1. unarmed does not mean they were not a threat or innocent

2. No human endeavor is perfect. I am willing to accept some tragic mistakes in exchange for the prevention of crimes and the dissuasion of criminals.

> I am willing to accept some tragic mistakes in exchange for the prevention of crimes and the dissuasion of criminals.

I mostly agree with this, but there needs to be an effort to hold people accountable when mistakes are made, and to change processes to help ensure that these mistakes don't happen again, or at least happen less often. Police departments across the US seem near-violently resistant to this.

I think that irresponsibly spreading propaganda which implies “police are more dangerous than criminals” while simultaneously demanding “accountability” is unlikely to convince the police that any “accountability process” is going to be carried out in good faith.

I also think the existing criminal courts and prosecutors hold police reasonably accountable. They could do better.

1. True, but neither one was shown here, so you can choose any assumption you want, and mine was innocence (the law requires the same assumption until proven otherwise)

2. There is no evidence that any prevention of crime was gained in exchange for the deaths of these innocent unarmed people. If anything it created an environment where the law is respected less.

1. true 2. false