[brent13a]

What is the alternative? The way we normally operate, in harmony with our Constitution.

Knock, identify, ask for permission. Ask questions to determine if the people in a home are under duress, if not, move on.

It’s not like the search actually found the guy. So all of the searches were an abject failure.

So you provided an alternative plan for every situation that doesn't involve a terrorist bomber/gangbang shooter/armed criminal of which law enforcement is in hot pursuit of.

It’s not like the search actually found the guy. So all of the searches were an abject failure.

I don't see how it was an abject failure, at the end of the search they knew where the terrorist wasn't.

[Daffynition]

Do we have any news of any residents who stood their ground?

[palmer]

So you provided an alternative plan for every situation that doesn't involve a terrorist bomber/gangbang shooter/armed criminal of which law enforcement is in hot pursuit of

Hot pursuit does not apply. The police were not in hot pursuit once they lost the suspect. If you want to use your own definition of "hot pursuit" that's fine, but it doesn't mean squat. The searches in Watertown were illegal unless the homeowners gave permission and not permission under duress as appears to be the case.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Maybe. But they couldn’t be sure he hadn’t managed to sneak around them and moved into a house they had already searched.

During the time of the DC Sniper, after every shooting, the police would set up obtrusive roadblocks, stopping every car. Toward the end, that included major highways, and there would be multiple-hour backups.

And at least twice, the actual sniper was able to drive through these checkpoints.