I wonder how this argument would be applied to police murders of innocents. How do we deal with that?
Realistically though, for that to work the US needs a sweeping reform of drug and gun laws. Right now, if I'm a drug mule with a ton of meth in my trunk and get stopped on some lonely road, I have the choice between shooting the cop and maybe get away or getting a life in jail for the drugs.
Here in Germany, you usually get out after 5, 6 years as a simple mule, and our cops (unless you're on an international route where cops can claim Schengen border duty rights) can't simply demand to open your trunk unless they have reasonable suspicion - and it's really hard to get your hand on a gun. As a result, our cops don't have to be afraid for their life at a random traffic stop.
There's a reason why cops are so trigger happy in the US, and it goes way beyond shoddy training.
The scenarios presented were laughable, badly-acted and completely unrealistic. Worse, every single one ended, by default, with the suspect pulling out a gun and shooting at the user. All of them. This is, of course, completely counter to reality.
One could say that the issue is then the quality of these systems, but the fact that, apparently, it has been a viable business for going on a decade shows me that the issue isn't being taken seriously be their customers - that is, police departments and their trainers. The issue is, in fact, the institution as a whole. They're fundamentally incapable of reforming themselves.
Realistically I think you'd have to drastically lower the perceived risk of a public interaction to the police. As long as they think they are going to get hurt, they'll feel the need to get in front of the problem.
But also, it's just a different type of victim blaming. Anytime perception is allowed to be blamed, logic goes out the window.
The same excuse was (is) used against minorites for years: if they don't want me to feel threatened by them, then they shouldn't be (perceived as being) so threatening.
It's why any type of "thought crime" is so dangerous. It doesn't matter what you (the accused) actually think; it matters what someone else thinks/perceives what you thought.
Which means that what someone else thinks of you can make you actually guilty of a crime.
Put an Ironman suit on a cop and he isn't going to much care if the potential perp is carrying a knife.
It's a weird gig (street patrol) and it's hard to have a strong opinion on it without actually being a cop or going out on numerous ride-alongs. Naturally, it's easy to come up with 'solutions' behind the safety of a screen.
One thing that brought that home to me is having several friends who are retired COs (Correctional Officers) from the California state system and several friends who are released felons. One thing their stories taught me is that people who are uninvolved in those systems don't know a thing about it and have nearly useless theories on the way things-oughta-be.
You make them accountable/actually punishable if they kill someone ?
As to the death penalty, it's a bit different : you need law enforcement, you don't need the death penalty.