When people say that they lack training, it's not about being trained not to attack somebody, it's about being trained (and more importantly empowered) to resolve situations before they get to that point.
Because when there are no options left, you only have force.
> Because when there are no options left, you only have force.
It actually makes it worse that you try to justify it. You used your brainpower to find a justification for what is. But there is none. This is a non sequitur - there is no reason to use force even when people don't cooperate! Also, the vast majority of such instances require no special level of competence to deescalate, only common sense and decency, including a lot of police incidents I had to read about (I myself never had an issue with US police, even though I encountered them a lot when in my youth I crossed the US sleeping in an old car that I had bought).
The entire "deescalation" that was required in this particular case was to just let it be. What training do you need? Not even the next step of offering just a tad more money needs any special training. You make it sound as if we are talking about hostage negotiation or something requiring skills.
You're right that they could have avoided needing to remove someone who didn't want to. But that's a separate issue from your blanket claim that somehow force is never justified in these situations.
You're taking like no one gets forcibly removed from anywhere in Germany or police are always experts in the minutiae of contract law and instantly see through any unjustified eviction.
Somehow, the mere act of evicting someone is evidence of needing to de-escalate more, as if that could somehow avoid needing to ever remove someone. Or even if you did, you could somehow do it both without training and without attacking, since everyone learns how to remove someone without hurting them sometime shortly after the crying and nursing instincts kick in?
Or, if the eviction wasn't justified, all police are somehow experts on contract law to the point that they could know this?
And then when called on these questionable claims, III... just retreats to, "well look at the stats" (and various other poisoning-the-well unrelated to this specific circumstance).
If there's a coherent claim here, I'd appreciate the correction on what that claim is.
It's easy to say "someone screwed up here", but III...'s attempt to explain what that was ends up making its own dubious claims.
> that substantiates your earlier claim that "no one is ever forcibly removed by police and if they needed to be, it wouldn't require training".
Fortunately anyone can easily see what I wrote. Your style disgusts me.
This is utter nonsense.
> how to resolve situations without resorting to force
That's exactly what OP refers to. This is supposed to be a basic skill, part of the stuff you learn in your first 7 years from your parents and society, not on-the-job training.