It was reported on the news during the house to house, that if somebody would have refused, they had plans to attain warrants very quickly.
The reason was to ensure the terrorist wasn’t in the household, holding a hostage, say a child, with the parents lying to save the child.
I think it is pretty telling that not one person, protested and demanded a warrant.
People have a pretty good understanding of a serious and dangerous situation when their family is involved. And honestly, what would be the reason to deny entrance in a crisis situation where your family is in potentially serious danger?
There would be no good reason, except for general principle.
It speaks volumes that not one person protested or complained...except for people in the safety of their own homes with no skin in the game. Fearing fanciful delusions about a “police state”.
The scenario that you suggest, the Constitutional scenario involving probable cause and a warrant, would have been the only way to have caught the terrorist. Obviously if the terrorist was holding somebody hostage, the hostage’s family would have to refuse entry! Otherwise the terrorist would be caught! How stupid! Terrorist: “I’m holding you’re son hostage to hide out in your home, so make sure the po-po searches this place well!”
Those were my points/thoughts too.
The ones complaining like Ron Paul and a very few here were far-far-away safely watching it on TV or internet and now they want to jump in and cry police state after the crisis is all over... and the search is over and the bad guys are caught.
They got no victims, all their 'victims' joined the so called ‘police state’. How can they have a police state complaint (that anyone will care about) without victims?
At least Dems are smart enought to make sure a few victims are willing to go on TV and complain about whatever.
All that's going on w Obama and congress and Syria and this is what they pick to complain about?
They didn’t complain because they were both ignorant and stupid