This film left me really conflicted. Mercifully where I come from not every Tom, Dick & Harry is allowed a firearm, so the police don't have to go around tooled up. But that doesn't mean I don't have an interest in "police brutality" and gun control as a neutral observer.

The footage at the outset is shocking, clearly showing, at best, extraordinarily incompetent conduct by the officer who opened fire. The film provides a background to the victim then attempts to explore the events leading up to the shooting.

My question is why?

Some may be sceptical of the positive elements of the portrayal of the victim. The loving son & father. The way he is portrayed as the victim in any violent events. The way he disowned drugs and dumped his drugs stash. Sure, they pay lip service in showing him as unable to hold down a job, an inmate and unfaithful - but generally the effort is made to portray Grant as a sympathetic characters. But even if we take that at face value my question is still, why?

The officers conduct have been totally inappropriate regardless of whether Grant's background. Everything is completely irrelevant other than the minutes leading up to the murder and whether the officers had had any previous dealings with Grant. Instead of a sober appraisal of a major issue in US society, I felt like I was watching something whose impartiality will have been severely compromised (the family wouldnt give permission if the representation of Grant was unsympathetic) and was borderline exploitative of a horrible situation.

But on the flip side, if the topic at hand isn't discussed, but is instead shouted down, misrepresented and suppressed (as seems to be a tactic in some quarters), then that is an insult to victims of such acts. Perhaps the objective was noble and simply to raise awareness?

Would a documentary have had the same impact? Would I have ever seen the horrific footage if the film hadn't been made? Should dramatised films of this nature be encouraged or discouraged?

I don't have the answers.