*Police, Guns and the Law

On October 14, 2013, Mr. Bobby Bennett - the man in the chair in the video - was shot by Dallas police. They shot four times.

Jackson, the 52 year-old man's mother, called police after the two had got into an argument earlier that day. "She was worried about Bennett, who has spent 20 years in and out of prison". He is also diagnosed with schizophrenia and bipolar. The officers were told he had "mental issues" and a "small knife" on him. Jackson was told that "specially trained police" would arrive.

According to Dallas law, "It is legal for officers to shoot a civilian who comes at the with a knife."

Source
Also reported here
 
Is this action justified? Is a system predicated on the "trust" of police officers, to report accurately for purposes of justice and protect/serve the people, acceptable? Is the system sufficient?

The police are standing at a considerable distance from the man. Two police officers, two guns, against one 52 year old man with mental issues and a knife.

Two trained (at least in theory) officers of the state. Protected by a law that allows "officers to shoot a civilian" who comes at them with a knife.

IF this surveillance video had not existed then the police officers account of Mr. Bennett behaving "in a threatening manner", "lunged" at the officers with a knife, and therefore they shot him would have been the story. 

IF this was disputed and gone to court (given that the civilians had enough money to even get that far), then the case would either have been settled by the lawyers without any publicity OR the case would have gone to trial and determined by the testimony of the witness in the video, the police officers, Bennett, and his mother colored by any media spinned on the characters involved. The case would have been close and the police defended. Even worse, Bennett and his mother probably would had to have covered the hospital bill which would have had devastating effects on them financially. 

The worst part about this, is that the scenarios just described could have easily happened.

There are two versions in which this should be thought out. The first case is with the video and the information provided. The second case is without the video and the possible scenarios I just drew up.

How do we go from a philosophical, theological, or social scientific, reflection of these cases and get to a point that has relevance and impact on law, society, and governance? 

Of course, the much more interesting scenario is knowing what happened in the video and thinking about the scenario without the evidence from surveillance and the empowerment police have to "report" on what happened as the "truth".

This is a real epistemic issue for how justice is operationalized in society.