Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501
Your implication is that it was ****ing pathetic that Boston had to go into a police state to stop a terrorist attack. That's what it takes when you don't want a police state to prevent an attack.
What makes your argument flawed is that it doesn't consider the alternatives. We could have avoided this by a heavy police state to prevent it. I don't want that. We could have avoided a police state in hunting down the criminal, nevermind that this could have increased the likelihood that the scumbag could have gotten away or at least prolonged the hunt.
There was nothing pathetic about how it was handled. It was a remarkable partnership between citizens, businesses, and the police to capture two guys in a crowd. In fact, it was really remarkable.
Yes there was. 2 guys shut down a major city with pressure cookers.
"Finally, anyone who uses the terms, irregardless, a whole nother, or all of a sudden shall be sentenced to a work camp."