Um...about that.

There have been a lot of cases of police using wholly unreasonable amounts of force. That doesn't mean every use of force is wholly unreasonable.

It's dark. Suspect did not stop. (Fled from police in another jurisdiction the day before, too, except they let him go--this was known to the officers pursuing who ran the plate.) Did not comply with any police instructions. Is known (with high likelihood) to have fired a deadly weapon. Suspect is running, pursuit ongoing...until it seems like he's maybe turning around. You're the police officer. You have about 0.3-0.5 seconds before the suspect could shoot someone, killing them. What do you do?

People do absolutely take advantage of police leniency to shoot and kill officers, even if there's no chance for themselves to escape: https://www.fox29.com/news/kentucky-suspect-shot-killed-deputy-smoke-arrest.

At that point, what do you do, and why? What is it reasonable to ask people to do?

Your colleagues have no body armor. They have no effective nonlethal measures to disable someone in this kind of situation. You don't know he left the gun in the car (or that there's only one). You can't be sure the suspect is not wearing body armor. After Uvalde, d'you want to let him go and hope he doesn't kill anyone else? What do you do?

Jayland had every opportunity to stay alive. He could have stopped the day before. He could have stopped when pulled over that night. He could have not discharged the weapon. He could have not moved when he pulled off and the officers were yelling at him to not move. He could have put his hands over his head while running, slowed down, saying "don't shoot" or "I give up" or something. If they just wanted to shoot him, they had plenty of opportunity earlier.

Now, I certainly wouldn't object if the cops decided to take the risk to try tackling him instead of shooting. But seriously--what should they have done, and why? Any answer that depends on him being unarmed is a non-starter because all they knew is that he had discharged a firearm.

Now, was 90 bullets discharged overkill? I'd tend to think so; once he was down, shooting more seems like a panicky overreaction, not a measured use of force. It would have made the scene less gruesome. Jayland would almost certainly still have been dead, though.

If you want to advocate for better nonlethal measures to stop people, that sounds like a great idea. If you want to question active pursuits, sure, there's a debate to be had there (though the answer might be different for people who discharge a firearm--I'm pretty sure we're glad they actively pursued the Chicago 4th of July shooter, right?).

But as a case of police callousness, this one seems reeeeeally hard to justify. Despite formally admitting most of the facts of the case, your presentation of them was almost maximally misleading. Why don't you try again, with a straightforward and accurate account of the events, and point out where the errors were, hm? With no benefit of hindsight?

Police brutality and callousness is disgusting. But misleading characterizations of police action are actively prevent our society from stopping this. Because people who are inclined to disbelieve the brutality and callousness can point to stuff like this and say "see, it's all lies and distortions" which is largely true in this case, and never have to come face to face with the cases where the individual did everything right and still died, or where there was no way to know what the "right thing to do" was. (Isaiah Locke, for instance.)

That is: what you're doing here exacerbates the problem of police brutality.

Even if the police are at fault here--there may be some argument for that--the way you're characterizing it doesn't draw it out.