• 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

Ikari said:
I understand that, but it does not excuse infinite government force.
Click to expand...
It's only been a few days...that's hardly "infinite"...ease up on the hyperbole, please.
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

aseidner said:
Under most circumstances, I would say that it is not ok. However, the situation in Boston is not most circumstance. The individuals involved have shown themselves to be capable of inflicting great harm upon innocent people and must be apprehended.
Click to expand...
This is pretty much my answer. Generally, no. Never say 'never', though.
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

What are the facts?

I thought they advised people to stay clear yet it was not martial law.

Look at the poll ... it was not as most where it is divided by partisan loyalty.

Actually I would appreciate an warning from the city of danger and advisory to stay in yet leave it to me to take the risk if I decide to venture out. This is an interesting ethical dilemma.
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

ecofarm said:
I don't mean to sound cold and heartless, but... How many people die in Boston from car accidents per day? Smoking? Drinking? I'm guessing a few. Locking down a city because a terrorist will try to kill people seems like giving into terrorism. I think it's an overreaction.

Shutting down millions of dollars in business because a couple people might get killed? If we did that for every minor risk, no one would ever leave home.
Click to expand...

I agree.

You do not shut down an entire city because of a man or two.

Now, if they had a radioactive 'dirty' bomb or something more lethal like that - okay.

But 'locking down' a city for a 19 year old teenager?

This is a WAY over reaction, imo.

Talk about empowering the terrorists.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

ecofarm said:
A photo of downtown:

The day Boston became a ghost town - CNN.com


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



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.
Click to expand...

I remember a time in the 1970s when Canada put the entire Province of Quebec under marshal law and basically shut it down because of about a dozen terrorists who'd kidnapped and killed - sometimes inconvenience is necessary for the greater good. Wasn't it bad enough that on the run these two guys killed one campus police officer, seriously wounded a transit officer, kidnapped a citizen and carjacked his SUV while trying to escape? Without the lockdown, there could potentially have been lots of hostages to take.
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

FreedomFromAll said:
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.
Click to expand...

I appreciate what you're saying and generally agree - I believe they knew they had him in a confined area and wanted to make sure he couldn't get out - as it turned out, they were right and nobody else lost their life. I'm willing to give them credit for a job well done here but I agree that a prolonged lockdown would not have been acceptible.
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

Jerry said:
It's only been a few days...that's hardly "infinite"...ease up on the hyperbole, please.
Click to expand...

Not temporally for god's sake, infinite in magnitude.
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

CanadaJohn said:
Without the lockdown, there could potentially have been lots of hostages to take.
Click to expand...

Like he could not have gone into any home and got hostages.
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

CanadaJohn said:
I appreciate what you're saying and generally agree - I believe they knew they had him in a confined area and wanted to make sure he couldn't get out - as it turned out, they were right and nobody else lost their life. I'm willing to give them credit for a job well done here but I agree that a prolonged lockdown would not have been acceptible.
Click to expand...

When I wrote that ironically they had already stopped the lockdown. I literally wrote that post then the next thing I read online is that the lockdown is over. Then they started talking about going to what ended up being the boat.

But yea it worked
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

ecofarm said:
Like he could not have gone into any home and got hostages.
Click to expand...
True, but with everyone else locked down he gives away his position potentially. All it takes is one concerned neighbor and a general direction.
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

LaMidRighter said:
All it takes is one concerned neighbor and a general direction.
Click to expand...

That's all it would take without a lockdown.
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

ecofarm said:
That's all it would take without a lockdown.
Click to expand...
In most circumstances I agree, every once in a while though you have a real problem with people like these latest clowns who will purposefully cause choas, I mean, the two brothers did that without a need to escape, imagine if they have tons of targets and want to distract law enforcement by creating casualties.
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

They were not just run of the mill criminals.

I'd say, in a situation like this, it was the right thing to do. God forbid law enforcement does their job.
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

LaMidRighter said:
In most circumstances I agree, every once in a while though you have a real problem with people like these latest clowns who will purposefully cause choas, I mean, the two brothers did that without a need to escape, imagine if they have tons of targets and want to distract law enforcement by creating casualties.
Click to expand...

I'm sure this will become a topic of discussion soon enough, and I'm not helping myself by swimming upstream against the celebration. I, like the politicians, will wait a bit before continuing this line of skepticism.
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

ecofarm said:
I'm sure this will become a topic of discussion soon enough, and I'm not helping myself by swimming upstream against the celebration. I, like the politicians, will wait a bit before continuing this line of skepticism.
Click to expand...
99% of the time I would say lockdowns are excessive, there was something spectacularly concerning about these two.
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

specklebang said:
During the week following 9/11, the whole country was on lockdown. Tourists in Las Vegas were stuck here for a week.
Click to expand...

There was no "lockdown." Planes weren't flying. That was it.
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

OK. You are probably right. It was a long time ago. I think I had a sense of extraordinary paranoia in process around then, but that could be just my imagination mixed with brain cell loss.

Harshaw said:
There was no "lockdown." Planes weren't flying. That was it.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

ecofarm said:
I'm sure this will become a topic of discussion soon enough, and I'm not helping myself by swimming upstream against the celebration. I, like the politicians, will wait a bit before continuing this line of skepticism.
Click to expand...

You may be on to something - I'll bet anything that those "politicians" will be petitioning Obama and Congress for financial relief to pay for the law enforcement and lost economic costs associated with this week in Boston. Part of that will be claims that the lockdown was unnecessary and transit authorities should be made whole and businesses too, or they'll sue.
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

specklebang said:
OK. You are probably right. It was a long time ago. I think I had a sense of extraordinary paranoia in process around then, but that could be just my imagination mixed with brain cell loss.
Click to expand...

You are basically correct - much of Washington DC and New York City were in virtual lockdown with subway systems idle and many businesses and areas of both cities off limits for a time, including the closure of the NY Stock Exchange. That was, obviously, a much different time, but the principle of ensuring public safety with limits on public movement are similar.
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

LaMidRighter said:
In most circumstances I agree, every once in a while though you have a real problem with people like these latest clowns who will purposefully cause choas, I mean, the two brothers did that without a need to escape, imagine if they have tons of targets and want to distract law enforcement by creating casualties.
Click to expand...

Yes, so now terrorists know that 2-4 people can shut down an entire major US city. We will panic and piss ourselves instead. Doesn't matter how stringent laws and surveillance are when you just have to hide a few people within millions. So great job, I just hope enemies of ours were not paying attention.
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

LaMidRighter said:
99% of the time I would say lockdowns are excessive, there was something spectacularly concerning about these two.
Click to expand...
I don't necessarily disagree with this, but being the committed and convinced slippery-slope theorist that I am, I fear the...

"Well, it worked, we got the bad guy, and everybody seemed to think it was a good idea, so... let's pass some new laws and make it standard operating procedure. But, only for the most serious situations, of course (*wink wink, nod nod*)"

...mindset, and we'll end up with even more erosion of our Constitutional protections.
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

radcen said:
I don't necessarily disagree with this, but being the committed and convinced slippery-slope theorist that I am, I fear the...

"Well, it worked, we got the bad guy, and everybody seemed to think it was a good idea, so... let's pass some new laws and make it standard operating procedure. But, only for the most serious situations, of course (*wink wink, nod nod*)"

...mindset, and we'll end up with even more erosion of our Constitutional protections.
Click to expand...
It's a fair concern, and one that I would be the first to admit if they started doing this. Look at different variables though, serial killers(identity unknown), bank robbers(won't engage non-specific targets as a rule, general public safe), but then you had these two who willingly placed lethal explosive devices right next to women and children with the intent to harm.

In a case like the last, you get innocents out of the line of fire, and cut off escape. Hopefully making the perpetrators desperate and bring them out. Normally this wouldn't work but this was that 1% of cases where I think it was the right call.
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

Ikari said:
Yes, so now terrorists know that 2-4 people can shut down an entire major US city. We will panic and piss ourselves instead. Doesn't matter how stringent laws and surveillance are when you just have to hide a few people within millions. So great job, I just hope enemies of ours were not paying attention.
Click to expand...
To be fair, these two were stupid enough to set the field in front of thousands of witnesses and stayed alive to be persued. Many of these terrorists go on suicide missions so they wouldn't force the same result. This was a one in a million event with specifics that probably won't be seen again.
 
Re: Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few crimina

LaMidRighter said:
To be fair, these two were stupid enough to set the field in front of thousands of witnesses and stayed alive to be persued. Many of these terrorists go on suicide missions so they wouldn't force the same result. This was a one in a million event with specifics that probably won't be seen again.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom