Assuming that the police report is always wrong is just as bad as assuming that it's always right. I don't think there's any question in this case that the suspect was committing arson—the presence or absence of fire damage would have been hard to hide from the public. Arson is a pretty serious crime that might have endangered innocent bystanders if the fires had spread sufficiently. Was he really brandishing a machete at the police? I can't say for sure, but it isn't implausible. Was the force used to bring him in disproportionate? Maybe, but I find it difficult to believe that anyone was aiming at this guy's testicles on purpose. They're just not a very good target.

This isn't like the cases of someone being seriously injured or killed during a "wellness check" or for standing on a street corner while Indigenous. In the absence of any other information, I'd say that the injuries that the suspect suffered here really weren't intentional and a misaimed plastic bullet ricocheted into his crotch. If you want a flagship case for demonstrating police brutality to the public, I wouldn't pick this one.

Yeah, that's basically the first edition of their legal defence.