None. That situation should not occur, at all. Unless you can handle it, in which case you should be a drug lord or similar.

It is a travesty of the Rule of Law.

"Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law."

Unless you are murdered by the police for pulling up your pants.

Unless you are murdered by the police "restraining" you.

Unless you are murdered by the police in your cell.

Unless you are mentally incompetent and are tricked into signing a confession.

Unless you are mentally competent and are persuaded by the evidence (not of the crime, but the evidence that the system is corrupt) that you should plead to a lesser crime.

You have to make it to the court before that little sound-bite of freedom kicks in.

Ideally it wouldn't get this far but at a minimum, the police should not shoot until an actual gun is seen. Thinking they are in danger is not good enough, their rules for engagement need to be as high as the military, if not higher... they should have to confirm there is an actual threat and should not fire their weapons until at least that threat is confirmed. A feeling is not enough to shoot on.

Do you actually think that "a feeling" is the training standard for deciding whether to shoot?

I don't think it's the training standard, but it is the most common defense in court. Somehow military soldiers are able to resist these feelings and have much more strict rules of engagement. Citizens should have the same protection against being shot at by the police that terrorists get from being shot at by the military. I don't think that's too much to ask.

Call the house? Call back the original report?

exactly. it is THAT simple sometimes.