That "terrorist" would be dead meat if he showed his face around any one of the homes in my neighborhood. There would be guys with cell phones, dogs, and guns just waiting to make his day rather unpleasant. One of us is an ex-cop and former Army Ranger.
This was the epitome of an unreasonable search process. If the police had a blood trail, or had a report of the perp entering a particular house, that would be "hot pursuit" justifying a warrantless and potentially a forcible entry. This was not. They had no legal or moral grounds for the search they conducted. It was a terrible precedent, and forbodes for much worse to come should the people find this tolerable, much less laudatory.
Worse, and despite the public accolades, that search method was COMPLETELY INEFFECTIVE. Just as the DC sniper case, which also violated the Constitutional rights of the people with COMPLETELY INEFFECTIVE warrantless searches of their cars, it was a citizen who found the perp, and not the police.
This kind of "You get out of the way and let the professionals handle it; we'll get 'em, no matter what," policy is simply not worth the cost. It trains the police to operate on a hair trigger. It teaches the police that the houses and property of citizens are not to be held sacred. It places the arms and security of the people at risk. It damages property. It costs such a fortune to equip and maintain these SWAT teams that cities and counties are breaking under the retirement costs. It is exactly the "civilian national security force" Obama touted to cheering Democrats. Apparently you think it's a great idea too.
This state of affairs would be an anathema to the founders, who saw THE PEOPLE as the primary source of law enforcement. Militarized police, equipped as you saw in the video, IS equivalent to what the Founders feared in a standing army. It is why we have the Fourth Amendment they ignored completely in the name of "officer safety."
Nor is this some "unprecedented situation" by virtue of new technology. Hell, people used to be able to buy dynamite at the local hardware store 100 years ago. So to imply that the mere fact that these two were crazy Islamists with bombs somehow makes things any different would be an implication without merit. There is nothing new here.
Hence, by the condescension and contempt in your post for conservatives who see this action for what it was, AN ILLEGAL SEARCH, yours argument descends to an 'ends justifies means' position, the kind of justification used by every tyrant in history. I suggest you read Aristotle's Ethics, as over two thousand years ago he taught what should be known today in every grade school: 'No one selects "an end" unless it is a means to something else. There are no "ends;" there are only means.'
We’re just teaching the terrorists that we are willing to give up the 4th. That will also make it easier to go after the 2nd since illegal searches will turn up illegal large magazines and the ACLU by their own admission won’t defend those cases.
If the perp had broken into my house to hide I would be holding the door open for the cops to come in and carry his dead body out. I can say that because I live in the Republic of Texas where we are allowed to defend ourselves and our property with semi auto guns with large magazines.