A lot of folks are focusing on whether or not the officer's use of force and destruction was justified or not in this or other cases, but really this is orthogo

A lot of folks are focusing on whether or not the officer's use of force and destruction was justified or not in this or other cases, but really this is orthogonal to the question of who should pay for it. The right answer is that the police department (not the officers) should pay for all damage caused, regardless of whether it was justified by the circumstances. Implicitly then, the taxpayers are sharing the load for the full cost of police protection. We should expect that the police will occasionally cause damage, and this is just part of the cost of funding a police force. This would also add a nice check/balance, since the taxpayers will be more aware of how much damage police are causing and have an incentive to say something about it if it becomes excessive.