If the judge agrees, he or she will sign the warrant. The police then execute said warrant.
Upon executing the warrant, if you open the door and see a subject of the warrant pointing a high-powered semi-automatic rifle at you, you may then choose to fire or be shot. These officers chose the former.
You know why a lot of criminals end up dieing in these types of raids? It's not because they think the cops have busted through their door. It's because they think other criminals have busted through their door to take their stuff.
Again, I'm assuming this was a bad guy. It's either that or the entire first part of the criminal justice system screwed up big time. And usually the simplest answer is the correct answer.
You make it sound like someone politely walked up to this man's door and knocked, waited, then knocked a little harder -- and that the door opened a few inches with a chain lock still attached, and that the nice officer held up the search warrant.
Bulls***. This was a bunch of black-clad ninja wannabees busting through a locked door. If someone did that to YOUR house, YOU'D BE SHOOTING FIRST, TOO.
To defend the premise of the no-knock raid tells me you are an avowed enemy of the Constitution, and of Natural Rights.
Turn in your badge. "Innocent until proven guilty."
You are part of the problem.
Given the current state of affairs that dumbs down testing for police offices, union rules that prevent bad cops from getting fired, politicians that get elected by vote rigging, and judges that care more about what political party the Prosecutor belongs to that what evidence he has, I'm not convinced the second isn't more likely.
I dunno about you, but I know, beyond any tiny fragment of uncertainty, that ^^^^this^^^^^ ain't how it works in the real world.
Let's be clear. The police and judge decided this had to be a dynamic entry warrant - where the police break in the door and swarm in with weapons drawn. Whether or not this is a "bad guy", the "justice" system decided he had to be accosted in a violent, armed manner in order to see if he was doing something illegal.
When accosted in this manner, the man decided to try and protect himself and his family. Even if he's only protecting himself and a stash of drugs, he is in his own house, and is confronted with armed men swarming into his dwelling, and he chose to exercise his second amendment right to defend himself by grabbing a weapon and preparing to fire if necessary.
The Marine Corps veteran chose to not immediately fire, despite being accosted by the violent entry. He chose to try and understand what was happening before using deadly force.
The police, on the other hand, saw a weapon and assessed the threat to their lives, and decided it was more prudent to use deadly force against a presumably legally armed suspect rather than to stay their trigger fingers and try to resolve the situation (which they escalated through their entry tactics) without deadly violence.
The Marine practiced restraint, and you have stated that his restraint killed him. I presume you meant that his choice to exercise his second amendment rights was the cause, but it really was his restraint - if he had opened up immediately and sought cover, he may have survived to be tried.
The root cause of this death was the decision to use a dynamic entry tactic, not the man's legal (and restrained) exercise of his second amendment rights.
But you insist HE chose his fate.
One question... Do citizens of the United States have inalienable rights or not?
One follow up... Are inalienable rights alienated at the decision of a police department and judge, or perhaps is there a new, abridged definition of the word "inalienable"?
Oh, he's a criminal now. So, there's the verdict...I guess he got his swift sentence too, eh?
Disgraceful.
Open the door? According to the article, 5 paramilitary police troops broke down the door and stormed what they clearly perceived to be the enemy.
There is no evidence that the Marine had committed any crime. There is no evidence that he was a Bad Guy.