I’m with you, in part. Just because somebody doesn’t complain when their rights are violated doesn’t mean that their rights weren’t violated.
However, if nobody had the inclination to say “no” when the heavily armed men pointing weapons at citizens came to the door then there may not be a test case. I think there are few of us who would risk debating the constitution in that situation. I also think that if you equip, train and deploy police like soldeirs, they tend to act like soldiers when it comes to dealing with the citizenry.
The fact that the LEOs involved were brave and the goal of getting the two targets was achieved doesn’t cancel out everything else. The optics of an American street looking like a scene out of a war movie count for something, both here and to a potential enemy abroad. I don’t think those images cause our enemies dismay.
I do think if the line wasn’t crossed, it became blurred, and you can make a solid case that is as much of a strategic win for the bad guys as the tactical resolution was a win for the good guys.
That’s not a hit against the rank and file that were there to do a job under trying circumstances. I think any blame involved rests with those who chose the methods, more than with those who executed the plan.
That's the REAL problem. I would. Know that for a fact (been there). Far too few would though.
Of course, by “been there” I mean in a far less militarized situation. Still, been there.