JWarren, Point by point it is and happily.
Gross negligence, unacceptable incompetence? You bet, no argument absolute agreement. That's why every agency worth its salt reviews every incident. That's why team members, team leaders, commanders, chiefs and the city's general funds all take it in the shorts (and maybe learn to do it right next time) when ever someone screws up.
Statistics are an evil thing. Among the worst thing they do is show clearly and unequivocally that if you do anything long enough bad things are gonna happen. The universe is an uncaring witch and human beings will make mistakes if given the chance. Will there be great weeping and gnashing of teeth? Yes. Will the pain and anger that results from a screw up ever completely heal? Probably not. If, through no fault of my own, I get smacked on the freeway during tomorrow's commute will I be pissed off? Yes, but I'm still going to drive again. Just because the acceptable failure rate in a SWAT op is zero, doesn't mean that the job shouldn't be done. Unfortunately the only ones available to do the job are fallible humans.
Bias? Heck yeah I've got a bias! I'll tell you what it is. I'm pro cop, pro swat, pro gun, pro civil liberties, pro choice, pro legalization, pro critical thinking. I'm also lazy enough to not have read all of the CATO report and way too lazy to dig through my old issues of NTOA's magazine for the critique written by the guy who did. And yes, my critically thinking mind recognizes that he has a bias too. As for my own personal and deeply insightful criticism of the article I'll start with one word in the title, "militarization". Black uniforms, fast violent tactics and black rifles do not militarization make. Mindset, goals and means make militarization. Police/SWAT aim to keep the peace, save lives and enforce the law. The military aims to kill people and break things. I've yet to hear of a SWAT team that chucks in a few frags and suppressive fire before making entry. Is my bias claim still weak because I don't cite learned experts? Yes, but this is the internet and I claim my right to halfassedness.
Specific Questions.
1. Should an officer become wounded or killed in a "wrong address raid," do you believe that the person living in that dwelling should have ANY charges and/or scrutiny?
Scrutiny-yes. every last bit of the incident needs to be picked apart and examined. Charges-It depends. Did or should the person have known that he was shooting at cops? If yes, charges. If no (and it has happened before), no charges.
2. If the person(s) living in that property becomes wounded or killed in a "wrong address raid," should the "leader" of that raid and the acting officers be charged with pre-meditated Murder with potential sentences up to and including the death penalty?
Check your legal definitions. In CA Murder requires malice and forethought. To support a "murder" charge and officer would have to have decided beforehand and with evil intent to kill. The various variations on Man Slaughter (negligence etc.) have been used, sometimes successfully, against officers who wrongly killed a person. The civil courts have also been known to give lots of money to folks who were on the wrong end of police misconduct.
3. Should ALL damages be repaired at the cost of the department IMMEDIATELY and professionally upon such "wrong address raid?"
If I kick in the wrong door, you better bet my department will eventually pony up some cash. Is it as fast as most folks want? No, but cities will pay out if you push them the right way.
4. Should the department be required to issue a public and written acknowledgment of responsibility and apology immediately upon such "wrong address raid?"
Sure, and the cigarette companies, automakers, Chinese toy makers and McDonalds should apologize and pay for the pain their products cause. Of course we are a nation of laws and lawyers so I don't see it happening anytime soon.
5. Should there EVER be a reason to restrain the occupants of said residence for over a few minutes in such "wrong address raid" and if so restrained, should the officers be subject to charges should it be an unreasonable time?
SWAT entries are barely restrained chaos mixed with heavily armed ballet. Door open to all visible bodies secured can happen in as little as 13 seconds for a 3 bedroom house. A secondary search to make sure you found all of the hiding live bodies can take and additional 5 to 15 minutes. Getting the detectives inside to sort out the sheep from the goats can take another 5 to 10 minutes. During this time I say restrain em all and let Sarge sort em out. Goats can masquerade as sheep real well if given half a chance. I don't know how long it takes to figure out that you read the numbers over the door wrong but I'm guessing that once the discovery is made a few minutes of "Uh, Sarge, I think we messed up" and "oh poo, of poo, oh poo" are certain to ensue.
As for defining "unreasonable time", all of the various circuit courts and even the Supremes have tried to do that for a long time. Last I heard they were still making case by case assessments. So how about criminal sanctions on the cops. Not likely to happen any time soon as long as that pesky good faith thing still exists. Don't know that I would stay in the business if I knew that I could go to jail for an honest mistake. Would you? Civil sanctions? Lots of lawyers have earned their clients hundreds of dollars and themselves millions by suing cops and the cities that employ them.
None of what I've written excuses deliberate bad actions or honest mistakes that hurt/scare/inconvenience folks. All I'm trying to do is illustrate how people (even members of the government) mess up, the honest ones try to learn from the mess ups and work hard to prevent future ones.
Whether or not you accept anything I've written is up to you. If nothing else I feel obliged to thank you for the opportunity to sharpen my brain and strain my fingers.
Grumpycoconut