It was a difficult task to set out from Boston in search of illegal weaponry and the conditions weren't always favorable. The situation was complicated by the fact that those searching didn't know the extent of the weaponry that they might find or that might even be used against them. They also couldn't be sure if others besides those already identified were the only threat to consider. Theoretically, the occupant of any house could be a potential opponent. And once initial contact had been made, they had no way of knowing if the two days of gun battles really were the end of it all. In the grand scheme of things, I'm sure they didn't see it as the end at all. So I'm sure I can see how they felt that performing a difficult, dangerous task well where no one was hurt, other than possibly their feelings hurt, could be seen as a good thing, and an honorable thing to boot. I can also see how many viewing things in the heat of the moment or in the initial days after might consider criticisms of their conduct to be somewhat paranoid. But history has shown that not to be the case at all. You see, the two day search out of Boston I'm referring to happened 238 years ago, almost to the day. The people searching for illegal weapons were British soldiers out of Boston. One of the people spreading the word was Paul Revere. You may have heard of him. Those soldiers were just as convinced of the legality and righteousness of their searches then as you are of the searches last week. But does being convinced of it make it right? Does being convinced make it legal? Ethical? Moral? No, not really. Certainly not necessarily. It didn't then and it doesn't now.
.
The colonists weren't paranoid because they thought the heavy handed tactics of the British were wrong. Opposing those same heavy handed tactics by modern day law enforcement would not in any way make a person paranoid. On the contrary, it would make them far more sane than someone willing to simply overlook such activity, particularly if that activity was illegal. And anyone suggesting that illegal or unethical activity by law enforcement should be ignored as long as no one got hurt, is a doormat, and really shouldn't be slinging mental health terms at others.