There have been a number of news stories lately about white cops who have shot black men, and even children, who were basically defenseless.
(there are quite a few more, but you get the point)
In all of these cases, at least most recently, the cop was not indicted and the case will never be brought to trial. Some people think this was a good decision because cops should be given the latitude to make such judgements, as a part of doing their job. It's true that it's hard for a non-cop to put themself into the mind set of the cop. It's a very different situation when you're out there, being shot at, than when you're sitting in your living room casually reading the account. Others think that it's very clear that the case should at least come to trial. Otherwise, cops will be given free reign to shoot anyone at any time with little or no accountability.
My view is that neither of these arguments matter at all. That's right, it simply doesn't make any difference whether you side with the police force or with individual citizens. I maintain that both of these are missing the real issue. The real issue is saving lives and, to a lesser extent, saving money, such that the remaining funds may be used more productively.
There are really only two possibilities; let the case come to trial or do not let it come to trial. Let's simply look at the outcomes of these two possibilities. If we do not let the case come to trial, what when happens? People will feel more threatened by the police force (especially black people), people will protest the decision, more police will be brought to bear on the protestors which will lead to more protesting, more money will be spent to restore the peace. Probably people will be injured or possibly killed due to the chaos of the protesting. Businesses will be looted. Isn't all of this obvious? No, it's not "right". Yes, we can bring more force to bear to restore peace. Again, that's not the issue.
What happens if we let the case come to trial? Either the cop is found guilty or not. In either case, more facts are brought out about the case. The public becomes more educated about exactly what really happened and why. There will probably be less protesting over a trial. People will feel as though justice is at least being addressed, even if the decision is not what they want. People will feel safer in that it is being demonstrated that cops can not shoot anyone without accountability; we would actually see some real accountability, regardless of the outcome. With less protesting, less money will be spent on keeping the peace. That means more money put toward keeping people safe and letting the police do their jobs.
So, regardless of the outcome of a trial, it's actually a trial which would save lives, keep the peace, help with public relations, and save money. What's the downside to a trial? Some people in the police force will be side-tracked into the trial, instead of doing their job. What's the upside to a trial? Most police will not be side-tracked into handling protestors and will thus continue to do their job.
Overall, a trial saves money and saves lives, regardless of the outcome. Did anyone think of this when they decided to not let these cases come to trial? Sadly, probably not.
I'll leave you with a graphic depiction of the time, money, and stress, which could have been avoided by simply going trial: