What extreme violence are you talking about? A bunch of cops showed up to search for a reported gunman, and by all accounts acted completely appropriately.
Nobody was shot or assaulted, nobody broke down any doors, or did anything ‘massively disproportionate’ here.
I'll leave it as an aside whether we consider it to be violent for a team of military-styled gunmen - clearly ready to kill - to descend on someone's home.
In this case nobody was shot or assaulted. In other cases people have been.
That the man in question did nothing deserving of a legitimate SWAT response means that for one to have happened was massively disproportionate. Because a SWAT team is a disproportionate response to doing absolutely nothing to provoke one.
This argument doesn't make sense. Let's go over the series of events.
1. Someone calls 911 reporting an armed conflict reporting an active shooter situation.
2. Police respond, sending a SWAT team.
3a. Tense situation was resolved, unfortunately resulting in a heart attack.
3b. Suppose there was an actual gunman. The fast response would have saved lives.
You're sitting at home knowing post event debating the situation knowing the actual events that are taking place. The police only know 1 version of the events, which they hope are in good faith. In order to argue that the police's response was disproportionate, you would have have to known beforehand the report was bogus. But this is impossible, so the police must bring enough force to deal with a legitimate call.
The trade off here is due diligence versus response time. In the fast majority of cases, people don't abuse 911, so the polices' fast reactions are beneficial. You have to leave it up to society to minimize these types of edge cases.
Nobody was shot or assaulted, nobody broke down any doors, or did anything ‘massively disproportionate’ here.