So, you are basically saying that a man has every right to defend his meth lab with deadly force since he hasn't been convicted and hasn't had that right taken from him yet.
Interesting perspective.
I'm not sure where you got that idea from?
But there are 2 parts of to the answer to your reflexive statement:
When it comes to the meth cook defending his criminal enterprise from other criminals, that is where the courts have all kinds of fun and lawyers get to put their kids through college, and we really aren't talking about that in this thread. The police will pickup whomever is left & get them to jail, probably at gunpoint since a big violent crime in one way or another has just gone down between criminals, for the courts to sort out & lawyers to make fortunes and fame over.
What we are specifically talking about is lawful police action, so it's a different matter:
Also I specifically stated "Law abiding citizen" as a prerequisite for the right of self defense, which kind of excludes running a meth lab:
If careful and detailed surveillance shows that someone is actually running a meth lab or some other similar criminal enterprise
(not just the "statement" from some "informant" who often turn out to be liars telling you anything to get what they want)
And the police have substantially sound reason to expect that from experience, the best way to go about things is to do a no knock entry with the warrant stating that, then by all means go ahead.
However it would be prudent to try not kill them if possible, before it is made clear that it is the real police and give them a chance to drop their weapons promptly and surrender. Of course sometimes this is not possible if they start shooting first or such or if it's a hostage or terrorist type situation etc.
As per my previous statement, they kind of fit into the:
"be reasonably believed to be willing to knowingly and in a criminal manner use the firearms in an illegal and deadly fashion against lawful police officers going about their lawful duty. "
Generally also those involved in running a meth lab are probably not law abiding citizens with no prior convictions, which adds to the "reasonably believed" case.
Also in that case, if the property in question is in a residential area, there may be a public safety issue that needs to be addressed in that an attempt to destroy the lab could burn down several properties. On the other hand if it's in a remote area and stand alone, one might weigh the risk of officers getting hurt in an explosion with the need to grab them suddenly.
However in the case of what we are talking about above, it is pretty clear that detailed and careful surveillance had not been done and the tactics used caused good people on both sides to be put in life threatening danger, and it's a very unfortunate nightmare scenario that many of us worry about.
Both sides were good people acting as they thought was lawful and neither wanted to kill anybody who was "good". As soon as the law abiding home owner ascertained that it was the police, he ended the issue & the police were calm enough to realize this & fortunately everybody lived.
But none of it had to happen in the first place. If somebody had bothered to actually do proper surveillance and think things through before the mission, they would have either a. found out that it was the wrong place or b. realized that perhaps wait for morning after surrounding the house, then turn on lights & sirens & ask for cooperation before kicking the door in might have been a good course of action.