Unfortunately, there are two types of police officers: those who take an oath to ensure the safety of the citizens they are hired to protect and those who see the citizenry as the enemy. It appears that Grayson is firmly in the second camp. And many police forces seem to hire those officers because they are enthusiastic about their careers. Many of those officers are also former military vets who are trained to kill not deescalate a situation. Living in Canada, I can safely say that the hiring process for police officers is pretty exacting. They have the usual requirements but they lean heavily into psychological screening as well. Being a former military member isn't always a plus for the applicant. The testing is stringent and very few get through that would fit Grayson's profile. A caveat, I would say though, is that our police don't assume that everyone and his brother has a weapon readily available to them which I suppose makes every call a possible fatal confrontation. However, it's not the cop who ends up dying most of the time.
Instead of spending time on the range police officers should be taking courses on how to identify individuals who are undergoing a psychic breakdown to properly assess the situation. No more shooting first and asking questions later or reverting to the old saw of 'I feared for my safety'. If you go to every situation with that mindset, you are in the wrong line of business.
This situation reminds me of two other needless deaths. One being Daniel Shaver who was shot multiple times after having conflicting orders hurled at him while he was instructed to crawl along the floor. The other was a case in Toronto where a young man called Sammy Yatim who was clearly in the throws of a mental breakdown was shot multiple times by late-to-the-scene Officer James Forcillo. Link to 10 years later inquest:
What do coroner’s inquests do, what don’t they do, and why are they often dominated by police perspectives rather than the community’s or the victim’s?
theconversation.com