Do you dare to search for pressure cooker now?

I tend to feel like you do on many issues involving rights and abuses, but I have to agree with jar on this one. The police got a report of suspicious activity, that someone was worried about a potential terrorist. This was right after the Boston Bombing, and as much as it defies logic, people like to copy-cat horrendous things to try and get their 15 minutes.How were the cops supposed to handle it? When they get a call, are they supposed to just ignore it until a bomb goes off? I think the description is the exact right response. They didn't rush in, kicking doors down with riot gear and weapons pulled, they pulled in, treating it as a potentially hostile situation, but didn't do anything hostile or escalate it themselves. They asked to come into the house, quite quickly saw that there was nothing suspicious and exited the situation as delicately as they could.So again, I ask, what were they supposed to do, in your eyes?Edited by Perdition, : clarification

The cops are called about a possible terrorist who is making bombs, and you want one person to head over there?Let's assume there really is a bomb making terrorist in the house. How probable is it that this person is working alone? How probable is it that this person (or persons) is only making bombs and isn't also buying at least one gun? If the person is working alone and doesn't have a gun, how are you supposed to stop them from running away?When checking on a tip (not just randomly stopping by a house to see if maybe there's a terrorist in the closet) the cops have to assume the tip is true. Otherwise, why bother even checking? If they assume there's nothing to it, but there is, someone's going to get hurt.