Not my point at all. The question is what's considered unreasonable force when it comes to the police. Your completely missing the actual question.
What you, and many others on the internet, youtube, sherdog, facebook seem to not understand is that "excessive force" is a label applied that is often either a misnomer, or completely incorrect. Excessive force and that force being a criminal act has a very wide margin.
For example, as an officer, I may arrest a subject that attempts to pull away from me, I have a few options. Pulling away would be considered "defensive resistance." The correct response for defensive resistance would be soft empty hand control, hard empty hand control, or intermediate weapons in some cases.
Verbal directions.
Soft empty hand control would be joint locks, take-downs, pressure points.
Hard empty hand control would be knee strikes, punches(to the brachial plexus tie-in between the shoulder and chest), kicks, and brachial stuns to the brachial plexus origin, or the side of the neck.
Intermediate control is baton strikes, pepper spray, taser, and in some departments-unilateral vascular neck restraint or shoulder pin restraint(side chokes/head and arm).
Deadly force in the form of baton strikes to the head, punches to the head(may be intermediate for some departments), groin strikes would not be acceptable.
Lethal force-firearm/knife are definitely not acceptable.
So using that guideline, let's say the guy pulls his arm away from me while I am trying to handcuff.
The above options would depend on several factors, most notably the crime the suspect is being arrested/suspected for/of, the size of the officer/offender, number of officers/suspects present, prior knowledge of the offender(is he known to be dangerous), is the subject high or intoxicated, age of the suspect/sex of the suspect, terrain(on a slippery slope, ice, gravel), and maybe one or two other factors.
Now, using the above criteria, let's say the subject is wanted for shoplifting, is of average build, no known history of violence-and at this point he is simply trying to pull his arm away while trying to say the officer has the wrong person. I would say that verbal directives, plus a joint lock up to a take down would likely be acceptable-but the officer would still be within limits to strike at this point. So let's say the officer, upon feeling the resistance of the suspect, delivers a strike to the subject's face.
In my department, I would consider that excessive force, but it would not be a criminal act unless there was some intent to commit a crime. Of course the officer would try and argue that he did not know the subject, he was resisting arrest, it was unknown if he was armed, etc. That's fine and all, but the officer still used too much force for what the situation calls for.
I would say the arrested subject has a good shot at a lawshuit(sherdog sic) and the officer should be reprimanded and possibly need some retraining. If the officer has a history of such things, or continues to use more force than is justified, further disciplinary action up to termination may be in order.
If all that seems confusing, it is. Every situation is unique and almost never a black/white situation. It is not as simple as "Did this person break the law" in this scenario the shoplifter broke the law when he did not pay for items he concealed. It does not get any simpler than that. For the cop, it is not so simple.
The supreme court has recognized that law enforcement is not an easy job. There are more dangerous jobs out there, and there are more stressful jobs out there-but few can match the danger and the stress level that law enforcement brings to the table. For this reason, when the supreme court is asked to weigh on whether a civil rights violation was committed and an officer used excessive force, they will use several factors to weigh this decision. Chiefly, the crime committed, what information the officer had available to them, and were the actions of the officer reasonable? That last bit is to be judged by what a "reasonable" officer would do.
The supreme court gives officers a good bit of leeway, provided their actions are reasonable and without apparent malice. The supreme court is who the lower courts take the cues from.
So, you see-the issue is not simple and is very subjective.
And since it is brought up, The Kelly Thomas case still makes me sick. That was excessive force, and I believe voluntary manslaughter. That one fuck says "see these gloves, they're my ass-kicking gloves" or something to that affect. How that statement coupled with that man's injuries did not lead to a conviction-but reasonable doubt can be a bitch.