Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Stop the Police State

With regard to the police state shutdown of Boston Ron Paul said,

Mr. Paul reminded the surviving suspect, 19-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, was ultimately discovered by a civilian, and not due to police crackdown, Politico reported.
“He was discovered by a private citizen, who then placed a call to the police,” he said. “And he was identified not by government surveillance cameras, but by private citizens who willingly shared their photographs with the police.

In the meantime I had participated in a Facebook discussion on the same topic that went as follows,

April 20 near, IL 
I'm not sure what is scarier. The Boston bombing was a terrible tragedy. But the fact that authorities could shut down a city the size of Boston so easily is scary. It is good for a manhunt to ensue to catch these men who did the bombing, but if authorities can stop movement, transit, and all other forms of gathering so easily, what is to prevent the wrong person(s) in control of such things from doing so? And the, where is our "freedom?"
Rob U are way too paranoid. The people in this country would not take it for long even if it did happen April 20 at 9:03am via mobile · Like
Janet I think they had a lot of help from the public on that one. I would so co-operate with something like this. If the people had not wanted to co-operate, there would be no shutting down anything. April 20 at 9:40am · Like · 1
Grady Foster It is instructive that the second perp was discovered when and because people were freed to go out on and about their own business. When we depend on the police or centralized government to do a job alone there is trouble in the offing. The benefits of freedom of movement, freedom of expression and freedom of belief are too innumerable to list or fully comprehend.  April 20 at 9:46am · Like · 2
Paul what if they didn't have guns, but those running the show did? Janet I think that people seem to be in a terrorist mode and will cooperate with a heck of a lot. Rather than paranoid, I think we need to think of the possibilities and think rather than just react. April 20 at 11:28am · Like
Steven Paul, the City of Boston did not require or force anyone to stay in doors. What they did do is strongly recommend for each person, and for the safety of the society as a whole, not to go out and risk the possibility of coming into contact with armed killers. This is no different than the government telling you to get in the basement of your home in the event of a tornado. At the end of the day you can still take a risk and go out in the tornado but it's at your own risk. April 20 at 5:26pm · Like
Grady Foster The Governor's stay in place "request" was widely reported in the media as an "order" and officials weren't exactly falling over themselves to correct or clarify that misinformation. With regards to the 2nd perp, society actually was made safe as a the direct result of an individual civilian taking initiative and coming into contact with the armed killer. That was a totally different fact situation from an approaching tornado, where in reality people are generally counseled to use their best judgment and aren't specially ordered to do anything. PS -- I know people who are alive today because they ignored the intercom instructions to stay in place in the 2nd tower at the WTC. The bureaucrats always want things as neat and orderly as possible -- that isn't the same thing as being safe. April 20 at 7:48pm · Like
Steven  Grady, I believe it is overwhelmingly accepted and common sense that you don't go out of your home, which is considered to be a safe place, when there is danger outside. Of course that doesn't mean that by staying in your home someone still won't break in but overall, it is understandably deemed safer to be located on the inside. I believe that an overwhelming majority of the people in Boston felt that their freedoms were never being imposed upon by the government's request / order to stay indoors while a dangerous killer was on the loose. April 20 at 10:41pm · Like
Paul Steve, I can't agree. If you went by that line of reasoning,no one would ever go outside. There is always danger wherever we are, especially in large cities. Whether it be from just accidents, to random acts of violence, to a dangerous killer, to gangs, to organized crime. Just from a few people you see here, not everyone, amongst millions of people, would choose voluntarily to stay inside. When violent criminals escape from prison, you don't see massive action of people not going outside. This, unfortunately, is the world in which we live. April 21 at 7:39am · Like

Grady Foster Steve, there are at least three options, stay inside and hope for the best, get away from the source of danger as safely as and quickly as one can (this is frequently the best option, even if that means temporarily increasing one's exposure to danger), or to confront and deal with the source of danger directly (possibly protecting others or allowing them to escape in the process). No centralized government authority is capable of deciding which option is best. Which of these options to use in particular situations depends on assessing on the ground, in the here and now, what is going on and acting accordingly. There is no such thing as single "common sense" fact free solution, but the government is really good a coming up with one that interferes with our freedoms. April 21 at 9:38am · Like
Steven  Grady, Paul, sorry not to respond sooner. It's Sunday.... In reading over your comments  I think we actually might be saying similar things but it's a matter of degree. For example, instead of locking down the whole city, perhaps you would accept or be comfortable with road blocks where each car passing a certain point was checked. Still, some people would feel that that is an imposition on one's freedom. From my side, I would not be comfortable if the government ordered everyone to stay inside for say 3 days. I would begin to worry that something is not right. I think this conversation is really about what our tolerance for what government requires us to do under a given situation. Grady, I do agree about one thing you said and that is there is, no single "common sense" fact free solution. However, what I don't agree with is that the government's motivation to have citizens stay inside for the day was to impose on one's freedom. That part is too much of a stretch. April 21 at 6:50pm · Like
Grady Foster Common sense prevailed after all in Boston -- Dunkin Donuts stayed open throughout. Cheers! http://www.boston.com/businessupdates/2013/04/19/cops-request-dunkin-donuts-stays-open/a981LXWXrfuZAAgnIM1YjL/story.html

No comments:

Post a Comment