If a SWAT team breaks down your door in the middle of the night, I doubt you’d have time to open fire let alone even get to your gun before they invade your bedroom. And if you do manage to get your weapon, opening fire on a SWAT team will guarantee that you’ll be carried by six, regardless of whether or not SWAT had the right house.
This is the problem I have, overall. While homeowners may be justified in opening fire against a LEO abusing his/her power, backup is just a radio call away, and if you make it out of your house with both legs unbroken, the chances of making it out of the courtroom with your freedom are somewhere between slim and none.
No one should have to roll over and be abused in their own home. I would rather be carried by 6 rather than be assaulted in my own home, in my own bedroom. I will defend myself, my wife, and my property in any way possible, even bare-handed. My children will at least know I went down fighting doing what I felt was right, rather than being subjugated by someone on a power trip/adrenalin rush, or under the influence of drugs or worse.
Enough is enough. I have drawn the line...
If someone breaks into your home and identifies himself as a police officer your actually going to place the lives of your family on the line.
It seems,I recall a number of times where people who identified themselves as police broke into the homes of people during the night and killed the families there.
If the Law Enforcement Community wants to stop this they will go in marked vehicles and in uniform and make sure they raid the right property.Its called research.
The police cannot afford to screw up because it’s not only their safety that matters.Its also the safety of the public.
That may be true if it's a real "Special Weapons And Tactics" team. On the other hand, if it's a "Swat Wannabee And Thug" team, resistance may sometimes enhance one's chance of survival. For example, after Ryan Frederick shot an AR-15 wielding robber who was with a team battering their way through his front door, the robbers realized they should start acting like cops and identify themselves as such (previously they had, by their own admission, deliberately parked all marked police vehicles out of sight of Mr. Frederick's house, and made a verbal "announcement" that was so feeble that some team members, who were listening for it as a cue to invade the garage, didn't hear it). Once the police identified themselves, Mr. Frederick made clear that he would cooperate with lawful police action and he was taken into custody. Had he not shot the robbers, though, it seems likely that one of the robbers with an AR-15 might have shot him on sight.
(BTW, I think Mr. Frederick's lawyer decided to punt for a 'manslaughter' conviction, arguing that Mr. Frederick really had no way of knowing who he was shooting at. I would have thought a better argument would have been that while Mr. Frederick didn't know the precise identity of the people breaking into his home, he had an objectively reasonable beliefs, which were also factually correct, that (1) his home was being broken into, loudly, by people who knew he was home; (2) such conduct is very rare by invaders who do not intend to subdue the occupants of the dwelling they're invading; (3) the invaders did intend to subdue him or worse, and the only way to prevent that would be to shoot them before they could enter more completely; (4) the invaders were not acting like police officers who were reasonably serving a warrant [note that "unreasonable" warrant service is, by 4th Amendment definition, illegitimate].