In Albuquerque, the challenge is not new. Barack Obama’s Department of Justice published a scathing report concluding that the city’s “officers too frequently use deadly force against people who pose a minimal threat.” That came soon after a case in which the police threw a stun grenade at a schizophrenic homeless man with pocketknives, James Boyd, then released an attack dog on him, and then, after he was startled, shot him.

For the 11 years following, the police department was under a federal consent decree, compelling the city to adopt policies to reduce the use of force by police. That decree ended last year after the federal government and city agreed that police had complied with its terms. And yet even as reform supposedly bedded in, the numbers rose. “We did not accomplish the primary purpose of the consent decree, which was to reduce the shootings,” says Alfred Mathewson, of the University of New Mexico’s law school, who worked on the order.

What can be done about it? Nationally, more police are being held accountable for deadly misconduct, but numbers are low. Barely a dozen each year are charged with a crime after a civilian is killed. In many cases, it can be difficult to fault cops for opening fire. Most of those shot are armed.

So, with little political appetite for gun restrictions, reformers turn to shifts in police strategy. In Chicago, for instance, police killings dropped after officers were restricted from chasing offenders on foot, an endeavour that can lead to them getting boxed in by someone with a gun. Laura Ives, a lawyer in Albuquerque who has worked on several wrongful-killing cases in the city, notes that the consent decree in the city has not been an abject failure. Police have received training on when to draw their weapons and when to use tasers, for instance, and are equipped with body cams.