When you're making policies for people who both fire guns and have guns fired upon them for a living, you don't get to be very fine-grained in those policies. The situations are, by their nature, chaotic.

In a situation where police are legitimately going in with guns drawn (like, I dunno, arresting actual terrorists known to have actual guns?), they don't have the luxury of determining whether someone's a child before pointing a gun in their face. If anyone in the house could be armed and firing back, they need to point the gun first.

So, there isn't a realistic "They shouldn't have pointed guns at children, but the rest of it is fine." Either it's okay to point guns at children because the situation demanded it, and the moral culpability of the child's trauma (or worse) is on whoever left children with armed outlaws... or they shouldn't have gone in with guns at all to the personal residence of someone whose alleged crime involved no violent action of any sort.

Actually, no. Retributive justice is not something LE usually gets involved in (within civilized democracies). It is left for the courts. The way she was arrested isn't normal, nor necessary. But I suspect that was the point.