Your example, was it an incident with actual law enforcement? I’m guessing yes, but I don’t know that I have all of the facts to make that assessment.
My examples are specific to actual law enforcement officers, not “wannabe” cops (i.e. community security or criminals in fake uniforms). Your chances of survival in an incident involving actual trained cops or, worst case, military-trained units, are pretty slim, esp. if you open fire on them.
I have dogs who are diligent at barking at the smallest of noises, and I would unload a magazine of shot shells at an intruder who shot any of them, regardless of the verity of their break-in.
Cops should have to think really hard before plowing down a door on a search warrant, and this law makes that happen. Break down the wrong door, neglect to surveil the home prior to a raid, or knock down the wrong door due to complete incompetence is NOT a permissible reason to ventilate a homeowner or their pets and law enforcement should absolutely be held to account for their behavior, even if they all have matching stories.
The overarching point is that the average citizen does not have recourse against a pack of SWAT meatheads whether by firepower or in a court of law. Law enforcement should not be immune to prosecution from shooting someone’s pet all the way up to an illegal search.
The “Law and Order” mentality of skirting the gray areas of the law makes me sick. Our Founders envisioned “a nation of laws, not men,” and these men get away with murder quite a bit more than I like.
I'm not talking about private security officers, but rather persons employed as law-enforcement officers who think that if they equipping themselves with fancy gear and smash into people's homes, they'll be a "SWAT team". Such behavior was demonstrated by the gang of BATF agents who smashed into Mount Carmel Center in Waco Texas (1992). It's fairly common in some areas for groups of "SWAT Wannabes And Thugs" smash into the homes of supposedly-dangerous people, using reckless bully tactics which would get them killed if their targets were actually dangerous. Ryan Frederick was a victim of such robbers; Cory Maye was another, though the police conduct in his case was not quite so outrageous (the death of the officer invading Mr. Maye's home I would regard as unfortunate but justifiable; the only unfortunate thing about the death of the officer who was trying to break into Mr. Frederick's home was the state's blaming Mr. Frederick for the death, rather than prosecuting decedent's accomplices for capital murder).
One of the major causes of that, I think, is a widespread belief that court precedents have some kind of legal authority in matters not involving the original litigants. If a court rules that police acted reasonably in some particular case where they knocked on a door, waited five seconds, and bashed their way in, such a ruling will be interpreted as a rule saying that cop's behavior should be regarded as "reasonable" if the cop makes some effort to knock on a door (not necessarily audibly) and waits something resembling five seconds before forcing entry.
A more proper approach would be to recognize that any conduct which a jury would regard as "unreasonable", is unreasonable. While it is right and proper to allow defendants to block the admission of evidence gathered in patently-unreasonable searches, that should not be the limit of defendants' Fourth-Amendment protections. Defendants should also be able have questions of "reasonableness" put before their jury. In many cases, decisions regarding what is "reasonable" or "unreasonable" involve factual matters (such as witness credibility or perceptions of judgment) rather than legal ones; as such, the state cannot really honor a person's right to jury trial without allowing the jury to consider such factual issues.