VS NFO. Blue and Gold Off. Former Recruiter.
Comparing military to police training, having done both, the military is much more attuned to the idea of "not coming home may be the price of doing business." While there was some conflict resolution-type stuff in police training, "objective reasonableness" (look it up) was treated almost as a shield for fucking up, and an excuse to escalate unnecessarily, in the name of "coming home."
I am, of course, familier with objective reasonableness. For those that are not..
In Graham v. Connor (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court answered these questions. The Supreme Court ruled that police use of force must be “objectively reasonable”—that an officer's actions were reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him, without regard to his underlying intent or motivation.
I was not only trained and retrained many times on Graham v Conner like everyone in law enforcement, I have also witnessed my wife justify officer's actions in court based on Graham for nearly 30 years. I don't quite understand your point about using it as a shield. If you invoke Graham in defense of a fuck up, where does your reasonably objective basis for using force come from? Of course you are free to make the arguement, but a jury will determine if your actions and the fear you may have felt for your life or that of another was, in fact, reasonable. It isn't a get out of jail free card. A jury will determine if you fucked up and your actions were not reasonable. And that is the way it should be. The community, in effect, determines what is reasonable for an officer's use of force, whether deadly or less lethal.
As I said, your experience is legit and I respect your take on your training and observations. But you did come from an agency that has been highly criticized for it's actions over the last several years. Maybe it isn't surprising you saw and understood what you did. I didn't have the same experience and haven't seen it play out the way you describe in the courts in my state.