Jon, thanks for your comment! I don’t doubt that this suspect was highly dangerous—he had just had a shoot-out with police in which he or his brother had thrown bombs out the window of a car. I don’t minimize the danger he posed at all. And I don’t agree that we should think of the risk posed by a terrorist as we think of the risk posed by, say, drunk drivers. I don’t think human beings are wired to think in that way. There is no question that it was imperative that he be caught, and it doesn’t seem to me that the government used too much manpower to do the job, as you suggest. All that being said, was it sensible to shut down the whole city? That’s my question. I think the answer is probably no, since as the press conference on Friday evening showed, we were prepared to reopen the city even before the suspect was caught.

For many people the lockdown and manhunt may have built a sense of community and been a small break from their routine and a relief from the fear of the miniscule risk of encountering the terrorist. For others, it was a lost day, lost wages to pay for food or rent, an inability to comfort a loved one in the hospital, more time and anxiety waiting for their diagnosis, or more physical and mental pain or disability from a delayed surgery.

The media has focused more on the former.

That said, many arguments for the lockdown don’t hold water. Particularly disconcerting is the claim that people should stay indoors because we need the officers from their community on the manhunt. Since when in a free society should your ability to travel or conduct your affairs require a law enforcement officers supervision?

Also the number of the officers involved in this hunt seemed rather excessive and more governed by the labelling of this suspect as a terrorist than any other factor. Has this much firepower been expended to capture a dangerous prison escapee or a mobster on the run?

The other arguments tend to focus on the risk of additional attacks and the number of bullets or bombs thrown. First, outside of the immediate vicinity from where the escapee left on foot, the risk was miniscule to any one individual, not much like any other case where a dangerous felon is loose. True, the person had bombs, but only those he was capable of carrying. While a bomb thrown into a crowd can kill multiple people; guns can kill. Furthermore, a gun can be fired from a greater distance.

Finally I find the closing of the U Mass Dartmouth dubious. It was 35 miles away, and frankly they could have planted bombs anywhere in the metro area. Again the risk to any one person is small, and the next terrorist could have bombs planted anywhere right now. Unless there is something that has yet to be disclosed, this closing seems more meant to send a message that “we are doing something important” than really protect the public against anything more than a remote risk

We accept a certain amount of risk from terrorist, drunk drivers, and other causes in our normal lives. We are also fortunate that the risk of death from a terrorist is far smaller than a variety of other risks.

Thanks, Tom, for that comment! I think your reaction to the day differed from mine somewhat in the details, though we both have concluded (tentatively, I assume—we are still so close to the event) that the “shelter-in-place” recommendation was unwise in hindsight.

It is impossible to predict what might have happened if officials had behaved in a different way and asked us to just, “be safe”, “be strong”, “be smart”, and “be free”. I’m pretty certain that the sweep of the area would have proceeded unimpeded.

It was the lifting of SIP, after a frustrating search with no conclusion, which seemed to be an admission on the part of the same officials, that it didn’t work. After assuring the neighborhood it was “safe” to leave their homes, a citizen lifted the tarp off his boat and revealed the object of the hunt. And, exhibiting caution, intelligence, and bravery that citizen called on the police to do what they are trained to do. Officials had to have breathed an enormous sigh of relief that it ended with no more loss of life.

Life is precarious, especially when it’s lived freely. The facts show that the freedom of one man led to the arrest of another. SIP had very little to do with it. I hope it isn’t used again to fight terrorism.

It was a victory. But when you win a game, you still watch the tapes to see what you could do better next week.

And the other team watches the tapes, too.

The possibility that there may have been other explosive devices out there could have been a reason to set the perimeter of the shelter-in-place so wide. There are probably things known only to the men and women who made that decision that played a part. We are not professional criminologists. We may never know everything that went into that decision but it appears that they made the right one. From where I sit, and I am pretty far away, they were rather transparent. Why not give them credit and not do so much Monday morning quarterbacking.

As for the argument that we are sending a message that a terrorist can shut down a major American city at will, I heard that argument earlier today and was equally unimpressed. If the message that we will hunt down their sacrificial lamb, keep him/her alive (no 72 virgins), and bring them to justice is a victory to terrorists, I’d be willing to send it all day long. The message that we will do anything to keep them from taking another American life is our victory. If we frame it any other way—shame on us. If the media didn’t see what law enforcement in Boston did as a victory then they didn’t see what I saw. Stop behaving as if we are powerless to, at minimum, influence the message, if not put it out there in a manner that benefits us.

Thank you for the comment! You write that the “shelter-in-place” request “allowed first responders to be able to search unimpeded by the general population, not put any innocent bystanders in harms way and focus totally on the subject of their search.” I don’t see that requiring people miles away to stay indoors did anything to aid the search, one way or another. Perhaps the idea was to keep people indoors so that police who ordinarily would expect to have to do police work in other parts of the area could be redirected to Watertown. But that’s not how the request was pitched to the public, which was told to stay indoors with doors locked and not to open them for anyone except police. The implication was that the whole area was in danger.

You also write: “this experience sends a message to anyone who might want to try something like this again. We will shut this city down for the sole purpose of finding you and bringing you to justice … whatever the cost and without knowingly sacrificing another life.” I think the flip side is also true. We are sending a message that a terrorist can shut down a major American city at will. That can’t be a good message to be sending.

The shelter in place order, I feel, accomplished a couple of things. First, it allowed first responders to be able to search unimpeded by the general population, not put any innocent bystanders in harms way and focus totally on the subject of their search. Secondly, even though they didn’t find him in the shelter in place order period, they knew where he was not. While he was located just outside of their perimeter, they knew for sure he was not where they were able to search. Third, once he was encountered and engaged, their full attention and strategy could be implemented with minimal concern for where everyone else might be. Finally, what if there were other explosive devices deployed somewhere? This also gave them time to clear as much as possible, again, minimizing public exposure to a preventable risk.

All of this might be obvious to some but when others cite the economy as a primary reason for not sheltering in place, it lets me know the safety of the people is not important to them. Enough innocent people have lost their lives. Putting more people in danger, I don’t believe serves us very well. I admire and support the Governor of Massachusetts, its law enforcement and its citizens for making the decision and complying with the request. It could not have been easy for them to say “shut it all down and let’s find this guy”. If they thought about the criticism that people are heaping on them now they may not have done it. I’m glad they did.

The danger was not minimal, it was unknown. As you stated, it was a request, not an order. Anyone who wanted to ignore it could at their own risk. If something would have happened to them, i would not have felt in the least bit sorry. It has worked out for the good this time. It would be nice to be able to say this decision will never have to be made again….but it might. Hopefully, this experience sends a message to anyone who might want to try something like this again. We will shut this city down for the sole purpose of finding you and bringing you to justice (that’s the printable way of saying what I think) whatever the cost and without knowingly sacrificing another life.