There's either a lot to be said about this story, or almost nothing. I'm going to go with the latter because a lot of ink has been spilled on it today, and maybe you should just read it if you haven't so far.
I'll say only three things.
Knowingly falsely sending a SWAT team to someone's house should be prosecuted as attempted murder. The team in this case was apparently entirely professional, and nobody got hurt: but things turn out otherwise so often when such teams are used that we ought to prosecute it as an attempt to kill the target. In the case that someone is actually killed by one of these false reports, it should be prosecuted as premeditated murder.
One of the things I did in the war that I feel best about was that, for a while toward the end of my time there, the intel shop would ask me before executing raids on tribal targets for whom they had actionable intelligence. Very often I could talk them through how the 'informant' proved to be from another tribe with an active beef, while the target of the raid was a highly ranked member of the tribe to be raided. If they could talk us into it, we would detain or kill one of their enemy's key leaders, while also driving a wedge between US forces and their enemy tribe. That was very hard to do, though, and there's no reason to believe it can be replicated here. We really need to rethink whether having so many SWAT teams in America is a good idea, or whether commando-style teams ought to be used for so many purposes. Now that this firewall has been breached, and the tactic has made it here, we need to give careful thought to where, and indeed to whether, such a team is really appropriate.
Finally, Patterico has a screen capture of a message from one of his enemies. Allow me to suggest that the wrong part is bolded.
That is not the worst-case scenario. The worst-case scenario is that you convince ordinary reasonable and rational people that the law can no longer protect decent people, but that the courts have been captured to serve the interests of the wicked. This is a very high-risk strategy, and not only for the people engaged in it.
If it becomes widely used it also represents a potentially fatal risk to the authority of the courts. Jurists and legislators had better find a way to take this threat seriously, and institute controls to prevent their institutions being captured for such purposes.