IGX

If the events in Boston elicit horror, if the left-wing response occasions disgust, there are other things that, I think, spark justifiable fear. The increasing militarization of the police in this country has provided grounds for concern for many years. Almost four years ago, Glenn Reynolds wrote an excellent piece on the subject for Popular Mechanics called “SWAT Overkill: The Danger of a Paramilitary Police Force.” More and more police forces, it seems, are like that wacko character on Hill Street Blues who liked nothing better than dressing up in combat gear and assaulting a local malefactor with bazookas.

The so-called “voluntary lock-down” in Watertown — a more appropriate phrase might be “martial law” — offered a chilling spectacle for anyone who cherishes his personal freedom. Remember the Fourth Amendment? That guaranteed that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Yet in Watertown, platoons of heavily armed police in combat gear went from house to house, guns drawn, banging down doors, screaming at people to come out of their own houses with their hands on their head. There were “a lot of big guns pointed at us,” said one Watertown resident. Several news outlets used the word “surreal” to describe this concentrated display of the coercive power of the state. What worries me is not that it is “surreal” but that it is, increasingly, all too real. And to what end? As Matthew Feeeney of Reason pointed out, Dzhokar Tsarnaev was caught after the lockdown was lifted and a homeowner stepped outside for a cigarette and noticed blood on his boat. The shock and awe show of intimidating police force might have made for dramatic TV, but it didn’t get the bad guy. An alert private citizen was the instrument of that coup.

But let me backtrack from fear to disgust for a moment. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has never met a freedom he didn’t wish to violate, has said that we need to change our interpretation of the Constitution in light of the the Boston terrorist attacks. I think we need to change our interpretation of the sorts of politicians we elect to safeguard our liberty. I recently wrote an introduction to a new edition of Richard Weaver’s classic Ideas Have Consequences. I began the essay with this epigraph from Weaver:

The past shows unvaryingly that when a people’s freedom disappears, it goes not with a bang, but in silence amid the comfort of being cared for. That is the dire peril in the present trend toward statism. If freedom is not found accompanied by a willingness to resist, and to reject favors, rather than to give up what is intangible but precarious, it will not long be found at all.

The horrible events in Boston last week doubtless have many lessons for us. One of those lessons concerns the “willingness to resist” that Weaver talks about here. Do we, I wonder, still have it?

ButterCupPowerRanch wrote:
I'm sure a bunch of people thought "This is bullshit!", but what were those people to do?

baffled wrote:I don't know how many other people it could have been, but I'm of the mind that if the police are about to light someone up, they may want to be sure they're firing at the right person.

See: the Dorner manhunt and those two paper delivery ladies or whatever they were. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... 8708.story

protobuilder wrote: The reality is, the ONLY serious solution is using the system of checks and balances: file a lawsuit challenging the actions of the State.

You guys busy buying bullets and ARs should be busy reading books and getting law degrees. That's how things are truly resolved in situations like this. Not as macho I guess though, so keep training BJJ and talking shit at the local gun range.

baffled wrote:If the other reports are true that the police fired at the boat that little asshole was hiding in before they knew that it was definitely him, that's troubling as well.

protobuilder wrote:I'm sure a lot of the residents had assault rifles, ammo, etc

and they didn't do shit

not a single one challenged the police force

...makes you wonder

Turdacious wrote: They came out in force, people felt safer, no citizens got hurt because of police action-- what was the problem?

Pinky wrote:Boston PD effectively put a city under house arrest for a day. There's a video that allegedly shows one of these house searches, but the media don't care. They won't look into it authenticity, or demand an explanation.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

protobuilder wrote: The reality is, the ONLY serious solution is using the system of checks and balances: file a lawsuit challenging the actions of the State.

You guys busy buying bullets and ARs should be busy reading books and getting law degrees. That's how things are truly resolved in situations like this. Not as macho I guess though, so keep training BJJ and talking shit at the local gun range.

Ouch but more than a little true.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Turdacious wrote: They came out in force, people felt safer, no citizens got hurt because of police action-- what was the problem?

Pinky wrote:Boston PD effectively put a city under house arrest for a day. There's a video that allegedly shows one of these house searches, but the media don't care. They won't look into it authenticity, or demand an explanation.

I'll go further and say they effectively declared martial law and suspended the 4th Amendment.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:Are you actually arguing that this is legal?

Turdacious wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:Are you actually arguing that this is legal?

Two centuries of barely challenged precedent suggests that.

Turdacious wrote:Both involved martial law, and the activation of state military forces (i.e. the National Guard) to support it. This was largely a matter handled by local police, ostensibly handled in coordination with state and federal law enforcement, and most likely the DOJ. The cases you cite weren't handled this way.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Turdacious wrote:Both involved martial law, and the activation of state military forces (i.e. the National Guard) to support it. This was largely a matter handled by local police, ostensibly handled in coordination with state and federal law enforcement, and most likely the DOJ. The cases you cite weren't handled this way.

and you think the authority to do this is settled? Jesus Tits. Not even close.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:I'm not sure everyone held at gun point during these raids would find your "no harm no foul" 4th Amendment exception so ironclad.
Exigent circumstances is probably one of the more frequently challenged elements of the 4th Amendment exceptions. The fact no one has challenged it in court yet in this case has more to do with collective shock at the bombing than collective trust in system.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:I'm not sure everyone held at gun point during these raids would find your "no harm no foul" 4th Amendment exception so ironclad.

Exigent circumstances is probably one of the more frequently challenged elements of the 4th Amendment exceptions. The fact no one has successfully challenged it in court yet in this case has more to do with collective shock at the bombing than collective trust in system.