Your chart is irrelevant to your argument as some number of those deaths are legally justifiable. Or is it your position that no killing is ever justifiable?
If you attempted to bring any of these charges you would lose, as the warrant was obtained and executed in good faith, meaning that, at the time of warrant execution, officers believed that their warrant was valid. If officers had falsified information on the warrant affidavit and/or lied to the judge signing the warrant then you would have a case, but no one is claiming that that occurred. The signing judge reviewed the facts of the case as listed in the warrant application and determined that there was probable cause to issue the warrant. You may fault the officers for charging a crime based on tenuous legal theory, but remember that they presented that legal theory for review to the signing judge and that judge concurred. The failure in the system occurred at the signing judge. If the only act for which sufficient probable cause was demonstrated was not actually a crime, then the signing judge should not have signed the warrant.
I generally concur but I have to take issue with your interpretation of "due process". The due course of law in this case is quite clear. Barring exigent circumstances, a warrant is required in order to seize property. Also, for those of you quibbling over whether freezing assets constitutes a seizure, I give you SCOTUS's definition in Maryland v Macon: "a seizure occurs when 'there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests'".