One would think that a concept such as a "no knock" warrant would categorically be illegal except under the most exigent circumstances, and even those circumstances, should necessitate an independent and dispassionate review of whether this "no knock" raid was actually necessary in the first place. After all, the fact that "no knock" warrants even exist and somehow are legal in the United States is a slap in the face to the 4th Amendment, to the Founding Fathers, and to the fundamental premise of what the Constitution was created for. This is because if potentially any home at any time, is permitted to be searched with a "no knock" warrant because the police in conjunction with a compliant judge believes such is necessary for whatever dubious reason, essentially means that nobody's home is their castle, because everybody's home is potentially subject to such a "no knock" invasion, and thereupon the people so duly suffer all the inherent danger of armed enforcers of the law invading that which most people would reasonably believe that they have the moral right to defend themselves in.
The most basic lie about "no knock" warrants is the same lie used for whenever the policing force is permitted to do whatever that they so want to do, come hell or high water. That corrupt concept might be the norm in some pathetic dictatorship of a country, but it is definitely not okay for that country that declaims itself as the leader of the free world. The bottom line is that if anybody cannot be reasonably secure within their own home, or within their own car, or within their own person, from the long arbitrary arm of the law, then that is the epitome of a country that is not free, but rather represents essentially the description of a police state masking itself as a republic.
Many people and most countrymen will defend to the death, their family and their country, because that is the embodiment of what it means to protect and to secure that which is lawfully their own. This is why it is so important for any country of integrity, to actually treat their citizens in a manner in which they are accorded the respect and courtesy that is theirs per their Constitutional rights. This present Constitutional government and the policing arm of that government were initially so created to be a material aid to domestic tranquility as well as to secure the blessings of that liberty that each citizen has the right to. This thus signifies that to take away the liberties of a given citizen, without fair and due process of the law, done so in an unreasonable and unnecessary way is anathema to that country which was founded upon liberty for all.
Each citizen should be reasonably secure in their property, in their person, and in their home, for if they are not, but instead are subject to essentially capriciously having any one of those things, being at risk though the sole discretion of the state apparatus, then no citizen is safe, and no citizen is therefore secure from that government which is supposed to be of, for, and by the people; for such a government as that is behaving instead in a deliberate and calculating manner that runs roughshod over those that are its equal.