• 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

No. We don't live in the land of the secure. We live in the land of the free.
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

I would say in general with terrorism over here, that would be true. But it doesn't mean tactics couldn't evolve; particularly if they witnessed such unintentional success as this pair pulled off.
Oh sure, and if copycats do start exposing themselves to force lockdowns then the tactics have to evolve as well. I think Boston made a good call this particular time.
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

of course the logical answer simply depends on the criminals :shrug:

couple people that stole a couple gallons of gas? or course not
terrorist of the boston bombers, yes especially since that "lockdown" was voluntary
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

of course the logical answer simply depends on the criminals :shrug:

couple people that stole a couple gallons of gas? or course not
terrorist of the boston bombers, yes especially since that "lockdown" was voluntary
It's always going to be situational. In the NYC attacks of 9/11 the majority of the damage was done, the assailants were dead, and the situation while ****ed up severely was for the most part stable. In Boston the two crackpots were very much alive, mobile, and causing havok. Law enforcement could have made the call either way in Boston and probably been correct, I don't think I would have made a different one knowing the suspects were likely still in the city.
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

To catch a bank robber, no. To catch someone setting off bombs, yes.
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

I doubt that these extreme measures they did do would have happened had they not gone on a rampage and killed the cop, wounded another, and so on. If they had laid low, and it were just a search, it probably would have been much less intrusive.
 
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 say no. I think the crazy cop on the west coast was a bigger threat and they didn't throw liberty out for that. So I disagree with "depends on the criminal". It gets easier to justify suspending the Constitution with each new circumstance if we let them (the gov't).
 
Back
Top Bottom