The problem of police easily resorting to deadly force should be approached systemically.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

There are no doubt multiple factors, but some of the key ones are probably:

1. All the police are carrying firearms when the majority of law enforcement activities may not require this
2. Training and doctrine leading too readily to the use of the power of arrest and physical restraining and subduing citizens when less "escalatory" means might well suffice and not incur the risk of a physical confrontation
3. In many instances the police shooter may not have much or any empathy with the citizen, particularly if they view the population being policed as a hostile occupied territory or if racism is at play, i.e. they simply don't care about or value the citizen's life and are therefore more cavalier about snuffing it out
4. The police may, in general, feel that they are almost certain to get away with a "bad shoot" because they and their partners will be the only surviving witness and their account will have the benefit of the doubt over any other civilian witness in the absence of other objective evidence. This makes them less reluctant to use deadly force.

Some of these factors, like racism, are deeply endemic in our society and very difficult to eradicate. However causes like 1, 2 and 4 can be readily addressed either by policy or technology, e.g. only a subset of police units are equipped with firearms and called upon in specific circumstances, change policy to severely narrow the circumstances in which physical restraint and arrest are used (eliminating Eric Garner type confrontations), and equip all police with bodycams recording every interaction with civilians with severe penalties for the equipment being nonoperational or disabled.

It may take a generation or more to successfully address issues like racism or the class and warfare of populations like Ferguson's being treated like an occupied territory (and being fleeced for revenue to boot). But by tackling some of the systemic issues that can be directly and immediately addressed we should hopefully significantly reduce the incidence of this type of killing in a relatively short time.

[DetlefK]

1. I see the problem in the 2nd Amendment.

Any suspected criminal, ANY suspected criminal, a cop encounters might be a lethal threat. That's why US cops need guns. And they are trigger-happy because they are afraid and shooting first is the solution to all your problems.

Why do other countries have less police-shootings? Because the cops there are safe in the knowledge that the guy they are arguing with won't pull out a gun.

[uponit7771]

2. EVERY TIME an UNARMED*** person is shot and or killed by the police an OUTSIDE councle should decide

...whether or not to indite the officer.

The personal working with the LEOs should never be charge with putting them on trial, that's a conflict of interest and police have shown they'll retaliate and bust cases due to this.

UNARMED Meaning someone without a distance weapon... a bow or cross bow can kill someone from a distance...

Yeah, they'll start throwing down cross bows now...

[boston bean]

3. I agree. I do believe that #2 as the main contributing factor..

Along with society believing that a police officers life is worth more than anyone else....

It didn't always use to be this way... The pendulum swung quite high and has remained there, giving police the full benefit of the doubt and protection with the entire criminal justice systems and societies backing.

[sharp_stick]

4. That's a good list

#2 has gotten a lot worse since the police have become so militarized that they can't drive up to a scene without a tank and a bunch of guys wearing camo and facemasks carrying assault rifles.

I'd like to start by getting the police to think that de-escalating a scene is a priority instead of getting the road back open for rush hour.

[2naSalit]

6. I find it telling that

so many US civilian cops now look just like jihadists anymore.

[Downwinder]

5. With current technology, an officer's testimony without

supporting video should be thrown out.

[2naSalit]

7. Good point.

No more of this assumption that the cops' word is golden and indisputable.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

8. The problem is most cases still don't have video shot by a third party.

So if the citizen who was shot is dead and there are no other witnesses, the officer's account is the only account.

[Downwinder]

9. No body cam video, no testimony.

[FSogol]

10. Add: More community policing and more civilian review boards of Police Depts. n/t

[MisterP]

11. also in the mix is our gun culture: any random traffic stop can start with them whipping out an Uzi

and everyone's told "shoot to kill, or you're ENDANGERING people": so whether it's the NRA's tales of a country sunk in crime about to break out into our sleepy suburbs (typically by duskier folk) or the NRA's tales of NWO troopers about to take your guns and your kids (in that order), the beast is being fed from both ends here

[qwlauren35]

12. One of the interesting things about body cams.

Is that it might show the unequal treatment of black and white suspects. How often white people get let off with a warning while black people get a ticket or get arrested.

I can't wait to see if the data shows reality.