For historical context, this trend is due to the pendulum swinging back too far in reaction to the Miami FBI shootout [1], where officers were woefully outgunned.
You can't reasonably both have a pervasively armed populace and law enforcement unprepared to deal with armed resistance from suspects even when the crime of which they are suspected is not itself violent.
> As a “Lawman” crew filmed the raid Monday, deputies serving a search warrant blew out the suspect’s windows and leveled his gate, frightening neighbors. Jesus Llovera, who was convicted last year of attending a cockfight but has no record of owning weapons, was arrested on charges of suspected cockfighting, Phoenix TV station KPHO reported. He was unarmed.
> Steven Seagal, Arizona Sheriff Use Tank to Bust Up Cockfighting for A&E Show (Update)
https://www.thewrap.com/steven-seagal-arizona-sheriff-use-ta...
There was no evidence that the officers making the arrest would be at inordinate risk.
It would probably be better to explicitly mention that such police procedures are employed against thousands of non-violent people very year, that there is persistent racial bias in large parts of the judicial system, and that one should be so lucky to be protected from the worst by being a major figure of public interest and having camera teams present.
There is no perfect solution, so I think it's better to go with the one that most often protects lives.
I don't have the numbers, but I'd assume wearing body armor and having proper equipment protects more lives than it causes harm (via "freaking out").
There are legitimate bases for debate about the details of those precautions, but “there was no problem for them to address” is not one of them.
You’re now back to arguing over specific probabilities, proving my point.
Also, you knew all this, and are arguing in bad faith.