Ever wonder why the police use violence routinely even in situations that seem unthreatenting? Here is a good explanation from Simple Justice.
Here is the jist:
'In the quest to train officers in the use of command presence, a cottage industry exists to quell any concerns that inflicting pain to enforce compliance is wrong, that Monday morning quarterbacks who question their use of force are not only to be ignored, but proof that their use of force was proper and necessary, and that the law supports their conduct if only they phrase their explanations “properly.”'
'The point of all this is that, with some exceptions, the cop doesn’t care whether you are standing or sitting, in the car or out, speaking or silent. What he does care about, and cares beyond your appreciation of his purpose, is that you comply with his commands so that he has established his command presence, feels in control of the situation and, therefore, has no fear that you’re a threat to his safety.
Forget constitutional rights, the officer will engage in whatever harm he feels is required to establish his control to the point of killing the victim, if necessary, in order to assure that at the end of the run, he goes home safely. He may feel badly about it afterward, but he has been trained to take command at all costs in the course of the interaction. Cops complain that non-cops don’t get it, and indeed, we don’t. Not because we’re incapable, but rather because we don’t adhere to the First Rule of Policing as manifested by their overarching need for command presence.'