I agreed with the lock-down action. It has nothing to do with probability or how many people are killed in traffic accidents or anything remotely like that. I don't even think it had to do with risk to the public.
It had to do with Getting the Guy.
The police had a good idea of where this guy was - he had fled on foot and they knew he couldn't get far. They suspected he was wounded.
By locking everything down, they prevented him from moving freely. He couldn't grab a cab or bus or train. He couldn't carjack another car because no one was driving. If he moved or tried to get from one place to another, he'd be spotted.
They also prevented him from seeking medical help or even getting food and water. Sure, he found the boat to hide in but then he was forced to stay there. When they lifted the order, he had been there for about 18 hours, thirsty, weakened and out of options. Had they lifted it earlier or if there had been no lock-down, he could well have escaped - even if it was on a bicycle.
Maybe you have to be from the Boston area to understand how important it was to GET THIS GUY. Having him escape would have been completely unacceptable.
I think it was absolutely the right move.
If the police were seeking vengeance, the guy would be dead. You're off base on this one, hal.It was about the police seeking vengeance.
It was about FINDING the guy. If you lived in Boston, you'd know that.