The other odd thing (aside from shooting civilians being punishable by three repetitions of ‘oops, my bad’) is how these sorts of incidents never seem to bring the use of SWAT teams into question:
Officer Tacticool says that he didn’t mean to shoot the kid; but he was blinded by his own side’s flashbang (and apparently decided to do some shooting anyway).
Now, if this had been a situation where a SWAT team was justified, having at least one officer blinded by his own team during entry could easily have gotten one or more officers killed. The whole point of flashbangs and overwhelming force is the theory that guys with guns are waiting to try to kill you as you come in. Had there been any, screwing up a breach like that could easily have turned lethal(for them, obviously it did in any case).
So this would seem to raise a question: If the use of SWAT tactics is sincere, actually founded on a belief in the risk of imminent violent response(that can’t be dealt with by other means), then should this defense not prompt rather a lot of grave examination of what is wrong with the SWAT team? The defense was, more politely put, “I screwed up so badly that I would have gotten myself and possibly my teammates killed had there actually been any hostiles on site.”
In the absence of any grave concern among the training and tactics people within the department, how can we conclude that the use of overwhelming force is actually based on genuine concern? Grievous tactical failures aren’t really an issue if you don’t actually think that you’ll run into armed(and dangerous) opposition; but, in that case, using a SWAT team to do the job is a serious problem.
Nobody ever seems to answer this question, or even try to handwave it away.