Everyone seems to be asking why (and how) the people of Boston (Watertown) could let the police do what they did in the search for the mad "Bomber # 2"? Allow police to search their houses without a warrant.....Let their Constitutional rights be trampled?
Really, what choice did they have? To lock their doors and wait for the gunfire? Wait for the battering ram to break the door down and the Tac Team to come in shooting?
Who did they have as support? 30 or 40 cops surrounding your house, each cop liberally supplied with weapons and tactical gear....Who did the homeowners have for support? Their neighbors? Not likely.
Unless they (the people, not the cops) were well supplied with weapons and gear, they really didn't have much choice.
If they wanted to live, they had no choice but to submit. And that is the issue.
Kids in the home? Wife? Girlfriend? Elderly parent(s)? All in the line of fire and all potential victims, even if the man/woman leader of the house wanted to resist....wanted to say "no!"
You gonna get in a firefight with 30-40-50 cops in your neighborhood, with more on call only a block away? Take the chance that they will be reasonable and allow your family to leave before they killed you in a hail of bullets? When tensions are already high? You'll lose. Life ain't TV.
I might have resisted, but then again, I am not a normal person. Definitely not an east coast liberal, and I have no kids in my home. My girlfriend would likely support my resistance. I have the tools to resist as well. And I try very hard not to be a sheep. I have less to lose. Very little in fact. I might well stand on principle. And in Indiana I have the right to resist illegal entry...Even from police.
Fairly certain those folks in Boston do not have that right. Likely few had the means to resist, even if they had the will to do so.
But ultimately, I, by myself, would lose. Maybe pay the Ferryman's Fee, maybe not... It is how the folks in Waco
got beaten, and how Randy Weaver was taken. No one else there to support
them. They were islands. Alone against overwhelming odds.
And I doubt that the INDIVIDUAL Bostonians had any other support. No like minded neighbors, no friends that they could call, no support at all. No one to harass the rear of the cops, no one to draw fire, no one to help resist. No one to help in any way.
So to resist was to die for nothing. Maybe have loved ones in harm's way as well. Being sheep-like didn't even enter into the equation (although many (most) were). Vulnerabilities played a factor. Being surrounded and outnumbered did as well. Having a losing battle for no gain....very likely.
Think about that before you condemn them for acquiescing.
Despite being surrounded by neighbors, they were unarmed (for the most part) islands in a sea of people....against really overwhelming force.
And therefore vulnerable.