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.
Islands.
Think.
I don't condemn them for acquiescing, I will simply point out this isnt/wasn't a binary set solution.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't "Yes, trample my rights" or "Eat Lead Copper". There is a whole range of opportunities in between, passive non-violent resistance being the best option.
Simply say "No, you may not search the house" Or "No, I will not leave" -- make the cops drag everyone out, make them kick down doors. We've already seen how fast the footage of the search got out, now imagine footage of cops forcefully entering house to "keep people safe".
Another issue is the lack of phone calls to the mayor, police chief and state government during the search.
Silence is consent as the old saying goes; no one raised a ruckus during the search. I think the mindset is what we need change by bringing awareness. Yes the cops are there to help keep you safe but the primary responsibility for that is the individual and the cops have to be limited by the Constitution.
A valid point. However, easy to say sitting all safe and secure after the fact.
ReplyDeleteWhen confronted with armored police officers with drawn weapons, it is, essentially, a binary solution set.
Don't open the doors, maybe. Otherwise your really have two choices. Acquiesce or be dragged/shot if you resist.
The majority in that region are the libtards who supplied these artists with the canvas to paint this masterpiece. From gun laws to Healthcare, they voted their rights away a long time ago.
ReplyDeleteReal time, HARD decisions...
ReplyDeleteThis is what they wanted right? Didn't they vote for leaders that would authorize this?
ReplyDeleteAs wrong as it was, no matter how many Constitutional rights were tossed out the window that day.... probably 8 to 9 out of 10 people voted this upon themselves.
Even if you "assume" they blindly voted for the president the first time, they had no excuse the second time.
Decisions have consequences.
I don't condemn them for how they responded to the searches. You're correct, they had no choice that day. They voted any possibility of any other realistic choices away back in November.
I think they got what they deserved.... as will many more before this is over with.