[SpelingBeeChamp]

Currently, and historically as far as I know, part of a police officer's job is to hurt people, when certain conditions present themselves. Every day police officers respond to DV assaults that are in progress. Oftentimes the perpetrator fights the police.

Any time an arrestee is not fully cooperative with the police taking them into custody, the arrest is not going to be pleasant to watch. Someone is having their freedoms taken from them by force. I don't see an alternative, though.

Here is a scenario:

A person just committed a carjacking using a gun. It happens every day. (There are more than 30,000 carjackings a year in the US, and a bit less than half involved a firearm.)

What non- or less-violent action do you suggest a better trained police officer would take to bring the offender into custody?

Let's say the carjacker didn't have a gun, but instead had beat the driver up. The police spot them, and they run. What next?

Serious question. I have never heard what I consider to be a practical answer to how policing could work in the United States without use of significant force.

[darksaints]

I have yet to see a credible explanation for the vast disparity in police violence between the USA and literally every other first world country. Let's take Germany, for example. How is it possible that US police kill more people in half a year than German police have killed since 1952?

There are thousands of practical answers to your question. If you haven't found any of them practical, you're not trying.

[imtringued]

That doesn't explain why police violence happens against unarmed and vulnerable people.

[TouchyJoe]

Violence against unarmed and vulnerable people is just safer for the police.

[specialist]

"...what I consider to be a practical answer..."

Do you have a practical answer for policing without using significant force?

[TouchyJoe]

Any rich part of town is policed without any use of significant force.

[SpelingBeeChamp]

No. That's why I asked the question.