[Spats McGee]

I see two basic problems here:

1) As regards split-second decisions: In the case of a no-knock raid, there are two groups that have to make split-second decisions: (a) the police; and (b) the occupants of the residence. If a bunch of darkly-clad men burst through my front door at 3 a.m., my first thought is probably not going to be, "Oh, that must be the police." This worries me. Being prepared for a home invasion by 1-3 hoodie-clad thugs is not the same as being prepared for a raid by 8-10 well-trained, body-armor-clad SWAT officers armed with ARs and flash-bangs. Further, if I raise a gun to defend my home, there's little chance that I'll survive the ensuing firefight. If it's thugs, and I guess wrong, I and my family could die. If it's the police, and I guess wrong, I and my family could die.4

2) Unlike engineers, pilots and doctors, who also make some split-decision, life-and-death decisions, the police are protected by qualified immunity. This is a well-established doctrine under federal civil rights law, and it's very effective. I've been using this doctrine for the better part of the last decade to defend officers. If, as in the last example, I do raise my gun to shoot the police, and they kill me, a court is likely to rule that they are immune from suit. There are a couple of different legal routes to qualified immunity. In very broad strokes, one of them is "if the officer's did not violate any bright-line constitutional or statutory rights of the plaintiff," and the other is "if the officers acted reasonably." (This is assuming that they acted under color of law, mind you.) I, on the other hand, enjoy no such immunity. If officers bust into my house and I do shoot and kill one (and assuming that I survive), I can be sued for wrongful death. Even if I acted reasonably, I will likely have to go to trial to defend myself. Compare this to officers, who will win on summary judgment, if they can prevail on qualified immunity.