swampgirl:

I agree police have to protect themselves. They are in a very dangerous line of work.

That said, non-compliance doesn't imply dangerous. For example, say in public someone on the street gets in your way and starts harassing you. They might be very scary looking, and you might be afraid they could hurt you. However, unless they actually threaten you or try to physically harm you, if you were to hit them you'd be charged with assault, and if you used a taser, add a weapons charge too.

Police, on the other hand, get to assume someone is 'dangerous' enough to use physical force, just because they didn't follow their orders. Why do police get this extra ability to 'protect' themselves? There are many people who have significally more dangerous jobs dealing with the public, such as taxi drivers, and they don't get anywhere near that privledge.

In terms of the officers 'right' to use physical force cause she didn't do what they said, well, what the police had done might technically have been legal, but that doesn't make it appropriate. In a situation where the person poses no threat, perceived or otherwise, using force needlessly escalates a situation that could have easily been brought to a close peacefully.

Let me make clear that there are clearly times police need to use force. If she were stopped for a more serious crime, such as burglary, the police officer could assume she was dangerous. If she had physically resisted the officer, then fine. She was stopped for a traffic violation. She didn't physically resist the officer. The officer had no reason to suspect she was any more danger than your average person walking down the street. While I the officer shouldn't have to wrestle with her, since the situation was calm and there was no danger, there was no reason not to be patient.