That is true! I also want to add on one point: the different "policies" (for the lack of a better word) between the individual countries compared. For example, the vast majority of Singapore citizens cannot own firearms legally and in my opinion this poses far less threats to policeman involved. In other words if law enforcement have the general impression that the criminals they're facing are armed (and therefore lethally dangerous), they thus have more justification (in their own minds at least) to use lethal force. Can't comment on the rest, only resided in Singapore before!

While it could be also true that many cases in the US involves unarmed criminals, but I'd argue that there could be a general mindset of violence and danger in these areas where police serve in (pure speculation, I don't know personally), which furthers their mindset that whenever someone is (or appears) threatening, then there is a high chance of the threat being a lethal one. Their response is often lethal ("if I didn't shoot him first I'd be dead already"), and is certainly a product of the human survival instinct. Who truly desires to be killed on duty after all?

There are non-lethal options definitely, but I don't know much about it to comment on it further.. What do you guys think?