The fact that the US has a general problem with police shootings is absolutely not a reason to let the caller off the hook. If anything, it is a reason to argue that he reasonably knew this could result in someone's death, so the charge should be more serious than manslaughter.
This means proving that it is foreseeable that the police would arbitrarily shoot people, when called to an incident.
I guess it would be poetic Justice if the prosecutor used this case to prove why the police should be disbanded. If indiscriminate killing is an expected outcome from calling the police, what purpose do they serve?
I have had a class in conflict management. It never helps to increasingly vilify one side and say that anything goes for the other because of it.
That seems to be the gist of the argument most people here are making. It doesn't work, so that isn't how you gradually create less conflict in the US.
But rationality is seemingly not welcome here. Everyone wants to just crucify the police.
So I think I need to just bow out here.
But I do something wonder if you just don't want the problems solved? The solutions seems obvious, and yet you keep getting side tracked, like blaming the prankster.
Other than police training and changes in behavior, what real solutions do you see?