The threat of force as the default way to get compliance is counterproductive. The only reason a police officer should be able to lawfully use force should be t

The threat of force as the default way to get compliance is counterproductive. The only reason a police officer should be able to lawfully use force should be the same as it already is for everyone else. This requires both (in AZ[1] at least): * Breaking the law. * Immediate serious bodily harm to a person (attempted, threatened or witnessed (see law)). Or: * Warrent issued by a judge. If the suspect wants to drive away, or not comply with an order, in the vast majority of cases (civil, petty crime etc), that's fine. Let them. It's counterproductive to chase someone and it's not worth shooting anyone over. Police officers and the people they serve would be safer. If a criminal warrant is issued by a judge, then the threat of force may be necessary, but it shouldn't be the first (no-knock raid for non-violent crime) reaction. Part of the problem (in addition to people who like to oppress and/or apply their racism) is that police are expected to force people to comply. Some will say "but the lawlessness!", to that I think two responses are appropriate: Most of the laws that normal people break don't rise to the level necessary (see above) to be enforced with force. The change in culture would have the opposite effect. There would be less crime. I wonder what would happen if we not only elected the Sheriff, but the police too. Sheriff must have final hire/fire power, but the candidates should be required to get community support. And they should live in the community they serve. A great first step is to end the "war on drugs". Either we own ourselves or we don't. [1] http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/00411.htm http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/00411.htm