And to top it all off, they had just been in a firefight with him and his brother the night before. It's really easy to pass judgment after the fact, but we can really only judge them based on the information they had at the time, and at the time, they had every reason to be worried that he was armed and dangerous.Nielas said:More importantly, the manhunt started when they shot and killed a police officer. Assuming that the man was unarmed would be suicidally stupid.Dirty Hipsters said:I really don't see what that has to do with anything. Police wouldn't have known that he was unarmed at the time, and it was a pretty fair assumption on their part that he would be armed considering he'd just detonated 2 bombs.xDarc said:and later it would be admitted he was unarmed
As for how I'd respond, I wouldn't make a fuss. Given the situation, I wouldn't even bother to ask what they were there for. If they forced me to go somewhere, I'd likely ask if I would be let back in later that day so I know if I should start looking for a hotel to stay in that night. If it weren't a time of crises I might ask why they were there and what they were doing, but in this case it might give me more peace of mind.
I'm not saying this because I like having my Constitutional rights trampled on. I'm just saying that, based on my personality, I wouldn't resist or argue. Not to mention, I generally look at the situation rather than holding to some universally applicable ideal that we should never go against even in the most extreme of situations, and given the situation--a loose terrorist who is likely armed and had already killed a cop, the high likelihood that they have a very limited time window, and the sheer scale in which they had to operate--I'd likely view it as extreme enough to warrant some extra flexibility. Maybe you disagree, but I don't see myself thinking or acting any different at the time this was going on.