The RCMP got a firearms incident complaint and after speaking with the complainant they arrested two individuals in a field that were shooting. After having the complainant identify the individuals, that IMO is where it should have ended. Why did they feel the requirement to do an assault on the landowner's home/family?
What did the complainant tell the Police for them to feel that a high risk take down of the occupants of the house was required?
To me it all depends on what the complainant told the RCMP. If she said that there were two guys shooting and she identified them after they were arrested then IMO there should have been no requirement to do an assault on the home/family. If she assumed that it was the landowner and specifically stated that it was him involved, that's a different story and IMO the RCMP just followed Standard Operating Procedures to apprehend him.
But I'm just an armchair quarterback.......