"i'm curious how you come to the conclusion that a person who is a drug user (a non-violent misdemeanor offense) is more likely to present armed resistance than a burglar (felony offender)."
I'm curious how you know fopr a certainty that this guy is just a "drug user". I've been in law enforcement for over 20 years. Drug users are far more prone to violence that burglers, even the types involved with minor drug offenses. Again, if they police had reliable and credible information that led them to believe that that residence was being used by individuals to manufacture or deliver cannabis or a controlled substance then the dynamic entry was totally justified. Obviously a judge was convinced of something as a no knock search warrant was issued.
The accused are always innocent until proven guilty. But if facts are developed that would lead a reasonable person to believe that there would be a danger to police in executing the warrant....then I have no problems with them doing what they had to do to stay safe. If that means shooting a dog, so be it. If that means using flash bangs and kicking in doors, so be it.
As I said earlier...there are many facts in this that we simply don't know, and which would go far into establishing if the raid was conducted properly or not.
The fact that some pot was found in the house suggests that if these folks had not been doing something they should not have been doing, they would not have had any problems. The resposnibility for the dead dog and the damages to the house reside with those people that elected to live a lifestyle that exposed them to the possibility that they could be raided. We don't know who their associates were. Were they good friends of know drug dealers. Was a known drug dealer saying that there was a stash in this house? Was there credible information to support a probable cause belief that drugs were in the home? Was the warrant valid? Was the judge aware of all relevant facts about the situation before he/sh issued the warrant? Was there a warrant? If not was there an emergency exigent cirumstance that justified the entry? If so what was the cicumstance? Was the cicumstance reasoable?
There are a whole slate of factors that are in play here...to pass judgement on them without having a solid grasp of all the facts relevant to the decision making process and the conditions encountered by the police as they executed the raid is just knee-jerk in tone and seemingly unworthy of a thoughtful conservative.
What really disturbs me is that, after a month long investigation, the fact that some drug residue was found in their trash can justified such action. I should think that if he was more than just a drug user, that after a month of looking they should have been able to find some kind of evidence other than (assumption)roaches and maybe some coke residue. Do you remember the case in Houston a year or so ago where the police mistook some kind of plant a homeowner had growing out by the street for a pot plant, and conducted the same kind of raid on him? He was totally innocent, and found himself face down in his home with a shotgun pointed at his head. Maybe our standard for what justifies this kind of invasive procedure has become a little too loose?
Why stop there? I mean, if safety is your primary concern, there are stiffer measures that can be taken.