So if someone accuses you of some crime, say theft, are the police justified in kicking in your door and exploding stun grenades to capture you, or should they have used reasonable means to determine whether in fact any basis for the charge exists?
If the police have a search warrant, know I have weapons in the house (which I do), and have some reason to expect a violent response to their entry. But comparing entry into a home for theft, is often a whole different thing then entering a home looking for drugs. Where drugs are involved the likelyhood of armed resistance is significantly higher. Again, if the police had credible information that they might encounter armed suspects that would likely resist with gun fire....the tactics they used are totally proper.
It sounds like they used a no knock entry....which to me implies they were expecting armed resistance along with a strong concern about evidence being destroyed.
Just because a raid doesn't turn up everything you are looking for doesn't mean the raid was carried out improperly. There are many factors that are outside of the control of the police that can have an impact on the success of such a raid, not the least of which is someone tipping off the bad guys so they have time to get rid of evidece, so they can claim they were poor victims of an overy aggressive police force.
To condem the police, as many of you seem do be doing, without knowing more about the subject, is just wrong.