I am not sure what makes me angrier, the abuse of civil forfeiture, or the initial breaking down a door and use of a flash bang as initial contact. Now, this i

I am not sure what makes me angrier, the abuse of civil forfeiture, or the initial breaking down a door and use of a flash bang as initial contact. Now, this is only off of one source, but I am of the opinion that the use of a explosive designed to cause hearing and vision damage on a civilian (without any other interaction) was blatant overuse of force, and needlessly endangering the nearby public, as well as the risk of fire. The civil forfeiture abuse is bad enough, but using an explosive device on a civilian, while flashbangs are, in almost all cases, nonlethal, the do produce sound levels that cause instant and permanent hearing damage, and can sill cause burns as well as other injuries. I still don't understand how task forces like this can start with this kind of interaction, where a normal warrant has to be served like any other legal demand. I assume there is some special provision that is meant for use when some level of danger is expected during the interaction, and is used to "skip-past" the usual formalities used for executing warrants, that was meant to be used where extreme expedience was needed, or the persons being served were assumed to be actively hostile...