If you recall the trouble in Ferguson, Missouri, then you know that the area became unsettled after the death of a man named Michael Brown. Because of this event, there is a now an effect known as "the Ferguson Effect." The idea behind this effect is that police officers knowingly violate constitutional rights of their alleged victims.
Now, that's not always the case, and if you're an officer, you know that to protect the public, hard decisions need to be made. No person's death is easy, but if someone is being violent and dangerous to others, it can be an officer's duty to take that person off the streets in any way possible. Still, officers can be accused of violating those people's rights, and that is when they may need their own representation in court.
In a case reported in the news, it was shown that the Supreme Court will not stand for allegations against police who were doing their jobs. The case discussed dates over five years ago, when a high-speed chase in Texas led to a man being shot and killed. During the high-speed chase, the man had threatened officers and traveled over 110 mph. On top of that, officers had tried to stop him with spike strips, but those didn't work. Finally, one officer fired six rounds and stopped the man.
The Supreme Court threw out the case, but the family's attorney claimed that the mentality of the police is to shoot first and to think later, which is a direct effect of the Ferguson unrest. The problem with that argument for this case was that the man taking police on the chase was endangering lives and threatening officers; lethal force, although unintended in this case, was necessary.
Source: HotAir.com, "Supremes nix lawsuit against Texas cop who shot criminal in high speed chase," Jazz Shaw, Nov. 09, 2015