I know in the US we are presumed innocent until proven guilty. But what if we flipped that for state caused killings conducted by enforcement bodies (i.e. killings done by governmental employees in accordance with their job)? Presumably we want more than a presumption of innocence if the state is killing its own civilians. So why not flip it and make the government demonstrate the reason it killed was justified, as opposed to starting with the assumption it was? It would probably cut down on killings, would likely change the methodology, training and protocols currently in place, would increase accountability and prevent evidence cover-up, and would presumably hit on both conservative principles (nothing is antithetical to 'small government' than the government killing it's civilians) and liberal ones (reforming the various forces - ICE, police, etc.). If governmental actors try to weasel by saying, "I didn't do this as a wing of the government, I did it on my own" then they lose the added protections in place for government actors.
There would need to be some clear limits, but it seems like it would go a long way towards solving a lot of the issues we see from federal, state, and local enforcement bodies.
There would need to be some clear limits, but it seems like it would go a long way towards solving a lot of the issues we see from federal, state, and local enforcement bodies.
