You truly are a disingenuous apologist for disgustingly murderous police tactics, which lacked all reasonable professionalism, duty to the basic idea of policing in a remotely free country or even loosely moral barometers. No, the correct response to the warrant being served against weaver wasn't to shoot his dog after secretly invading his property in tac gear and deliberately provoking a defensive response. No, the correct further axction is not to shoot his 14 year-old son in the back or to shoot through a window at a house in which you know a woman with a 10 month-old baby is standing. No normal notion of good legal procedure or even non-moronic, non-thuggish thinking can defend these and other acts.

Even a number of police agree. Here's a claim from one of the U.S Marshalls on site:

"Many of the people the USMS used as third party go-betweens on the Weaver case—Bill and Judy Grider, Alan Jeppeson, and Richard Butler—were assessed by the Marshals as more radical than the Weavers. When Deputy U.S. Marshal (DUSM) Dave Hunt asked Grider, "Why shouldn't I just go up there ... and talk to him?", Grider replied, "Let me put it to you this way. If I was sitting on my property and somebody with a gun comes to do me harm, then I'll probably shoot him."

Or how about the deputy assistant director of the FBI at the time, writing in a memo that:

"Something to Consider 1. Charge against Weaver is Bull S___. 2. No one saw Weaver do any shooting. 3. Vicki has no charges against her. 4. Weaver's defense. He ran down the hill to see what dog was barking at. Some guys in camys [camouflage] shot his dog. Started shooting at him. Killed his son. Harris did the shooting. He is in pretty strong legal position."

As one of the comments above states: Let the reader decide what constitutes a reasonable attempt to serve a warrant".