Subscribe via RSS Feed

Fear hits a homer

[ 256 ] April 19, 2013 |

I just saw on the Twitters that both the Bruins and the Red Sox have had their games tonight postponed, no doubt because the entire Boston area remains locked down.

Almost 1 million people in metropolitan Boston remained under siege Friday as police conducted a massive manhunt for one of the suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings.

The region felt as if it had been gripped by martial law: Police armed with rifles patrolled deserted streets in Boston, Watertown, Cambridge, Waltham, Newton, Belmont, and Brookline, and residents hunkered inside, under authorities’ unprecedented order.

“It is important that folks remain indoors,” Governor Deval Patrick said this afternoon at a press conference. “Keep the doors locked and [do not] open the door unless there is a uniformed, identified law enforcement officer on the other side of it requesting to come inside.”

Authorities shut down all MBTA service, halting subways, trains, and buses. City and town halls were closed. Public works canceled trash pickup, keeping garbage trucks off streets. Courthouses kept their doors closed.

From Dudley Square to the Seaport, Cambridge to Kenmore Square, businesses shuttered. Streets remained empty, sidewalks abandoned, entire office blocks uninhabited.

While I appreciate that police work is made easier by completely immobilizing the population of a major metropolitan area, this sort of massive over-reaction to the failure to apprehend one 19-year-old amateur terrorist (I doubt Al Qaeda types and the like would consider knocking off a 7-11, shooting a security guard, and carjacking an SUV to be the smart play a few hours after having their faces spread all over the internet) is what gives the performers of what are essentially bloody publicity stunts ever-more motivation to engage in their crimes.

. . .

Meanwhile, in Chicago yesterday:

Man 34 shot in Old Irving Park

A man, 34, was dropped off at Our Lady of the Resurrection Hospital with gunshot wounds to his torso about 12:20 a.m. . The man was shot south of the intersection of Irving Park Road and Avondale Avenue

37 year old man shot in West Pullman

A 37-year-old man was shot about 10:15 p.m. in the 12300 block of South Emerald Avenue about 10:15 p.m. Someone saw a car speeding from the scene and the shooting may have been a drive-by . Police responded to a call of a person shot and found the man on the sidewalk bleeding from his body and arm.

2- 19 year olds shot in West Pullman
At about 5 p.m. in the 12000 block of South Lafayette Avenue, two 19-year-old men were shot in the legs

16 year old shot in Woodlawn
About 7:15 p.m., a 16-year-old boy was shot in the left thigh on the 1500 block of East 62nd Street. The boy was taken to Northwestern Memorial Hospital where his condition has been stabilized

Man shot in Austin during Robbery

A man, whose age wasn’t available, was shot about 4 p.m. in the South Austin neighborhood on the West Side. He was robbed of some cash and shot in the left shoulder in the 100 block of North Mason Avenue and taken to Mount Sinai Hospital with a wound to his left shoulder

44 year old man shot in Garfield Park
About 3:10 p.m. a 44-year-old man was shot in the 3000 block of Carrol Avenue in the East Garfield Park neighborhood. He was taken to John H. Stroger Jr. Hospital of Cook County in serious condition

36 year old man shot in Logan Square
About 1 p.m. a man was shot in the 3500 block of West North Avenue in the Logan Square neighborhood. The 36-year-old was shot in the stomach more than once while standing on a sidewalk,. He’s in stable condition at Mount Sinai Hospital.

Comments (256)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. nonunique says:

    I dunno…after seeing what the LAPD is capable of, I’m happy that Boston’s Finest will have many fewer moving targets.

  2. Kurzleg says:

    By the same token, you have a law enforcement on a hair trigger, and it doesn’t seem particularly smart to potentially put civilians in the crossfire. It’s a fluid situation since they don’t know where the guy is or where he might go and how he might get there. They’re not just making things easier on themselves; they’re making things safer for regular folks as well.

  3. Joe says:

    “completely immobilizing”

    Canceling two games after bombings at the Boston Marathon & additional events that suggest a willingness to attack again and “urging” people to stay inside doesn’t seem to meet this criteria.

    I understand the concern but just for the day, particularly since the police resources that otherwise would partially be addressing the events (if allowed, they would entail more police), for today at least is at most a venial sin. If they cancelled a week of games or something, maybe.

    • brenda says:

      Canceling two games after bombings at the Boston Marathon & additional events that suggest a willingness to attack again and “urging” people to stay inside doesn’t seem to meet this criteria.

      Shutting down the entire transit system gets a bit closer.

      • ChrisTS says:

        Yes, but they worry that he might use the same system to flee – or blow some of it up.

        Let’s not forget that, unlike our standard US loony, this kid also has or had grenades and other bombs as well as good-old ordinary firearms.

    • Jeffrey Beaumont says:

      The games were cancelled in response to the manhunt, not the bombing. The Bruins played Wednesday night.

    • KatWillow says:

      They may have reason to fear more bombs are hidden in and around the area.

  4. djw says:

    I flipped on MSNBC for a bit this afternoon and entered in the midst of an incoherent stream of consciousness monologue from Andrea Mitchell to the effect of “we gave up a lot of rights and privacy protections after 9/11, and that God we did, because now the Boston police and the FBI are able to do their jobs.”

  5. Mudge says:

    The business is strange. The police had him last night (in an admittedly dangerous situation) and let him get away. That’s not worthy of much praise in my book. Then they either believe that he is trapped somewhere in Watertown (hence the house to house)or that he escaped Watertown (hence all of Boston locked down).

    I can understand immobilizing the Watertown area and around the Cambridge residence, but all of Boston seems extreme.

    • max says:

      The police had him last night (in an admittedly dangerous situation) and let him get away.

      The cops were moving around on foot apparently, and the reporting said that in the end Dzhokhar wound up running over his brother to get away.

      In a wild and wooly incident like that, it’s not surprising that he got away. (A guy in an SUV is going to be able to get away from a bunch of officers on foot.)

      max
      ['The police are doing OK, considering the wild and crazy guys they have to deal with.']

      • Mudge says:

        Where’s the old shoot out the tires trick? Done immediately to deny him a vehicle. Yes it was wild and crazy but in this post 9-11 world (as we are always reminded) shouldn’t they be trained for that?

        • Lurker says:

          Despite the popular image spread by numerous movies, pistol is not an accurate weapon. From behind, a tire is a target with a size of a hand. Hitting such target at 20-30 meters is very difficult even in a calm situation. In bad lighting and in the middle of a confused situation, it is almost impossible, unless you train daily for it.

          • NonyNony says:

            Yes. This.

            If you haven’t tried to shoot a pistol at a target you might not get this, but it takes a hell of a lot of skill to be accurate with a pistol. At a gun range. Firing at a paper target. That isn’t moving.

            Firing at a moving target the size of a car tire while trying to avoid a car running you over is … going to take more than exceptional skill. Especially if said car tire moves in an unexpected direction (like over the body of the brother who is driving the damn car). And cops are not necessarily super-skilled gunmen. They train more than the average person (though maybe not more than the average gun owner, depending on the state/city/county regs and/or employment contract they’re governed by) but even with that there isn’t the expectation that they are going to be THAT good at it. Even hitting the driver of a moving SUV isn’t going to be an easy task, let alone a tire.

            This is a bit like expecting DNA evidence to come back from a lab in an hour because that’s how it works on TV. Or suspects to roll over in interrogation quickly because that’s how it works on TV. Or people to actually be able to pick a suspect out of a line-up. Or witness testimony to actually be reliable. TV is narrative – the cop shoots out the tire because the narrative insists that the cop must shoot out the tire (and the cop fails when the narrative insists that the suspect get away).

            (This is also why when people tell me that they have a pistol for “home defense”, I generally cringe. No matter how good you are at a gun range with that pistol, that’s no indication of how well you’ll handle it with a real intruder in your house or if a real home invasion is going on. You’re better off with a baseball bat or a shotgun or something else where precision isn’t so necessary to avoid putting a bullet through your neighbor’s wall by accident.)

            • Anonymous says:

              And of course the question “How do we immobilize a car if we need to?” is never asked during training. If you have a 5% chance of hitting a tire (and I said flatten tires before the car was used), then use 20 shots. I simply noted that he got away and asked myself, how could that have been prevented.

              The police chase an SUV. The occupants get out and a firefight starts. Then one gets into the SUV (as far as I am aware) and drives off. Aren’t there plans to prevent that? Block the street…shoot the tires..

              Just difficult to understand.

              • Hogan says:

                Because surely the bad guys always drive away slowly and in a straight line, giving the police plenty of time to aim and fire. And there’s never anything or anybody between the bad guys and the police that might accidentally get hit. And the police haven’t just had FUCKING PIPE BOMBS thrown at them, or maybe that’s all in a day’s work for the Boston PD.

                “How do we immobilize a car if we need to?” Chase it until it stops, fuckwit. Next question.

                • Anonymous says:

                  It stopped,fuckwit. Then what? Let him climb back in and drive away.

                • Malaclypse says:

                  And no worries – Mem Drive isn’t lined with residences, so no chance of hitting a bystander as you shoot hundreds of bullets at high speed out a car window. Brave Sir Anonymous knows what he would have done.

              • joe from Lowell says:

                Do you realize that you sound like the guy explaining that he would have been all “Bam, kapow!” if the mass shooter had walked into your classroom?

              • L2P says:

                That question is asked. A lot. There’s special techniques ( like PIT) for dealing with cars. None of them involve shooting with pistols, which is pointless stupidity.

                Among other things, the missed shots are very dangerous. 20 9mm shots going randomly after missing a moving car in a residential neighborhood could easily wound 2-3 people.

                Plus the car would now be out of control, and could easily kill a few innocent people.

                This has all been pretty thoroughly prepared for.

          • Stag Party Palin says:

            Nonsense. In the movie Chinatown a cop with a snub-nosed police special blew the back of Faye Dunaway’s head off from 100 yards away from her rapidly departing car. With one shot. So there.

        • Brandon says:

          Not exactly as easy to do in real life as it is on TV.

  6. brad says:

    My kneejerk response is to agree.
    But then I remember how many “if Watertown residents lived under weaker gun laws they could just help in the hunt” and worse tweets I’ve seen in the feed.
    It’s as much to keep people out of the way as anything, and while that’s troubling in the implications, there’s also legit practical reasons for that.

  7. arthur says:

    The most effective response to a bad guy with a bomb is a good guy with a bomb.

  8. max says:

    (I doubt Al Qaeda types and the like would consider knocking off a 7-11, shooting a security guard, and carjacking an SUV to be the smart play a few hours after having their faces spread all over the internet)

    Maybe they took a MOOC on ‘How to be a terrorist’. From Phoenix.

    max
    ['The bill collectors dunning them for their loans drove them over the edge!']

  9. mark f says:

    I remember certain segments of my various social scenes freaking the fuck out when the governor ordered a driving ban the day we got 3 feet of snow. Today they all seem supportive even though this, while I’m not overreacting to the overreaction quite yet, has a lot more potential for the kind of abuses they pretend to fear.

  10. Jager says:

    I gave two tickets to Sundays’ Long Beach Grand Prix to a guy in my office building, he was planning to take his 9 year old son. I got them back an hour ago because his wife refused to let them go because ‘something might happen”

    • Jack Hollows says:

      that’s pretty sad. But that’s why they call it “terrorism”.

      that guy should use this weekend to get his wife away from the TV.

    • Anonymous says:

      Well yes – a car could careen off the track & take dozens of spectators with it.

    • S_noe says:

      Fist bump for Long Beach, CA! Donalde Douglas teaches here, y’know.
      (On Sunday I was on the 405 freeway and, I shit you not, 15 Lamborghinis cruised by me on their way downtown. I’d make a joke about the desirability of setting off a bomb this weekend, but THIS IS NOT THE TIME.)

    • daily says:

      Yeah he could have been shot by an asshole with a gun – same as every other day in America.

  11. Jim48043 says:

    Amazing. One of the birthplaces of the American Revolution supinely submitting to an order to submit to an indefinite curfew?

  12. Jberardi says:

    In fairness, I’ve been all over Boston and the surrounding towns this week and until today, everything was totally normal, a small section in Back Bay notwithstanding. I don’t get the sense that this is about fear. I think it’s more that people just really want to see this guy caught and they’re willing to stop everything to help, even in a tiny way.

    • Yeah, if you’ve seen the video of the Anthem at the Bruins game, it doesn’t exactly covey a great sense of fear. And it’s not like they’ve cancelled a long string of games just because or anything. This does seem to be more about practicality than anything else. Meh.

    • penpen says:

      This seems accurate. I get the sense they are worried he still might possess explosives so it’s kind of a unique public safety scenario actually.

    • bluefoot says:

      Yeah, pretty much. I was out earlier today in Somerville/Cambridge and a lot of people were walking around. The people I’ve talked to are okay with being inside for today, but people were already asking around 11 AM how long this was going to go on.

      Right now from my window, a couple of runners have gone by and several cars. There’s no way this pseudo-lockdown is going to last. I’m less than half a mile from the apartment in Cambridge that the cops are searhcing.

      • Jberardi says:

        I posted about this below, but yes. We’re talking about the left-leaning capital of Greater Left-Liberalstan here. The city was wounded by the Marathon attacks and we’re all willing to go along with this stuff to a point, but long term? No, this city is not going to change it’s ways based on an isolated incident.

        For fuck’s sake people, have a little faith.

        • bluefoot says:

          Exactly. More than one person I talked to said the only reason they were okay with this for now was the possibility that this guy has more bombs with him. Even so, more than one person also said they were more likely to be hit by a car than get blown up, so why stay home except to stay out of the way of a bunch of sleep-deprived cops? And the cynical of us joked that it’s probably the safest day *ever* to be a brown/black person walking around the Boston area. (i.e. chances of being targeted by cops and assh*les vs. a typical day? Virtually nil.)

          • joe from Lowell says:

            My wife asked me on Thursday if I was worried about her going to a meeting in Boston.

            I told her I was more worried that she’d get into a car accident driving to the T station.

  13. laura says:

    I think the crime spree was probably *because* their faces were all over the internet. They knew they were going to be caught — might as well go out with glory (e.g. knocking over a 7-11; bragging to a terrified citizen while riding around in his stolen SUV.)

  14. Data Tutashkhia says:

    Boston caps are very dangerous, even when once in a while they just decide to get out of dunkin donuts and attempt to drive around. And with their guns outa holsters – you better stay home and hide in the basement.

  15. Brandon says:

    meh, don’t really see the big deal with a request to shelter in place for one day.

  16. Richard says:

    The fact that the kid is amateurish doesn’t make him less dangerous. Might be the opposite. Shutting down the city for a day to find this guy doesn’t seem to me to be overreaction. I’m safely here on the west coast but I have two close friends who work at MIT and feel better knowing steps are taken to minimize risk to them until this guy is capturedq

    • JL says:

      Shutting things down honestly bothers me less than the door-to-door warrantless searches in Watertown. I know a few people who were the subject of those. I’ve seen a report of someone being called a “terrorist sympathizer” by the police for objecting to a warrantless search.

  17. Shakezula says:

    OK, here is a good example of why I object to the passive voice and why it is such a great tool for spreading misinformation.

    I just saw on the Twitters that both the Bruins and the Red Sox have had their games tonight postponed

    Had their games shut down? By who? Authorities? Aliens? UN Troops? As read it is reasonable to assume some outside said unto the Sox & the Bruins “Cancel ye thine games.” Not so.

    But, I dislike the passive voice, it makes me suspicious. So I looked. Well, it isn’t in the linked story, it is a little story off to the side.

    Red Sox, Bruins postpone games

    Following the link we find this is indeed the case, however:

    Tonight’s Red Sox game against the Kansas CIty Royals at Fenway Park has been postponed “to support efforts of law enforcement officers,” according to the team.

    No word yet on when the game will be made up.

    The Bruins also postponed their game against the Penguins at TD Garden. That game is tentatively set for 12:30 p.m. Saturday.

    At least the stories aren’t pulled out of the NYP so … Progress?

    • Cody says:

      I have a hard time understanding your problem here.

      It would seem to me your took a huge leap of bias to assume anything suspicious. My initial read-through lead me to believe that the games were postponed by the MLB.

  18. Mo says:

    I’m not under official lockdown, but close enough to have heard the explosions last night.

    My guess is that the police thought they were going to catch the guy as soon as the sun came up, so asked for the lockdown. The first notices were that the T wasn’t going to be running and Harvard was closed “due to public safety concerns.” There was then a notice around 10(?) that things were going to be shut down all day. Hey, snow day without the snow and lots of cops.

    Now I heard the news saying that it might be all weekend. Which isn’t cool at all. I need groceries and to get cash from the bank in Cambridge.

  19. c u n d gulag says:

    No Red Sox or Bruins games?

    Ruh-roh, Rastro!!!
    The terrorists have NO idea what a pissed-off Boston is like!

    If/when he’s found, this 19 year old surviving brother might get skinned, before he gets hung from the nearest lightpole.

    Good thing for him, the Celtics play in NY tomorrow, or else they’d think of something else worth their time and efforts.

    Remember, these are the same people who burned witches, crushed suspected non-believers with stones, and dunked them until they drowned, to prove that they weren’t in league with Satan.

    Yankee fans are kinder to Red Sox fans, than Boston fans will ever be to terrorists who keep them from seeing their sports.

    This will be like “Logan’s Run,” only with a Chechen/Kyrgystani twist!

    • Malaclypse says:

      Remember, these are the same people who burned witches, crushed suspected non-believers with stones, and dunked them until they drowned, to prove that they weren’t in league with Satan.

      Technically, we hung them. And the floating test was not done here. And Giles Corey was crushed for refusing to plead, not for unbelief.

  20. jimbo says:

    I don’t know why I keep seeing references to him being a “19-year-old kid” in this context — would the response be more justified if he were 35? What he’s pulled off so far makes the fact that he’s 19 meaningless.

  21. Jberardi says:

    And you know, not for nothing, but when the citizens of CAMBRIDGE FUCKING MASSACHUSETTS, home of the Elizabeth Warren/Bush’s Last Day/Support the Troops-Bring Them Home bumper sticker triple-play, decide that yeah, maybe it’s best to go along with law enforcement here, maybe they’ve earned the benefit of the doubt? These aren’t exactly Patriot Act supporting bed-wetters we’re talking about here.

  22. brad says:

    Also, again from a practical standpoint, when most of the police resources are devoted to this manhunt the outlay for the games is both a tax on them at an already taxing time and, frankly, they should be reassigning those resources to filling in the gaps that this mobilization has left in normal policing.

    Not to mention public transport is shut down and there would be nervous crowds both to potentially be targeted or turn into mobs.

    Postponing these games isn’t about reigniting the kingdom of fear, the more I think about it the more I disagree.

    • Shakezula says:

      or turn into mobs

      This.

      If people were trampled in a panic there would be a shit ton of law suits. It is really easy to imagine the teams’ respective legal crews thinking of this and saying cancel the games. Say it is to help the cops = Great PR.

      I’m also not sure why people are confused about what’s going on there. The authorities have said please folks stay in. A lot of businesses have decided to stay shut. This ain’t martial law.

      And on the business side, again risk would be a huge motivator. When DC was enlivened by the Beltway Snipers we were regularly told to stay home if we felt unsafe and if they struck after the work day started, the owners bought us lunch so we didn’t have to go out. Part of it is the owners are swell folks. The other part is the more we roamed around between home and work the more we represented a risk.

      • joe from Lowell says:

        I’m also not sure why people are confused about what’s going on there.

        Because it gives them the chance to be internet tuff gai.

        From a few hundred miles away.

  23. turbo says:

    Go take a good hard look at the most blood-red photos of the bombing’s aftermath.

    Then go fuck yourself.

    19 year-old amateur terrorist, tough guy?

    Boston’s weak?

    There’s a crazy man on the loose in our neighbourhoods, and he’s got grenades.

    You may want to consider the possibility that you’re a five-alarm asshole.

    • watb says:

      Belfast, Beriut, Delhi, all of Kashmir, London, Madrid, Manchester, Mumbai, most of Pakistan and Sri Lanka and Tel Aviv
      all say “bite me.” The citizens of Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria could not overcome their snickering so made no comment.

      • turbo says:

        Snickering from under a pile of corpses, I take it.

        Sneering through years of successfully getting blown up, I take it.

      • joe from Lowell says:

        Yet another internet tuff gai who would have been all “Hiya! Kapow!” if he’d been there,

        • jb says:

          I think wengler is saying that many places go through things much worse than what Boston went through every day.

          He’s kind of right.

          Besides which, joe, you have some gall to complain about Internet tough guys. Your’e the perfect example of one.

          • jb says:

            What wengler misses, however, is that most of those places implement measures much tougher than Boston did.

            Boston shut down it’s public transit system, and imposed a voluntary lockdown.

            On the other hand, Belfast during the Troubles had walls dividing neighborhoods, military checkpoints everywhere, and internment without trial. It also had a manditory curfew for a while and was effectively under military occupation.

            Boston doesn’t have anything like this.

  24. the original spencer says:

    I don’t remember them shutting down London in July 2005.

    But then again, the Metropolitan Police probably had more experience than the BPD in dealing with this sort of thing.

  25. His brother apparently had an IED strapped to his body. He’s on the loose and desperate. He’s dropped several bombs in residential areas. Police and federal agencies have a perimeter set up around the area they think he’s in. Why would they NOT lock the city down and conduct a manhunt?

  26. Shakezula says:

    If I may be so bold as to summarize the consensus:

    Arm Chair Law Enforcement is just as fucking annoying as Arm Chair Soldiering. It is particularly obnoxious to people who are, or have been in a situation that is being critiqued by someone who is no where near the unpleasantness.

    Recommendation: Proceed with caution.

    • Paul Campos says:

      I gave a talk in Cambridge two weeks ago today, and I would have been very annoyed if it had been cancelled by this kind of hysterical over-reaction, and even more annoyed to be pinned down in my hotel room for what now sounds like it might be the whole weekend because of THE TERRORISTS.

      Locking down the neighborhood where they think the suspect is hiding seems reasonable. Locking down an entire metropolitan area doesn’t.

      • “I gave a talk in Cambridge two weeks ago today, and I would have been very annoyed if it had been cancelled by this kind of hysterical over-reaction…”

        Well, that changes everything!

        • Shakezula says:

          I laughed so fucking hard. Sometimes that’s all you can do.

          But I also need to thank Campos for one thing: He has made me really fucking glad I didn’t frequent blogs during the Beltway Snipers’ lighting up of the DMV.

          This shit is annoying as hell when directed at people 7 hours up coast. Reading such Deep Thoughts about the events of October 2002 would have driven me to rash acts involving alcohol.

          • I mean, I get *annoyed* when schools are delayed 90 minutes because of fog here and my four year old’s A.M. Pre-K class is cancelled. That’s a fucking annoyance. Shutting down a city for less than 24 hours to catch a mad bomber might well be an overreaction, but it’s hardly fucking hysterical

      • turbo says:

        Fuck your annoyance.

      • brad says:

        “where they think the suspect is hiding”
        A suspect with a demonstrated history of building bombs and targeting public sports events.
        Might be relevant.

      • DivGuy says:

        I would have been very annoyed if it had been cancelled by this kind of hysterical over-reaction, and even more annoyed to be pinned down in my hotel room

        Wow.

      • Shakezula says:

        How are you defining lock down? Even in the article you link there are interviews with people who are OUTSIDE saying “Gosh, it sure is eerie.”

        Too bad you aren’t up there. You could bustle up and down the streets until you found the feckless young man and give him a stern talking to.

      • Jberardi says:

        …and even more annoyed to be pinned down in my hotel room for what now sounds like it might be the whole weekend because of THE TERRORISTS.

        Well then I’ve got good news, asshole! There is no requirement whatsoever that anyone has to stay in their hotel or anywhere else for that matter. It’s not like jackbooted homeland security thugs are “pinning” anyone anywhere.

        What part of “request” do you not understand? Please, stop willfully misrepresenting the situation to fit your pre-existing biases. And that’s coming from someone who largely shares those biases.

      • Malaclypse says:

        Locking down the neighborhood where they think the suspect is hiding seems reasonable. Locking down an entire metropolitan area Linking to the New York Fucking Post doesn’t.

        Fixed.

      • bluefoot says:

        This is certainly an odd definition of “pinned down” then. I just got back from a nice walk including, what, three blocks from where the “controlled detonation” is planned in Cambridge and there are plenty of people walking and driving around. Families! with children! Babies even! There was even a line at the ATM.

        A lot of businesses are closed, but many are open. People are walking around with groceries, beer, on their phones making plans for the weekend. It’s a little quiet for a Friday evening, but not *that* quiet.

      • Richard says:

        Mayor just announced that the request to stay in is over and that the mta is open. So it wasn’t a weekend. It was less than one fuckin day. And the fact that you would have been annoyed if your lecture had coincided with today’s events – fuck you and your lecture

      • ChrisTS says:

        You sound uncomfortably like Eugene K over at Volokh, except that he is worried about purported civil rights violations – not just inconvenience.

      • joe from Lowell says:

        Boo-fuckity-hoo.

      • Jeremy says:

        “I would have been very annoyed if it had been cancelled by this kind of hysterical over-reaction”

        From over here in one of the parts of Boston not at all close to Watertown, I have to say this hasn’t really been a hysterical over-reaction. It’s been a pretty calm and agreeable over-reaction. Lots of people have been pretty rattled by the whole thing for the past several days, and are basically OK with taking the equivalent of a snow day to let the police sort things out. Not what I think is necessary, but I hate my job anyways, so I’m willing to stay home and hang out at the bar in the middle of the day. Bummer that apparently they’re not going to pick up my trash, though. Maybe tomorrow.

        Also, I think they just lifted the lockdown recommendation and started up public transportation again, so it doesn’t look like it’s going to be an all weekend thing.

        As far as cancelling sporting events, I just can’t imagine that people really want to go there. They’d be expecting some sort of insane security presence that would be impossible to provide without compromising the ongoing manhunt. Personally, if they held the hockey game, I’d be tempted to try to score cheap tickets if it wasn’t for my vow to boycott the NHL until they deliver Gary Bettman’s head on a stick, but I seem to be the outlier on these things.

      • jb says:

        I gave a talk in Cambridge two weeks ago today, and I would have been very annoyed if it had been cancelled by this kind of hysterical over-reaction, and even more annoyed to be pinned down in my hotel room for what now sounds like it might be the whole weekend because of THE TERRORISTS.

        Good Lord.

        Look, you have half a point about the lockdown. You’re right that this measure should not be used casually, and it might not have been justified in this particular instance (though I think it was). It is entirely possible, though, that without the lockdown many more would have died. Apparently risking more deaths is worth it to allow Paul Campos to give his lecture.

        This attitude is unbelievably self-centered, and not a little contemptible. It is exactly the kind of attitude which gives rise to the stereotype of the arrogant ivory-tower intellectual.

        Shame on you.

      • Mike Schilling says:

        It was hell: Trapped in a hotel room with no food but the $7.00 Snickers in the minibar and no contact with the outside world but pay-per-view porn.

  27. Simple mInd says:

    Isn’t there a John Woo film when a gang captain complains that the boss has committed all his resources to eliminating just one guy?

  28. Joshua Brown says:

    shooting a security guard

    Sean Collier was a police officer, not a security guard. I don’t think this detail necessarily affects the point you’re trying to make. However, it’s such an easy thing to get right given all the coverage, the mistake gives your post an air of pettiness and leaves the impression that you’re trying to trivialize matters.

    • JL says:

      Yep. The MIT police are actual police officers, trained by the state. Many are former Staties.

      • Jeremy says:

        Back in late ’03 or so I was caught by MIT cops drinking in an alley near the All Asia Café after some punk rock show. Apparently the alley was MIT property. I was with some underage kids who I had obviously bought booze for. The whole ordeal was as pleasant as such a thing can be. MIT cops are OK in my book, I guess.

    • Marek says:

      Thanks for posting this and saving me the trouble. MIT police are sworn police officers with the same training and powers as other police. It’s a question of jurisdiction.

      I’m pretty offended that you called Officer Collier a security guard.

  29. Malaclypse says:

    Meanwhile, in Chicago yesterday:

    I’m sure there were no crimes in Boston yesterday.

    Talk about missing the fucking point.

    • Cody says:

      More people died in Chicago then this bomb killed.

      But they didn’t lock down Chicago.

      I think his point is pretty relevant. Why do we react this way to a bomb at a sporting event, but tens of black people get shot and not a shit is given?

  30. medrawt says:

    (1) What the fuck is with people making comparisons to the aftermath of other bombings not all of which included the component: police know who the remaining perpetrator is, he knows they know, they have exchanged fire, and he is on the loose and armed with guns and maybe explosives, presumably desperate? That’s a very particular situation, which leads me to:

    (2) While the ongoing violence in Chicago is its own tragedy, it’s not comparable to events in Boston in that the events in general (beyond just the ones Campos cites) are a combination of (a) individual unconnected crimes primarily focused in particular areas of the city and (b) ongoing gang violence concentrated in particular areas of the city and targeted at particular individuals which, tragically, is also victimizing innocent bystanders. I don’t mean to diminish any of the severity or sorrow associated with what’s going on in Chicago – where I’ve lived since 2001 – by saying that my behavioral response, as a person fortune enough to be living in a relatively safe neighborhood, is quite different than if I were living in a city where a known desperate mad gunman with no particular target or motive other than evading capture and perhaps causing more havoc was still unapprehended.

    • Halloween Jack says:

      Also worth noting that the uptick in murders in Chicago (although nowhere near the numbers that were seen about 20 years ago) are generally attributed to the largest gangs in the cities being successfully broken up… which has resulted in a larger number of smaller gangs fighting over turf.

  31. Manta says:

    Thanks Campos for stating the obvious.
    It’s not a good sign when insanity like this is considered normal.

    • What do you mean by normal? I would say this isn’t normal specifically because the situation itself is well outside of the norm. The better question would be whether or not this is a reasonable response to the situation at hand, and at the moment I don’t think there’s any reason to assume it’s not.

      And frankly anyone who thinks that the sporting events should go on as planned is just being a fucking asshole. The police allocation/potential for mass panic alone (to say nothing of potential lost gate, I guess) is a perfectly good reason to postpone the events.

    • Jberardi says:

      You have an odd definition of “normal”. When was the last time Boston did something like this? They didn’t even do something like this after the goddamn bombing itself! I cannot stress enough have completely normal the city was this week. This is not about pant-wetting in the face of terrorism, it’s specifically about facilitating a manhunt.

  32. joe from Lowell says:

    Minor correction: they didn’t knock over the 7-11. Unrelated incident that coincidently happened near, at about the same time, as the shooting of the MIT officer.

  33. Paul Campos's Bed says:

    Dude, just burn me.

    Way too shitting this week.

  34. Anonymous says:

    This guy, if captured alive, will never face a trial. Remember:NDAA.

    • Well since he probably won’t be taken alive, you’ve got a fantastic non-falsifiable line of bullshit right there.

      • joe from Lowell says:

        What do you mean, “nonfalsifiable?”

        Every single terrorism suspect captured since January 20, 2009 has been detained by civilian authorities and tried in a court of law.

        Every. Single. One.

        • Jeremy says:

          The idea that this one guy would be the exception to that is probably nonfalsifiable because it’s unlikely that he will be taken alive.

        • Anonymous says:

          None were detained after passage of the NDAA though. Now Obama can hold anyone indeifinetely without charge.

          • joe from Lowell says:

            Yes, he can. Congress gave him that authority.

            An authority he has never, ever used, after saying he would not use it.

            And there have, in fact, been terrorist attacks since the passage of NDAA.

            • Anonymous says:

              “after saying he would not use it”

              Aww, you’re so precious. So naieve it’s almost cute!

              • joe from Lowell says:

                Since I’m so “naive,” you won’t have any trouble finding examples to demonstrate that I’m wrong.

                Go get ‘em, and don’t come back until you do.

              • joe from Lowell says:

                Listen, I know that cowards like you have convinced yourselves that you’re just about to be sent into military detention by black helicopter-drones, but it’s time to take the rubber sheets off the bed and comport yourself like you aren’t a three-year-old girl at a haunted house ride.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Says the man who no doubt was constantly outraged about violations of civil liberties but now is suddenly silent when one of his own is in the White House.

                  Liberals just love Vitamin H: rich in hypocrisy!

                • timb says:

                  Says the conservative who rooted for the national security state until Obama became President.

                • joe from Lowell says:

                  There isn’t a single issue of civil liberties on which my position has budged an inch since the change of Presidents.

                  I’m outraged by actual violations of civil liberties, and not outraged by the imaginary ones that people like you make up. Obviously, this demonstrates some profound hypocrisy.

                • Anonymous says:

                  I’m outraged by actual violations of civil liberties,

                  Such as…?

                • jb says:

                  Says the conservative who rooted for the national security state until Obama became President.

                  I’m not sure you can automatically assume that about this particular person. He could be a right-wing loon. He also could be a centrist, “non-partisan” voter, a left-wing critic of Obama, a general “Alex Jones” style lunatic, a libertarian, or anything else you can imagine.

                  I’d agree with you if it was Jen bob, or Chesternuts, but “Anonymus doesn’t give us a lot to go on.

                  There isn’t a single issue of civil liberties on which my position has budged an inch since the change of Presidents.

                  I’m outraged by actual violations of civil liberties, and not outraged by the imaginary ones that people like you make up. Obviously, this demonstrates some profound hypocrisy.

                  Bullshit.

                • joe from Lowell says:

                  Such as…?

                  The treatment of Jose Padilla, Congress’s refusal to allow Obama to shut down Gitmo, any Carnivore-type wiretapping programs that might be running, voter suppression…

                • joe from Lowell says:

                  jb,

                  Bullshit.

                  OK. Name one.

        • Anonymous says:

          And tell it to Bradley Manning. They can’t even get him court martialed. and he was held naked in a solitary 9×12 cell for months on end.

          • joe from Lowell says:

            Badley Manning, the guy who wasn’t a terrorism suspect, and who was active-duty military when he was court-martialed and held in a brig?

            And yes, he was court-martialed. You’re using big words you don’t understand again.

        • Leeds man says:

          Wow. How many untried remaining from previous “arrests”?

          • joe from Lowell says:

            The 166 that Congress wouldn’t allow him to move to the civilian courts.

            You know this.

            • Leeds man says:

              Yeah, bloody Congress, eh?

              Later in the evening, in a televised statement, President Obama reiterated the message, saying, “Given the unsettled situation, I’ve spoken to the attorney general and we’ve agreed that we will not be transferring additional detainees back to Yemen at this time.”

              • joe from Lowell says:

                How dare Obama not transfer terrorist suspects to a country suspected of torture?

                • Leeds man says:

                  Absolutely. Keep them in a country known for torture. Just not in Illinois. Chicagoans are delicate creatures.

                • joe from Lowell says:

                  Back in the real world, Obama both ended torture, and tried to transfer the detainees stateside.

                  But if we pretend not to know that, we can pretend your comment makes sense.

                • Leeds man says:

                  Ah, Guantanamo isn’t stateside. And stateside would have magically improved the detainees lives. Poor bastards are trying to starve themselves for nought. Tell ‘em, joe!

                • jb says:

                  Look joe,

                  I agree that Congress acted abominably on the GITMO issue,and that it has constantly tied the President’s hands. In most instances, Obama has done the best he could. But that does not mean he is completely blameless for the ongoing travesty that is our politics. In particular his actions on civil liberties issues leave a lot to be desired. This is understandable as there is little concern for those issues among either the political elite or the broad mass of the populace, but it is a fact.

                  Besides which, it would be a lot easier to take your opinions on this issue seriously if it wasn’t instantly clear what it would be when Obama was involved. I have yet to see a single instance where you have criticized anything the President has done. The posters and most of the commenters here are principled liberals. While they will usually defend President Obama against the (often unwarranted) criticism he gets from those further left, they have genuine integrity, and will not hesitate to criticize the President when he does something erroneous (see Lemuiex on chained CPI or Loomis on lots of stuff). You, on the other hand, are not a principled liberal. You are a party hack.

                • joe from Lowell says:

                  So now Lees Man is reduced to pretending that the argument “Obama has tried to close Gitmo” is an argument in favor of Gitmo.

                  This is not the behavior of someone who finds an argument going well.

                • joe from Lowell says:

                  jb,

                  In particular his actions on civil liberties issues leave a lot to be desired.

                  That’s not “in particular.” That’s very vague. “His actions on civil liberties” is a very broad category, and I haven’t made any statements about that broad category. I’m talking about his actions on this particular issue.

                  Anyway, basing your opinion of an argument on who is making it is taught as a logical fallacy in freshman year logic class. My arguments are either right, or wrong. If you’re going to base your opinion of how seriously to take my arguments on my record, you should at least try to put my right/wrong record at the forefront.

                  You, on the other hand, are not a principled liberal. You are a party hack.

                  Really. Then it should be quite easy for you to find examples of my lack of principle and blind loyalty to Obama leading me to be wrong. Good luck.

                • joe from Lowell says:

                  jb,

                  One of the topics on which I’ve been accused of being a “party hack” and blind Obama apologist is indefinite detention. I’ve written over and over and over again that he opposes it and would not put anyone into such detention. This, others have claimed, is a delusional argument that reflects not reality, but merely my partisan loyalty and loyalty to Obama.

                  I, on the other hand, have said that my suppositions are based not on bias, but on an objective estimation of the facts, and that it is those on the other side who are alloying bias – bias in their opinion of Obama, and their opinion about the relative virtues of the two parties – to cloud their judgment.

                  It looks like we’re going to get a nice little test case over the next couple of days, which will demonstrate whether my perception is, or is not, clouded by pro-bama bias.

                  Stay tuned.

                • Leeds man says:

                  “This is not the behavior of someone who finds an argument going well.”

                  From someone pretending that Obama has Yemenis’ best interests at heart by not sending them where they want to go*, this is hilarious.

                  *And are starving to prove the point.

                • jb says:

                  That’s not “in particular.” That’s very vague. “His actions on civil liberties” is a very broad category, and I haven’t made any statements about that broad category. I’m talking about his actions on this particular issue.

                  Anyway, basing your opinion of an argument on who is making it is taught as a logical fallacy in freshman year logic class. My arguments are either right, or wrong. If you’re going to base your opinion of how seriously to take my arguments on my record, you should at least try to put my right/wrong record at the forefront.

                  There are several areas on civil liberties where Obama has been quite bad: detention at Bagram air base, the drone strikes and Al-Awiki, reluctance to prosecute offenders for torture, his hostility to all leaks and aggressive prosecution of whistle-blowers (more so than the previous administration), and many more. If you actually listened to groups such as the ACLU, you would know this. I agree with you that he has been hemmed in by Congress and public opinion, as well as by national security concerns. Also, on this specific issue (GITMO), I agree with you more than not. But that does not mean he is completely blameless.

                  (For the record, I agree that al-Awiki, (a.) was a terrorist, and (b.) deserved what he got. But the assassination of an American citizen without a warrant sets a troubling precedent. The best course of action would have been to capture him and try him for treason, as he was most definitely “giving aid and comfort” to our enemies. That said, while I think it sets a bad precedent, I’m not going to shout too much about this particular case.)

                  And I also agree that one should not disregard an argument based on who it comes from. But it is very hard not to be somewhat suspicious in certain cases. I’m only human after all. And if you didn’t have such a consistent pattern of defending Obama from every argument, no matter how well-argued or cogent, I would be much less suspicious.

                  Really. Then it should be quite easy for you to find examples of my lack of principle and blind loyalty to Obama leading me to be wrong. Good luck.

                  There are several examples. Your position on the debt ceiling crisis and on the efficacy of drone strikes are only the most notable. Your insistence that Obama is in every instance opposed to civil liberties violations is another example. But I’m not going to waste my time looking through every LGM thread looking for examples. My life is too short. In any case, you would dismiss every example I gave.

                  Second, being a “party hack” does not mean you are always wrong. It just means you will always support whatever a Democratic president does. If you disagree with this characterization, then please, show me an instance where you disagreed with Obama. Show me one instance.

                  One of the topics on which I’ve been accused of being a “party hack” and blind Obama apologist is indefinite detention. I’ve written over and over and over again that he opposes it and would not put anyone into such detention. This, others have claimed, is a delusional argument that reflects not reality, but merely my partisan loyalty and loyalty to Obama.

                  What Obama personally thinks of indefinite detention is not the issue. There are indeed reasons to believe he opposes it. The problem is that its’ still being carried out. This may be out of his control in many cases, but not in all, and it doesn’t exculpate his administration from any responsibility. Moreover, your insistence that all abuses stopped completely when Obama was sworn in is laughable. You really should read up on what’s going on. Here are some links. Note what they say about Bagram:

                  There is public concern in the U.S. and around the world that Bagram has become, in effect, the new Guantánamo, except with hundreds more prisoners held indefinitely, with less due process, in harsher conditions.

                  Obama has done little to change this. Also note the executive order that institutionalizes indefinite detention. If Obama is opposed, why on Earth did he issue that order?

                  I, on the other hand, have said that my suppositions are based not on bias, but on an objective estimation of the facts, and that it is those on the other side who are alloying bias – bias in their opinion of Obama, and their opinion about the relative virtues of the two parties – to cloud their judgment.

                  It looks like we’re going to get a nice little test case over the next couple of days, which will demonstrate whether my perception is, or is not, clouded by pro-bama bias.

                  Look, its not that I think the (left-wing) anti-Obama crowd is devoid of bias or political prejudice. They obviously aren’t. Hell, I even said that many of the arguments made by left-wing critics were unwarranted. I just think the other crowd have their biases as well. For instance, your bias towards Obama is so strong that you have never to my knowledge, criticized a single thing Obama has done.

                  Furthermore, I’m kind of confused as to why this would be a big test case. I agree with you that the suspect is likely to get a civilian trial, and to be put in the regular prison system. But I don’t see how this proves the Obama administration’s opposition to all indefinite detentions. If this occurred in Afghanistan, or in various foreign areas that are part of the War on Terror, then it would be a good test case.

                  Look, I actually think that Obama has been a pretty decent President. Considering the kind of things he’s had to deal with, he’s done reasonably well. I also think that many of the disappointments of his administration can be traced to our messed-up political system, and to the abysmal state of our discourse. You, on the other hand appear to think that he’s some kind of progressive Jesus, and that he’s never made any mistakes. That is why I called you a party hack.

                  Moreover, given that you habitually smear any left-wing critic of Obama as a “purity troll”, or even as uninterested in America’s security, it’s hilarious that you object to being called a “party hack” You can dish it out, but you can’t take it.

                • jb says:

                  From someone pretending that Obama has Yemenis’ best interests at heart by not sending them where they want to go*, this is hilarious.

                  *And are starving to prove the point.

                  Look, while I partly agree with you, the situation is more complicated then that.

                  The detainees in question may be innocent of whatever it is the government thinks they did. They might also be guilty. That they haven’t been formally accused of anything doesn’t necessarily mean the’re innocent, it just means the government doesn’t think it has enough evidence to accuse them. I agree with you that their continued detention is a travesty, but things might be more complicated then they look.

                  Even though they are probably innocent, its also quite possible that their experience has given them a general hatred of their jailers, or even Americans generally, or that they may have absorbed jihadist ideology from other inmates, some of whom were probably guilty. The President is probably afraid that if they were transferred to Yemen, they would escape and join various armed groups there. This does not make their initial internment right.

                  If they did join armed groups after they were transferred, then howls of outrage and anger at Obama would come from both the GOP and many Democrats. Congress might well tie Obama’s hands even further after this. The President might be doing this because he wants to avoid this situation.

                  In addition, there is the concern that they would be tortured when transferred to Yemen. (Quite probably tortured worse then they ever were here, though this is not a defense of what we did).

                  I agree with you that indefinite detention is a travesty, and that those inmates should be transferred. I just think that the problem probably looks different to Obama than it does to us.

                • jb says:

                  In other words, while I think indefinate detention is a horrible practice, there are arguments that can be made for continuing it in this particular case. I don’t agree with them, but they exist.

                  I would have a lot more respect for joe if he actually made those arguments, rather than continuing to insist, in the face of all the evidence, that Obama is always opposed to this, and that none of this is his fault.

                • jb says:

                  “Your comment is awaiting moderation”

                  I wasn’t aware that this blog had moderation. If my post was too personal, I’ll try to tone it down.

                  But at this point, I don’t have a lot of respect for joe.

                • FvB says:

                  The administration is not concerned enough about to torture to end rendition to countries known to torture.

              • joe from Lowell says:

                I do like this imposed ignorance about the actions of Congress, though.

                I just don’t have your discipline. If I know something, I can’t make myself pretend to be ignorant. That’s quite a skill you have. You should be proud. Really.

      • Well nevermind, we’ll get the chance to falsify it after all!

    • Paul Campos's Bed says:

      You know, like…absolutely none of the terrorist suspects who have been captured since the Democrats won the White House.

      Not a single one.

  35. Richard says:

    Gun fight in Watertown. Report that suspect is cornered. Gee whiz, police might actually know what they are doing

  36. joe from Lowell says:

    Maybe this post is some kind of very dry irony.

    The author is accusing others of fearful over reactioin.

  37. ChrisTS says:

    Jesus, am I on LGM or Volokh?

  38. Shakezula says:

    And regarding the very long addenda to this post…

    Since Campos threw it up there without explanation or link and then went to prepare a lecture, I assume his point is people get shot all of the time and life goes on as usual.

    So. Let’s not even get into the puzzling apples and oranges juxtaposition. One the one hand you have an attack involving explosives that killed three people and resulted in grievous, life altering injuries to at least a dozen more. Pinning a list of non-fatal shootings in a city 14 hours away up after it can’t be explained. He must have been concerned about that lecture.

    Instead, I’ll take different flavors of shootings for $500 to explain why it is bullshit anyway.

    I got to experience the Beltway Sniper Happy Funtimes up close and personal. And given the nature of the DMV, I know lots of people were shot and often killed during that same period. But the BS killings always got the royal treatment. You could often tell there’d been a shooting just by listening. Hear lots of helicopters? They’d struck again, close enough that you could hear the police trying to track mysterious killer who had a major metropolitan area really fucking uptight. (Those pictures of people hiding behind their cars while filling their gas tanks? Not exaggerated even a little bit.)

    Now, a person who isn’t distracted by the pressures of lecture composition can understand why the police and the public have one response when (for example) two morons get in a fight that ends with one (or both) morons getting shot dead, and an entirely different response when persons or persons unknown murder whoever wanders into the gun sights at the right moment.

    But not our friend Campos. All crime is crime and all criminals are criminals and they all have the same motives and your response to Crime A must be identical to the response to Crimes B – Z or you’re a panicky fool!

    At least that’s how I took it. Maybe when he finishes the first draft, he’ll come back and explain.

  39. wengler says:

    Somehow I was able to hate nearly every response on this thread.

    I do think the militarization of our domestic police force was on full display last night and into today. Not that it helped much, since the initial point of contact was still regular cops with regular guns.

    Since the suspect has now been captured, I sure as hell hope he is tried normally instead of crammed in some deep dark hole.

    • “I do think the militarization of our domestic police force was on full display last night and into today. ”

      This makes absolutely no fucking sense. From a conduct standpoint, the BPD handled this as admirably as they possibly could have been expected to and then some. There was no public panic, there was no panic on the part of the police force, they secured the area, kept the public safe, cornered the suspect and took him alive. There were no cops shooting at anyone who moved in Watertown, no hasty movements or rash actions destroying property needlessly, no Drug War esque raids on any houses they thought he might be in with families thrown to the ground, cuffed, interrogated, family pets shot, whatever, and not even any zeal to find any possible excuse to just kill the guy once they had him pinned down.

      In other words, the only way this could represent some sort of problematic “militarization” of the police force is if you’re simply focusing on the fact that their physical persons were well protected and that they planned and executed a coordinated tactical movement to box in and capture the suspect. That strikes me as bizarre, to say the least.

      • Richard says:

        Absolutely correct. The police often act badly. Not in this case. No civilians injured by police action. The real threat of further attacks ended after four days of great police work. One of the worst weeks in Memory ends on a grace note

        • And I say this as someone who generally isn’t a big fan of the police. Honestly, if you skip past the truly fantastic work that the police did over the past ~24 hours and go straight to whining that they were wearing body armor, executing military maneuvers, and asked everyone to stay inside…please just go fuck yourself.

          • wengler says:

            Outstanding advice from an outstanding thread.

            I’m happy our expectations are so low that we are glad that cops didn’t randomly kill civilians in their search for a wounded teenager.

            I almost forgot the ‘terrorists have magical powers’ mentality that was established after 2001.

        • Leeds man says:

          “One of the worst weeks in Memory ends on a grace note”

          Worst for who?

      • wengler says:

        Yes and it was the cops that spotted him in the end.

        Oh wait, it wasn’t. It was a homeowner who went outside to smoke.

      • Wicked says:

        Thank you, Brian Jackson. People who write columns like these are forgetting a key aspect of journalism: ASK THE PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE HOW THEY FELT instead on imposing your own perceptions on them.

    • Shakezula says:

      I have a strong suspicion that if the National Guard had been running this op you’d kvetch about that. What about the U.S. Army? Navy Seals patrolling the streets of Boston, Mass. your thoughts?

      If none of those selections are satisfactory, then please explain who exactly the fuck did you want to catch these cats and how did you want your hypothetical criminal apprehension humans to go about doing it?

      A bunch of plods in their standard uniforms patrolling their beats until they spotted a vital clue ie, a pinless hand grenade landing between their feet?

      I swear 49% of this country hit its head while watching The Andy Griffith Show and the other 49 while watching GI Joe. Fucknuggets one and all.

  40. Richard says:

    Recap

    No further deaths, no further injuries, second terrorist captured alive.

    Other side of the ledger – Campos would have been annoyed if capturing the terrorist would have delayed his lecture

  41. [...] region felt as if it had been gripped by martial law: Police armed with rifles patrolled deserted streets [...]

  42. [...] region felt as if it had been gripped by martial law: Police armed with rifles patrolled deserted streets [...]

  43. Wicked says:

    Paul Campos is full of shit. The “region” felt gripped by martial law”??? Who is this Region person, and where can I find him/her/it?

    I live in Boston, have friends and family all over the Boston area including Watertown, and not a single one of us complained that we were under siege. We were happy to comply with the shelter-in-place order because NONE OF US WANTED TO GET BLOWN UP. Seriously, if you weren’t there and have never lived through a terrorist attack near your home, shut the fuck up.

  44. garlic says:

    3 or 4 plump garlic cloves (crushed, peeled, green germ removed and minced ).
    Put 4 or 5 drops of oil of oregano into a couple ounces of orange juice and drink all
    at once. Make a solution by mixing one part vinegar or lemon juice to five parts water.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • Switch to our mobile site