For many many years, I have had an abiding interest in the brutality and lethality of law enforcement. I have a number of experiences...
Today the subject is 'unarmed black men'. There is nothing more that needs to be done because it's not a significant pattern, there is no significant risk. You say 'unarmed black men' as if 'unarmed black men' were a special group at risk, but 20 million unarmed black men are not at risk. If I said 400 unarmed black men were killed by lightning strikes last year, would you consider it necessary to setup a national awareness campaign and change policy? Of course not. Because the number is so small, you cannot extrapolate a pattern.
This is precisely exactly demonstrably the problem with racialist thinking. You take something that happens to an insignificant number of people in reality, and then you apply it to a race of millions. Then you do everything possible to make everybody conscious of your little racial theory. You add racial consciousness by establishing a false causal relationship and substitute prejudicial associations instead of real logic. You turn 'who happen to be' into 'because they are'. Wrong.
Police shootings need vigilance and they get vigilance. Cops don't walk away from fatal shootings without administrative review, and those administrative reviews are under local control. That local control is all that is necessary - anything else takes power away from the people, and subjects local matters to millions of prejudiced eyeballs (through the lens of national media). But your town is not like my town. Every incident requires a case by case examination, in the context of exactly what happened, not according to some racial theory.