""As for the numbers presented completely insufficient to draw any conclusions "

this and similar comments are found throughout the comments.

Therefore I draw no conclusions. I can draw some partial possibilities and one probable solution. but absent any more information it is possible, entirely possible something will be left out or not properly addressed.

Some things can be addressed.

FACT - NHS or whatever it's called has been around for decades. Nothing new there. No great controversy in Hogans Alley. (Dirty Harry II), Great applause in MIB I, the only negative was Harry's big bad .44. Per your professed love affair with the Constitution the public made no outcry from that day to this. Nor did your answer have much to do with anything. for example I could easily say, "You must be a left wing liberal or worse a RINO or an unknown quantity hawking Rogaine with equal validity which is - none. The suggestion to change the laws was as it happens completely in line with the Constitution and has a great deal of merit. It establishes one of three choices. The other two are give them greater powers and modify the current system especially in view of the seeming reticence to take over the job.

FACT - The way facts are presented are often designed to draw wrong conclusions. A great example is children killed by weapons. The term child includes up to just before the 21st birthday and does not include what the ''child'' was doing at the time such as gang on gang shootings, nor do the facts which are nothing more than hyped up media propaganda define armed or unarmed. To a little old lady three or four 18 year old fists constitutes arms.

I have not nearly enough information to form any conclusion too include your agenda and solution. Strangely enough I probably agree. If I knew what those two points might be? Still we progress.

Three issues make that four.

First. Are the issues valid? If so were they addressed in a court of law? If no is/are the local public doing anything to make a change. Recall the judge, fire the police chief, force a change in training standards? Based on a percentage of incidents as compared to crime rate, percentage of criminals percentage where criminality was in doubt or not proven (which seems to be the complaint possibly), followed up by further investigation or a civil suit action? On the other hand was there none of the above. to delve deeper. Was/is there any unspoken unstated conditions? Racism, sexism, religious intolerance, If not why not? What was the background of the individual? Lay Preacher who ran the local food bank? Rap Sheet Artist with five pages to his/her history. Finally what are the local people doing about it? Do they consider it to be as important as outsiders. If so or not why so or not.

Second. Two wrongs make a right. This is one of the main principles of law If the police officer violates the law AND evidence shows the individual was nevertheless guilty the result should be two prosecuted wrongs. Any other conclusions to my way of thinking are just another version of greater or lesser evil. It would certainly stop or slow down or preclude misconduct. This consideration is one of jurisprudence with other specifics not mentioned.

Third. If the public insists on arming police with popguns which leads to firing a larger number of rounds I(same thing in the military I suspect (except the Marine Corps) to get the job done is another issue This love affair Crapsters have with a nine milla me tah doesn't prove anything either way. What we do know is when you are forced to use a substandard round with a really big magazine of seventeen you shoot more rounds. I some department are not allowed to fire warning shots, wounding shots or less than two shots Some changed the 158 grain lead round nose to a ta .38 plus P 125 grain semi jacketed hollow point which would certainly do the job.Pay attention I just switched from semi-automatic pistol to a revolver because all of the above are fairly standard. Add in the federal agencies you may include 10 mm or .40 cal

Fourth? What is the US becoming? That one is easy. A Police State compared to previous decasdes, but it has nothing to do with a situation that has been around for decades perhaps centuries. Not only that we have an infant Protective Echelon in place and being developed. A big wall between government and citizens.You don't like that? Most do as they voted it in consistently since the mid nineties or before. Most of the one's whose ballots were counted. Overwhelming landslide. 95% of the votes cast sometimes. You'll find the development of the police state has continued regardless of which candidate was elected.

What is true is the public gets what it wants and got what it voted for. Now they are stuck with it. That is the real problem. Getting something useful done to a. change the situation and b. still provide police protection to the extent allowed is a much more real problem. Probably something will be done. Whether it helps or hinders is conjecture.

But that doesn't provide any useful information not suggestion on how to correct the situation as far as this thread is concerned.

Conclusion? Another valid discussion down the drain for lack of core information. Were it not for some useful comments.

Begs the question as part of the answer. Two major legitimate reasons for government to exist are police and military protection of the group. I would add fire fighters myself. Do we a. get rid of them. b. Keep them c. Modify their use.

Or is this just a witch hunt, perhaps a venting of rage against the machine?