Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
Illustration of the fact that worse than wowzerdom can emerge from the War on Drugs Without Major Corporate Sponsorship: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/18/dea-agents-raid_n_3942731.html
That's not really a drug issue. Such militarised police raids have been well documented for "crimes" that don't concern drugs at all.
Drugs are the centre of that problem, as it turns out. That's where the big money and major weapons entered the picture on both the illegal and law-enforcement sides, and gave rise to the civil forfeiture statutes, and the prospect of money and (seized) property accelerated the process of corruption of the police and prosecutors, and the militarisation of law enforcement. So, none of that, and none of the spillover onto '"crimes" that don't concern drugs at all' would have occurred but for the War on Some Drugs.
There is legal precedent in the US that you are permitted to shoot someone who bursts through your door with a gun even if they happen to be later identified as a cop.
More or less, yes. Let's look at some specifics. Statute and caselaw on 'castle doctrine' matters differs somewhat between USA states. In California, weapons (not just firearms) may be used in self-defence only when a person has a reasonable belief he/she is in imminent danger of his/her life or grave injury, the amount of force that can be used must be proportionate to the threat, and deadly force may be used only while the imminent danger to one's life or of grave injury is ongoing and cannot persist after that threat ends. Persons have no duty to retreat from their residences (as _is_ true in some other US states) if attacker by intruders. Excusable homicide is, in context of attacks against one's residence, governed in California by CA Penal Code section 198.5. Quoting verbatim: 198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred. As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant or substantial physical injury. So, _if_ someone 'unlawfully and forcibly' enters a residence (and fails to identify himself/herself as a peace officer and show a search warrant or cites certain exigent circumstances that eliminate the need for a warrant), then resident who kills such an intruder may, if charged with manslaughter, raise the affirmative defence CPC section 198.5. (An 'affirmative defence' means you still are going to go through a murder trial, but have a good defence you can raise in court to prove the homicide 'excusable'.) However, please note that such a resident _must_ have a reasonable belief that the intruder used forcible and unlawful entry. So, if the facts and circumstances suggest that the resident should have suspected a lawful police entrance, e.g., because they're wearing uniforms and yelling 'police!', then a judge is unlikely to accept that defence.
People in the US have got away with shooting police and ATF agents in self-defence.
Well, consider: Police or ATF agents who battered down the door and were _not_ wearing police uniforms, nor showing badges, nor producing a warrant, would be in practice difficult to distinguish from violent criminals. Calling shooting them 'getting away with' anything ignores the real threat of an apparent home invasion a resident might legitimately perceive.