Ahemmm, I do understand now that you live with a limited world view. {cough, cough} The law is one thing. Enforcement of the law (assault on citizens by LE no longer accepted even though it was always illegal) is another thing entirely. Can you even begin to understand the difference?
I certainly see what you're saying, but it's irrelevant to the issue here. I say that because
there is no law on this subject.
Your concerns in this thread have been with the manner in which this incident occurred. There's nothing illegal about what happened. There was no assault, there were no other laws broken by the police. Like it or not, as things stand now, the police have the right to pull their guns on you when the right situation exists. There's simply not much in the way of standards, rules, or laws on the subject - as things are now, it's mostly a matter of departmental policy.
For instance, what will happen here is that there will be some kind of press release saying, "we are reexamining our departmental policies and training, and if we find deficiencies, we might make changes." You'll see the same thing after tasering incidents and any other use of force incidents. That's because, right now, the law has seen fit to leave these things to police discretion. Even the courts very rarely step in (through lawsuits, motions to suppress, etc.) except in the most egregious instances.
As I said above, if you don't want things to happen like this, you change the law governing it - and
then we reach what you're talking about (the citizenry not accepting behavior that is illegal). Put differently, if you don't trust the inmates to run the asylum, you run the asylum for them.
Does that make sense?
Now, had this been a clear-cut incident where laws were broken, yeah, I'd agree with you. I'd even agree with you if you were to say that we should make it so that these occurrences are illegal. But that's not the situation.
Obviously you are incapable of admitting that things have changed even with immediately available evidence. That's more than enough for me to condemn your opinion as irrelevant. Continue to argue all you like, those of us who live in the real world know where to place your arguments.
You're either confusing the issues, or are misunderstanding what I've written. I'd be glad to explain, in either greater detail or greater simplicity, but that would require a willingness on your part to consider things that you might not agree with (perhaps even vehemently).
OBTW, the complaints did force a resignation and reopening an investigation. Sorry to to point out the false nature of your claim.
Like I said, I'm not going to get drawn into a public debate on the merits on this. While I've got no connection whatsoever with the case, I just don't think it would be appropriate. I'd be glad to discuss in detail by PM, but that's it. Sorry.
But, I will reiterate what I wrote previously - the complaints, which were loud and vigorous, haven't changed anything.
You don't have the authority to tell someone to "mind their manners". Sorry, Auntie. 
They secured the occupants and investigated the claim. Just as they were supposed to do. And when the truth was uncovered, everyone was free to go where they wanted. What do you think happens when they run an auto tag and it comes back stolen? Yep, they blindly trust the govt agency and stop the car, in the same manner as discussed here, and investigate the situation.