Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by Moshpet
SO one minute it wasn't ok to be active in "normal activities" and then the next "it was". Good thing too. They caught the guy when "normal
activities" resumed. Almost immediately. It appears they could have caught the guy a lot sooner if "normal activities" weren't curtailed.
I'm leaning towards the thought you are going for argumentative.
At the time of 'you may resume normal activities,' the LEO's etc were standing down, decompressing, and going to a more normal, "Let's get back
to tickets and dealing with domestic crap." So yes it was safer for the Boat Owner to go out and take his smoke break. It's not impossible for
someone to confuse a flash of light with a threat of being shot at. While it is unlikely a calm awake non-adrenayaled up LEO would snap fire with out
hearing a bang.... The Boston LEOs were on 16-18 hours of 'on the job' and highly stressed during the 'stay in your homes bit;' it would have
placed the had he wandered out to do it during that time. Tired stressed out people have made worse snap & fire calls.
The other big what if, is had the Perp not quite been in the boat or in the yard, would he have shot and killed the boat owner? Or made it into his
house and created a hostage situation.
If you are trying to make an obscure point that the LEOs should just let civies get into the middle of that kind of man-hunt and firefights. Or that
if you think the LEOs failed to protect the people of Boston, or were inept or just unlucky, say so.
Because as it stands, all I can see is you are trying to score points off of the LEOs and Feds etc that did a damned good job of keeping people out of
harms way, and kept civies alive by not over reacting at the wrong instances.
So what is it? Are you just trying to score bs points off the LEO's and the operation as it was handled, or are you trying to say that letting Joe
Dumbarsed Idiot endanger themselves and others is; better than having people voluntarily keep themselves inside and out of harms way?
If you are trying to score points, sorry I don't give stars for that; and frankly you are not evidently authorised to make decisions like those in
charge of Boston during the crisis did. So you can't score points that way.
If it's your point to defend people have a right to be stupid and get themselves others killed..... I think you'd not find many would say anyone had
a right to endanger themselves or their family. Or that they didn't have right to protect their family from such endangerment.
I'm certain that neither you or anyone else has a right to endanger anyone, or their family; even if you think your rights under such an occasion may
or may not be infringed.
I don't think you'd want to press that sort of issue outside the safety of a forum like this, you know where people might really think you wanted to
endanger them, especially under the conditions of Boston these past few days. People tend to get a bit defensive and proactive in the protection of
themselves and their families.
Yet on the Internet, you can get away with such things.
As long as people will tolerate you.