The lockdown was a good idea. He was already shown to be violent and Boston is small. He had already killed innocents and if there were more bombs out or a car chase started, it would have been awful.
The lockdown was unnecessary and ineffective. They had to know he was injured, and likely to be holed up somewhere. The perimeter was too small, as he was located right outside of it. Immediately after the ban was lifted, a man walked into his backyard and discovered him. If there hadn’t been a lockdown he would’ve been found much quicker
I don’t think he would have been found quicker. This is all information we knew after the fact. Precautions were necessary.
Precautions certainly, but having thousands of police searching all day and failing to discover the suspect shows how ineffective these massive precautions are. The guy hadn’t gone outside all day because he was told to stay inside. When they said it was “secure” outside he immediately went outside to let his dog pee. And discovered blood all over his yard. So yeah, he would’ve been found quicker.
We should write a joint formal debate piece on this very topic and post it.
At some point sure, sounds good. But hindsight is 20/20, and nothing they knew at the time could have told them that it’d be better to not lock down the town.
I’m not saying they didn’t think it was necessary. It would be hard to say that they had any other choice considering they were under immense pressure to take action. I just think security forces need to drastically rethink counterterrrorist operations and this is an excellent example of why
That is an extremely general and easy to argue statement.
But I mean they did what they had to, it worked in that no one else got hurt, and they now know after the fact that they didn’t really have to do it.
It wasn’t a situation that was anticipated at all and it developed extremely on the fly.
I mean, they just thought it was small crime in the beginning.
It’s not general at all. I’m using the specifics of the lockdown to support a great prescriptions that we have to drastically rethink counterterrorism operations because they are so dynamic, develop quickly, and require split second decision making
They should have had small units patrolling a larger area to ensure the safety of more people, while others were engaged in a wider sweep than what they decided was the area.
Just off the top of my head
I honestly think there are much better answers than this, but having thousands of police focusing on a very small part of town was not the most efficient or intelligent idea
Well they thought they were certain they had him cornered in that area, and they at least had a perimeter around where all of the remaining bombs were. Luckily he was wounded and didn’t get far. They were in the process of bringing police forces in from the area to do just what you were prescribing. I think they were just expecting the search to be a more long term thing, because there were a lot of hiding places in Boston. They searched the area they thought he was in and they were getting ready to have the whole area on high alert through the weekend. He would have been caught shortly either way. I think he would have been caught on the same timeframe despite which method they used (the one they did use or yours)
My point is if they weren’t on lockdown, the guy would have gone in his backyard earlier in the day, probably in the morning, and discovered the blood and the disturbed tarp. I’m not saying that we should never lock down an area when there is a terrorist threat. What I am saying is that in this instance not locking it down would have saved a lot of time, speculation, and money. A HUGE part of counterterrorism ops is getting lucky. They got lucky when this guy let his dog out.
Yeah, but he also might not have hidden there if the city wasn’t on lockdown. It’s a lot easier to blend in with a bunch of people outside on a beautiful Friday than in a ghost town during the day. If he hadn’t been wounded, he probably could have gotten out of town pretty fast. Sure he would have been caught within days as one of FBI’s most wanted, but I think the lockdown was great because it made anyone outside a suspicious person and forced him to stay in one place as they established a plan. The lockdown could have been on a smaller scale though.
And you’re basing that on stuff they didn’t know as well. They may not have known for sure if he was injured and that’s not something you want to guess at. Or whether he’s still armed. Or whether he’s still dangeous.
Actually the lockdown did not formally force people to stay inside. I personally know people in Boston who were running errands during the day, even though everything was on supposed lockdown. So even with the lockdown it wouldn’t have been too terribly difficult to slip out of town.
If you look at the footage there are normal citizens walking and driving around as well
(Editors note: This is the exact kind of debate we are looking to engage in on this blog. Please feel free to share your opinions on this topic in the comments!)