Neither side of this debate is posting solutions. The side which holds that this incident was an disaster, acknowledges that, but can not easily state what to do. The other, holds to a response that the LE people involved had a justified response, simply because of their legal status, or because of a stated level of threat. The first, assumes trouble. The second, ignores trouble.
Without being closer to the event, or for that matter, not being anonymous (or partially so) internet word breeders, it is difficult for any here to post a fully legitimate 'solution'. Additionally, the realization that noting the problems could eventually led to a solution is basic epistemology. In other words, the assumption that not acknowledging the problems inherent to a situation like this, or assuming that one who does note the problems is somehow non-constructive, is also problematic thinking.
Ok, some potential 'solutions', for whatever worth these might be under the aforementioned parameters. (Some of which, no doubt the city is already enacting)
First, the city needs to send counselors and PR people to the neighborhood subjected to this incident. Or make it very clear they are willing to do so if asked.
Second, information needs to 'slip' regarding any past criminal record of the driver of the the car. Yes, I'm quite aware that this could be cited/used as prejudicial in a later trial, by a competant attorney. But in order to negate public perception of LE overreaction, it's one effective counter-propaganda the city could use.
Third, a public statement that city/departmental policies on the use of deadly force will be subject to review; both internally and by special public commissions. With a set date to provide a statement by both entities.
Fourth, the names of all involved in this incident should be publically posted. Including for the LEO's any awards/citations or disciplinary actions. One of the problems in matters of this type is a public perception that the authorities wish anonymity to disguise improper actions. It might put some involved at a increased risk, but the minute they put that uniform on, they became public figures, and should expect clear public view of their status and activities.
Five, the city is probably already contacting community and church leaders. That should continue in an attempt to ensure local voices are willing to speak out should the repurcussions of this incident, start to heat up.
Six, LEO people should present an enhanced PR presence in the local schools, especially the lower schools. And do so, with uniforms/suits etc, but without bearing evident weapons. An incident of this nature, will tend to make young kids in an area like this, worry that they would be at risk from LE. That perception needs to be negated.
Seven, increase presence of unmarked cars, discrete survellance (sp) in the area where the incident occured. More information about community responses needs to be collected, without the potentially inflammatory presence of an increase of marked patrols.
OK, solutions, called your card, let's see yours...