable searches" not against "searches."

Its not that Americans are becoming sheep. Its that Americans have always tended to say "come on in" when the police show up saying "there may be an armed killer hiding in your house, can we take a look?"

[Bragi]

14. You wrote:

"Americans have always tended to say "come on in" when the police show up saying "there may be an armed killer hiding in your house, can we take a look?"

Having watched events unfold on Friday in Boston, I do not agree at all with the above "Chief Andy of Mayberry comes to visit" characterization of what was, in fact, a total lockdown of a major city by heavily-armed police, in full paramilitary gear, going street-by-street and door-to-door, searching homes.

Sorry, that isn't an America I have known before last week.

[onenote]

16. Maybe that's because Otis Campbell never tried to blow up Floyd's barber shop.

No, this didn't look like Mayberry. I think most people in the Boston area recognized that this was an extraordinary situation callling for extraordinary measures. You are free to disagree, but it appears that most people have a different take on the situation and its not because they all have been cowed into submission or brainwashed. At least that's my takeaway from the many people in the Boston area (my firm employs several hundred people in Boston and is located around the corner from the blast site).

[treestar]

13. In the context your analysis does not apply.

There was a crazed, homicidal, bombing maniac on the lose in the area.

When was that ever the case in distant totalitarian countries?

If this happened just looking for political opponents of the ruler, maybe.

Hell the bombing would not happen in a totalitarian country. Their freedoms would be too limited for that to even happen.

[Bragi]

17. You want context?

The context was, as you put it, "there was a crazed, homicidal, bombing maniac on the lose in the area."

Yes, and the context was that for this reason, the Boston authorities put the entire city on lockdown, had the police put on their best paramilitary camo, told citizens to stay inside their homes and shut their businesses, and mounted an unprecedented street-by-street, house-by-house search for the suspect.

Additional context: The day long search failed to produce any result, the "crazed, homicidal, bombing maniac" was still on the loose, but because there had been no result, the authorities held a newser at dinner time announcing that the citywide daylight police raid was over, and everyone should remain vigilant but resume their normal lives.

That's the context. So, if the very presence of a "crazed, homicidal, bombing maniac" justified the extreme measures already taken, as you argue, then why was the lockdown lifted? The alleged exigent threat hadn't changed one iota. So wuzzup with that?

When we resolve that, we can then maybe move on to delve into the fact that minutes after the lockdown ends, a re-freed (unarmed) citizen goes out to check the boat in his backyard, and finds out the suspect in there, which he reports to police, thus removing the existential threat posed by what turned out (in hindsight) to be a wounded guy bleeding out in a backyard boat.

Here's another question: Given that the lockdown dissuaded the boatowner from checking his backyard earlier, is it not proper to concldue that the extreme and unprecedented police lockdown in Boston not only contributed nothing to finding the bomber, IT ACTUALLY DELAYED FINDING HIM!

And we haven't even touched on the constitutionality of the lockdown and the house searches! So much to ponder, so little time...

[Th1onein]

23. +1000

Thank you for this! You said it so much better than I ever could.

[treestar]

25. They knew it could not go on forever

And the passage of time would mean he had time to calm down.

It is a lucky thing he did not take out anyone else.

It is mere coincidence that the guy who found him in the boat found him right after the shelter in place was lifted. It could have been much later. The cops might have found him in the search process, without the civilian being exposed to the danger he was exposed to (and very luckily did not suffer harm).

Do you disagree with the characterization "crazed, homicidal, bombing maniac?" You put it in quotes as if you don't agree with it.

[zipplewrath]

12. Doesn't sound like you really want answers

10. Can we please move on to the next story?

You haven't gotten any of the answers but you already know it's time to "move on". Doesn't sound like you're actually coming into this with an open mind. Not surprised you haven't gotten alot of answers.

FWIW, even though I don't think you're really listening, I understand some of your questions. It is relatively dangerous to suggest that anyone understands what is being seen in such a video. However, the converse of the question is that what happened in Boston does raise fairly serious questions about the future. We saw procedures used, that really had no predecessor, and they mostly leveraged the condition of fear that was pervasive at the time. The video is illustrative in that sense. There is nothing in the procedures seen, that could not be used in a wide variety of circumstances, and really no one could stop their use immediately. It could take years of litigation to stop their pervasive use, and to some degree it would never be stopped, just mitigated.

There is no doubt there is some hyperbole in these criticisms. But there is also some larger legitimate concerns. This is a new power we are giving to our militarized police forces. Look at what they did with their powers during the Occupy protests and imagine these new powers being used in that context. On this same day we saw reports of a man killed in his home by police that raided the wrong house. When we empower our police forces to use extraordinary means, they will use them to the limits WE set.

[onenote]

15. The report of a man killed in his home by a mistaken police raid

was 13 years old. Not that it makes it any less tragic, but it does undercut the idea that something new and different is going on here.
Its worth noting that the ACLU has indicated that they did not see anything illegal in the Boston area searches. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/04/boston-door-to-door-searches-legal/64461/

[MineralMan]

18. It doesnt sound like you have any answers.

Every question I asked is a valid one. The responses, including yours, ignore the questions. Telling.

[zipplewrath]

26. Thought you wanted to "move on"?

You said you did anyway. Changing your mind?

[WinkyDink]

19. The brother was found AFTER the order to stay inside was lifted. AFTER.

J/S.

[MineralMan]

20. So? Did anyone anticipate that?

It is always easy to criticize after the fact. Were you directly affected by this? If not, I would rather hear from those who live there. Do you know what they think?

[The Straight Story]

21. Answers

1. What is the source of the video? Who took it? What is that person's comment?
--Look at youtube where it was posted. Do some google news searches. And what does it matter their comment? Do you need someone to tell you what you are seeing? DO you think they taped it and put it online because they were bored?

2. Is that house even in Watertown, and was that search connected to the Marathon Bombing suspect search?
--Watch it and pause often. Trash cans, car plates, etc. A lot of clues.

3. Why has nobody who lived in that house posted anything at all on the Internet?
-How do you know they have not? And why should they?

4. Why are the only objections to that search coming from people who are not even from the area?
-So if we don't hear objections from people in an area like say, Iraq, then actions are ok?

5. Where is even one resident of that area or neighborhood raising a stink about that search?
-Apparently someone raised a stink because they took a video of it and posted it.

6. Why is that the only video being used to "prove" that the police were violating people's rights?
--

If you had watched the earlier video and looked at the link you would see it is not the only one.


7. Could there have been a 911 call saying, "I just saw someone run into the house at {address}?
--If so, where is the 911 call? They are recorded.

8. Why are there no other examples of police misbehavior during that period.
--Have you looked or do you want someone to do that for you?

9. Why are all of those Boston area residents cheering the police?
--Some cheered, how do we know others didn't? Maybe you only saw what people wanted you to see.

10. Can we please move on to the next story?
--Sure. Can we stop talking about Iraq, bush, etc - we need to move on. Look forward, not back.

[MineralMan]

22. Not really.

1. Did all that. No answers, frankly.
2. Did that. No real evidence.
3. Seems reasonable that they would post. Searched but no luck.
4. Boston is no Iraq. Folks have access to Internet. Nothing. I searched.
5. One post, maybe. That is unclear. Lots of people affected. No uproar. I searched.
6. I looked at many videos. Link?
7. Cannot say. Has anyone there asked?
8. Yup. I searched. Nothing. There is never nothing.
9. Didn't see anyone no cheering. Do they not have YouTube or internet?.
10. Not an answer.

[Th1onein]

24. You've got a good head on your shoulders, Straight Story.

Thanks for posting your answers. Great rebuttal.