I know I come down hard, on the side of cops, and often. But I do understand the perspective you offer. Mostly my point is to ensure there is some balance if I perceive something as being too one sided. You have never called a cop a pig, but I almost get that feel occasionally(?).

Police can and often do go overboard, and the fault really can be with everything from the whole legal system, to the administration of the force, to individual police groups, down to a single officer making a bad call. I think something else needs to be underscored in the debate. How often is nothing done because of a fear of seeming heavy handed? I would guess in the heavy handed versus hands off mistake categories, the hands off is probably much more prevalent. Now that, I think, is probably a good thing IF, THAT IS, we live in a society which not only can but will take up the slack.

Are there such things as social pariahs today? Are those who do evil consistently, overtly, and joyfully (regardless of legality) set out of society or dealt with more directly when that is desired? I would say not, and further, I would say that the laws are against the men who would do so given a chance (or they end up in jail themselves). No, I am not recommending vigilantism, or phrased more simply after the fact street-based criminal punishment. What I do recommend (and encourage if safely legal, sometimes even if it is not), is people actively resisting criminals, crimes, and other forms of evil up to and including killing the criminal via resistance.

I think a lot of the raids that are made, not a majority, but a disturbingly large minority, are not just "bad calls," but rather an example of a combination of stupid policies and procedures and an unwillingness on the part of the police to try a different approach. These raids "work" because officers respond with such force that they're rarely in all that much danger when you factor in the armor. The problem is, the officer's safety is no more important than the target's safety in the overwhelming majority of cases. When policies and procedures start to take innocent lives, it becomes more and more apparent that the ostensible mission to "serve and protect" the public has been subordinated to the police force's general safety.

The military is expected to sacrifice for the country's safety. It is also expected to not needlessly risk civilian casualties in the name of preventing harm to military personnel. The military gets its honors in part because every individual is freely expected to subordinate their own safety to the duty of defending the nation from attack, and doing so professionally. The same is often not expected of the police today with regard to the communities that hire them.

"The problem is, the officer's safety is no more important than the target's safety in the overwhelming majority of cases."

I'd say that both of their safety is subordinate to due process and procedure and rule of law.