On some level, I understand the decision because I empathize with the idea that it would be better if the homeowner sought a civil remedy after the fact than if s/he resisted with force when it happened. It's certainly better from a public policy point of view. Waco comes to mind.
But "public policy" is exactly why I'm not comfortable with the decision. It's one more step down the path of courts making policy decisions instead of legal decisions. The straight-up legal answer to this is pretty simple: a police officer's authority is limited, and when an officer goes beyond those boundaries s/he no longer has the shield of that authority, and is in the same position as any other person.
EDIT: I think another reason I'm uncomfortable with it is that it represents a shift from an expectation that a citizen will submit to authority according to law to an expectation that a citizen will submit to another individual, regardless of law. That offends my values.
__________________
|