Thank you all for your kind thoughts. My original question is what could have been done differently. The problems people articulated were Constitutional, not tactical. Having the police not go house to house, and not asking them to “shelter in place” takes precedence over public safety, officer safety, and even finding the suspect who caused the problems in the first place. I understand the concerns, and I will now move on. Joker is in custody.
Of course in the end justify the means.
So in your opinion as soon as the cops determine they don’t have a better option they can ignore the Constitutional issues.
In other words, their tactical concerns trump Constitutional concerns.
man this slope is slippery
You incorrectly assume public and personal safety cannot be met within the confines of the Constitution and the founding ideals of his nation.
You need to take a civics class. Totalitarianism never works is oppresses people and the nation; it does not promote safety.
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”, Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
For my part, that's because there is no answer to this, because their response was tactically superior to the standard "felon on the loose" response. In my opinion, however, it should have been a standard response involving a perimeter, K9 tracking dog(s), helicopter support and consensual contact with residents at their homes.
Going door to door and searching everyone's homes was tactically superior and constitutionally inferior. At least that's how it looked. Who knows, maybe every single resident said "come on in, boys!" and not a single resident said "I don't want the police in my house".
I doubt that though. I'd love some first hand accounts from anyone who refused police entry.