[giomasce]

> And to your point about referee: the cop isn't a referee.

Maybe, but then the point is that the referee is their friend. If I go and punch a police officer, I'm going to the jail. If the police officer comes and punches me out of nothing, good luck having a fair investigation and trial. The police department will cover their actions, avoid releasing the information they have. Maybe the officer face cannot be seen on the available footage because they have a full helmet and the police department refuses to say their name, so the judge cannot (or does not want) judge them guilty on the ground we cannot be sure who they are. I don't have all these protections, but they do. This means that have effectively become the referee as well.

I'm totally in favour of giving the police the exclusive usage of force when this is required, but they should as well stand the responsibility of its misuse. Nowadays they get the former but not the latter, and this is terribly unfair.

[tdfx]

I think we're talking past each other. I'm specifically referring to situations where a cop has to subdue someone else, and what they're allowed to do to accomplish this. If you're at a size and/or strength disadvantage with someone who is willing to kill you to win the fight, taking their back and applying a rear-naked choke is one is the better options I can think of. It makes it much more difficult for them to reach for your gun, strike you, and the blood choke will eventually cause temporary unconsciousness where you can properly restrain them with handcuffs.

I see lots of people saying cops shouldn't be allowed to use chokes, but they never provide a reasonable alternative. I'd rather see cops using chokeholds than shooting unarmed people.