The cops shooting him doesn't mean anything. What do you expect them to do? They just busted down the door to a sleeping man's home and see him with a gun. If I were in that position, I'd think "man, this guy is about to shoot me."
The real question is who sent them there, why, and was it worth it? The answers are the government (with our support), 1000 poor excuses, and no.
Doesn't have anything thing to d with the cops shooting a guy. If you're waging a "war" (what we called it until Obama said not to because it's "counterproductive to call it that"), people are going to get shot. You legally hire, train and send armed men to break into an armed man's house while he is sleeping, what the hell do you think is going to happen?
Why they shot him doesn't matter. Many of us might have shot him too. If I bust into your house tonight and see you with a gun...wouldn't I be correct in thinking you're about to shoot me? That's probably what the SWAT guys were thinking. Why were they there? Who sent them? Was it worth it?
Sure you can throw out "they don't have to do it" stuff. Yeah, you're right. But as long as we tell them it's the right thing to do, and pay them to do it...it's gonna get done. If the government had paid positions to go around sucker punching old women in public...people would fill the jobs. Sure, they shouldn't be punching old women...but shouldn't the government and we as a society not be irresponsible enough to want them to do it? Blaming the cops for things like this is starting at the wrong end of the chain. How many corrupt cops were in Miami circa the 1980's? Who was REALLY to blame for that? Correlation does not imply causation, but prohibition does. AMIRITE?
Yes, you have this correct. Like you said, not right but that is the way it is. I was listening to NPR yesterday about a SC case where they ruled that if LEO has suspicion to think drugs or evidence is being destroyed after a knock and announcement is made, the LEO has the "right" to enter the house without a warrant.