Black men commit 52% of all murders in USA.
They make up 12% of the population.

Those paid to serve the public have an obligation to uphold the law not act outside of it. Most cops set a good example, but there is certainly an element to it drawing in the wrong kind of person too. The level of unnecessary violence routinely shown by the police in the states is a problem.

Yes there are issues within certain communities that need to be addressed, but there are also about 40 times more african americans than police officers, so it's not really a stat that tells you anything about police violence or the lack of it. People need to work on all aspects of what is a feedback loop that's spiralling out of control right now.

re: your other stats, there are lots of peace summits and initiatives that appear to reduce gang violence in certain areas. More funds needs to be ploughed into that kind of thing, rather than an out of sight out of mind approach, where historically certain lives or victims have held more value by default. It's no wonder that this than filters through to peoples mindset and actions.

I worry about some one eyed elements that are attempting to lead the BLM movement too. There is little compromise, but then compromising isn't a particularly common approach stateside. People all too easily get sucked into embodying a belief system or approach template, rather than thinking for themselves. Lots of problems in all directions, with most playing their part in one way or another.

Attachment: o.jpg (106.41Kb)

Largely irrelivent, given this is about police use of lethal force, not whether some racial group individual statistical correlation to a particular crime.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

You sound like me! At a coroners inquest. In the UK a police shooting is automatically referred to the IPCC and Police Professional Standards (the internal affairs of the UK Police) for investigation.

Verdicts of the coroner can be appealed (as in the Duggan case). The coroner is an independent authority - more about establishing the narrative and facts of death - and there are set criteria of course about what would constitute a legal police shooting.

Typically when a lawful killing is granted, it usually involves a firearm being drawn, or that the police are reasonable in believing the suspect to be armed and to be about to produce a firearm.

Duggan was an interesting case, as it was a lawful killing verdict, but only because the police were part of a firearms team and had prior knowledge that Duggan had purchased a firearm and was transporting it, when they intercepted the car (and the team in question where part of the Trident anti-gun task force - dealing only with firearm offences).

The coroner can also return a lawful killing verdict, and propose rule changes to prevent further loss of life.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

It really hasn't. They just found something to attribute it to for all of a week or so.

Optimistic as ever

It is hard to accept. The explanation is clearly that protecting the institution is more important to the powers that be than the rights of a particular individual. There must be an element of protecting their own arses but along with that must be a desire to maintain police morale and wider public confidence in police procedure.
They probably figure that avoiding the potential damage to all of those factors outweighs justice for the victims even if they occasionally become highlighted as recent cases have.