• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few criminals?

Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few criminals?


  • Total voters
    52
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

Yet 9/11 caused the United states to start a war on terror, invade two countries, and spend billions upon billions fighting enemys in the shadows.

I'm afraid your history is wrong. Iraq was not invaded with any basis in 9/11.
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few criminals? I say no.
"A few criminals" is hardly accurate. Terrorists who just bombed a public place and are active shooters. Yes, locking down a town is completely appropriate.
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

Maybe/other. Under most circumstances no, such as a serial killer(if you can call that normal), a guy who killed a specific target, etc.
When you have a situation where suspects could hide in the populace, attacked at random, have non-specific targets, and their motives and MO are relatively unknown then yes, lock the city down.

reasons;
1) Limited crowds on the streets, they can't blend in.
2) Hopefully limited civilian interaction with the perpetrators, reduces the chance for further casualties.
3) Keeps movement of the populace to a minimum, if you can start to do a sweep you may be able to catch the perps.

It's not optimal and shouldn't be used unless the situation is extreme. However in the Boston incident there's been a lot of damage done, and even police were engaged and injured/killed at random.
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

The principle of martial law has long been used in the US and around the world. Folks are being asked to stay off the streets for a very short time period. This aspect of it (attacking the lockdown) is much ado about nothing.
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

Yet 9/11 caused the United states to start a war on terror, invade two countries, and spend billions upon billions fighting enemys in the shadows.

Most Americans are still unaware that Al Qaeda declared war on America in 1996 and very few even know why Al Qaeda decided to hit America on it's own soil.

Unfortunately someone decided that Al Qaeda wasn't a national security issue but a law enforcement issue. The rest is history.

It's all here.-> Bin Laden's Fatwa | PBS NewsHour | Aug. 23, 1996 | PBS
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

If I lived there I'd gtfo. It's not a quarantine, it's a lock-down. You can leave, you just can't come and go as you please....but you can leave. I'd let them search my **** and I'd remove myself before I got my legs ****ing blown off and became the punch-line of one of my own morbid jokes. Nah, the only way you'd find me in that town is if I were part a unit dealing with the situation....but not a bystander.
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

The only way a city lockdown would help catch a suspect would be if door to door searches follow. We don't want this.
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

The only way a city lockdown would help catch a suspect would be if door to door searches follow. We don't want this.
Not necessarily. Give them a little leeway and let them try to slip through, provided you have some idea of where they are, then get them out in the open and ambush. The other thing you can do is use the time to triangulate the general area they may be in and move, but really you don't want them at their home, god knows what they have and how ready they are to lock in and retaliate.
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

The only way a city lockdown would help catch a suspect would be if door to door searches follow. We don't want this.
They don't need to open your home to look inside.
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

They don't need to open your home to look inside.

not yet anyway
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

I think to opine about this...maybe living next door to people like the brothers...might be a key as how we make the call on lock down...or not.

Dunno, this is a hard question. I'd prefer that government doesn't lock down...but I'm not there.
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few criminals? I say no.

Depends on the criminals, and the level of threat they present.
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

Depends on the criminals, and the level of threat they present.

Military invasion, I can understand a lock down. A couple of insane jackasses? Not at all. There will always be handfuls of insane jackasses; are we going to shut down our major cities every time some appear?

America endures, America overcomes, America conquers. There is no reason to run in fear of a few fanatics.
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

Military invasion, I can understand a lock down. A couple of insane jackasses? Not at all. There will always be handfuls of insane jackasses; are we going to shut down our major cities every time some appear?

America endures, America overcomes, America conquers. There is no reason to run in fear of a few fanatics.

A few insane fanatics that can harm a few people, no. A couple of fanatics who can kill hundreds, maybe thousands, yes.
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few criminals? I say no.



Generally, no.


In this particular case, I'd be prepared to make a rare exception.
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few criminals? I say no.

I could be wrong, but it's my understanding that the government didn't put the City of Boston and surrounding areas into a lockdown but the local police departments "requested" that residents stay inside - I believe the term is "secure in place" - to assist police and federal authorities in their search for the remaining suspect who was fleeing. I believe the city governments and the state's Governor also made the same request of the area's citizens.

This wasn't an institution of marshal law or a mandatory curfew - it was a call for people to stay safe and let the authorities do their job without having to protect potential victims as well.
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

not yet anyway
Anyone with a smart-phone can look at the permissions the various apps have. I have 4 core apps my phone will not function without, which have permission to record sound and video without my knowledge or consent. You will find similar permissions for any browser addons you have. On-Star has similar permissions.
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

I could be wrong, but it's my understanding that the government didn't put the City of Boston and surrounding areas into a lockdown but the local police departments "requested" that residents stay inside - I believe the term is "secure in place" - to assist police and federal authorities in their search for the remaining suspect who was fleeing. I believe the city governments and the state's Governor also made the same request of the area's citizens.

This wasn't an institution of marshal law or a mandatory curfew - it was a call for people to stay safe and let the authorities do their job without having to protect potential victims as well.

...

Gov. Deval Patrick, meanwhile, lifted an order that confined an estimated one million residents to their homes, urging people to "remain vigilant."

Manhunt: Where is the suspected Boston Marathon bomber? - CNN.com
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

They don't need to open your home to look inside.


This may be true but I'd prefer not having them track in the mud...
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina


The former assistant secretary of homeland security for the state of Massachussetts referred to it as a "voluntary" lockdown. I'd like to see an actual order from the Governor that "confined" residents before I believe a report in the media - I don't have much faith in them getting it right in such situations. CNN, after all, was inaccurately reporting just the other day that suspects had been arrested.
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

The former assistant secretary of homeland security for the state of Massachussetts referred to it as a "voluntary" lockdown. I'd like to see an actual order from the Governor that "confined" residents before I believe a report in the media - I don't have much faith in them getting it right in such situations. CNN, after all, was inaccurately reporting just the other day that suspects had been arrested.

A photo of downtown:

The day Boston became a ghost town - CNN.com


I'd have to look for the exact "order".

What this may be referring to is the Governor's order shutting down all transportation services in the city.

It said 1 million residents were confined to their homes. Again, I'd have to research to see exactly what the "order" was.

The bottom line is that we turned a productive city into a ghost town for a day, losing millions in business... just because of 2 people. With a few people, could I shut down half the major cities in the country? Looks like it.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

I could be wrong, but it's my understanding that the government didn't put the City of Boston and surrounding areas into a lockdown but the local police departments "requested" that residents stay inside - I believe the term is "secure in place" - to assist police and federal authorities in their search for the remaining suspect who was fleeing. I believe the city governments and the state's Governor also made the same request of the area's citizens.

This wasn't an institution of marshal law or a mandatory curfew - it was a call for people to stay safe and let the authorities do their job without having to protect potential victims as well.

Which is why I checked: No..

The question posed in this poll asked a general question so it deserved a general answer. Which generally speaking why would anyone like the idea of locking down a entire city in order to catch a few criminals?

But if this guy gets away and the lock down continues over night or perhaps into the next I bet there will be a huge public outcry. Some people dont keep food in their houses and some people dont have houses and a thousand other situations.
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

A few insane fanatics that can harm a few people, no. A couple of fanatics who can kill hundreds, maybe thousands, yes.

Depends on circumstance. Though we have almost 314 million people, so 1000/314000000 is ~.000318%
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

Anyone with a smart-phone can look at the permissions the various apps have. I have 4 core apps my phone will not function without, which have permission to record sound and video without my knowledge or consent. You will find similar permissions for any browser addons you have. On-Star has similar permissions.

I understand that, but it does not excuse infinite government force.
 
Back
Top Bottom