Absolutely. And one reason we're supposed to respect the police is that they take these risks. If they instead start shooting people first, they aren't taking the risks, they are creating them.
Being a police officer interacting with citizens is more dangerous than being a citizen...but is it more dangerous than being a citizen interacting with the police?
That's not one of the instances of police, say, choking a guy selling cigarettes to death. It's a situation where even someone courageous is going to be pretty amped up.
There was multiple cops aiming rifles at this guy, who was raising his hands when he was shot. The officer that shot him said he saw him move his hands at that's why he shot him.
Even if the guy had a gun, there was no way he would've had time to raise it, aim it accurately (at cops who were behind cover) and take a shot without police being able to fire at him first after clearly seeing it was a gun. Plus, at that distance, he wasn't likely to hit a cop who was behind cover with a pistol anyway, even if he was able to shoot many shots.
Cops aren't saints in Italy where I lived for many years, not by a long shot. And yet this stuff happens less.
However, I can certainly be wrong about this detail. Nonetheless, if police are deciding that an anonymous claim allows them to move to kill-first mode, then they are forfeiting the respect that taking risks for the greater good entails.
Please don't spread misinformation about a tragedy that's been used to create so much division in this country.
1. He resisted arrest. He clearly stated his intent to resist arrest. He was given the option to be peacefully arrested, which he declined. In the resulting forcible arrest he was choked, which is wrong, he shouldn't have been choked, but he absolutely wasn't "just standing on the sidewalk" - he was resisting arrest.
2. When you say he was choked to death people might get the impression that there was intent to kill him or that he died on the spot from asphyxiation instead of later from a heart attack. (edit: roughly a heart attack. The coroner listed several pre-existing conditions that contributed, including heart disease, but didn't say "heart attack")
Since we've had literal riots over things like this I think it's appropriate to ask that we all try to stick to the facts.
2. The choking caused his death. He was therefore choked to death.
We have riots because people like you keep defending murderers and they keep getting away with killing people.
When you expand the use of a word so widely, it ceases to have meaning. You could say a traffic stop is violence. Court-ordered searches and seizures could be violence.
The only reason most people don't resist is the threat of more violence if they do.
Is kidnapping someone at gunpoint not violence?
You refuse to admit the difference between a peaceful and by-force arrest because you're expanding the definition of the word violence and apparently would like to talk about it.
You've expanded the definition of the word 'murder' to no longer require intent.
You've expanded the meaning of "choked to death" beyond what any reasonable person would expect it to mean.
If the police had gone out there and violently murdered somebody by choking them to death I would be very angry. That's simply not what happened and if you believe it is maybe you should examine exactly how you came to that conclusion.