Was it wrong for the McKinney, Texas police officer to use excess force to subdue the teenager girl

My opponent is taking a more informal conversational type of style in this debate. I'll take the same style, and hopefully my lack of "professionalism", offends nobody. I want to start out by saying, I don't agree with all the officers actions. He was a bit of a jerk, when he came into the scene. I think I agree with that and even the officer himself has agreed to that part. "I feel the policeman's action was not justified nor was it necessary to force the unarmed girl in a bathing suit, head down into the ground. My reason for that is the girl was not armed and did not appear to be resisting the officer when he had a hold of her arm. I do not see what she did that provoked the officer to use force. In my opinion, the police man was out of control, used excess force with the young girl and brandished a gun when clearly there was no need to do so." It's my opinion, pulling the gun was justified. The kids came up on the officers gun side, in clearly aggressive stances. They could have easily disarmed the cop and shot him, but that is beside the point. This debate isn't about the pulling of the gun, but the force he used on the girl. I'd also like to point out, that it's a shame that politics or emotions get in the way of truth finding. I let my emotions and beliefs get in the way of it as well, and it's something we all have to watch for in ourselves. A lot of people are aware of the massive amounts of problems in the criminal justice system, and policies pertaining to use of force. Cops are the face of the criminal justice system and it's easier to yell at a human who may only be a cog in the wheel, than it is to blame the system. Humans can be attacked, but the criminal justice system can't be. It's not a person, so villianizing it, does no good. Even as a conservative, I'm aware of the problems with the criminal justice system, but liberals are particularly aware. I find myself agreeing with liberals, who've studied the criminal justice system with the roots of the problem and how to fix it, but I disagree with most of the ones who notice the problem, but mis-assign blame. The point I'm trying to make with that long post, is that people are aware of these problems, and they don't see an isolated incident, but instead see the whole system when looking at that footage. However, that officer is a human, not the system and he may even hate the problems the system causes as well, but he must follow policy. Even if you disagree with use of force policy, you should still expect and demand cops follow it. We as citizens, have control over policy and elected officials who make policy. If we say to the cops, that they should only obey policy we like, than we're giving them license to act, outside of our control. When an organization has a monopoly on force, it's usually best that they act in ways that we direct, instead of "the correct way" or "how we want them to act". The second we tell them to ignore policy, we give them license to act in accordance to their will, instead of the people's will. In the United States, as well as probably every country in the world, officers are given the power to use force, by the people and representatives of the people. This force doesn't always look pretty. Actually the force doesn't look pretty most of the time. Anytime you see an officer use force, it's ugly. It means things have gotten out of control, and their is no pretty solution. There are specific way that we allow officers to use force, let's talk about one way. The officer yells at the girl in the video to lay down. Now the Supreme Court of the United States has determined that citizens, must obey all lawful orders. So if an officer orders you to do anything to assist them in an investigation, arresting you, or to gain control of a situation, you must obey. Whether or not you agree with that law, it is in fact law. People do not have as many rights as they think they do, or even that I think they should have. When they disobey these lawful commands. As long as these lawful commands, don't infringe on your constitutional rights, you must obey. The next step for an officer is to use what is known as the "use of force continuum", as a guide for determining the level of force they can use, to get you to comply. The use of force continuum in this situation says that he can use "soft hands" to get the girl to comply. "soft hands" is basically any non striking move you can think of, with some exceptions, such as choke holds (not headlocks) which cut off supply of oxygen, though they're allowed to use a similar move that interrupts blood flow. As you can see in the video, the girl is ordered to the ground on her belly and refuses to comply, so the officer is allowed to physically take her to the ground, and his hands on her and attempt of take down move are acceptable according to police policy. "the officer had other choices he could have made to get the girl to comply" What other options? If somebody says no, what else can you do, besides physically force them. My opponent officers no other course of action, and it's too late to do so in the final round. My opponent keeps saying the girl isn't resisting, which is untrue. The girl is hitting the cop or running, but other forms of resistance are clearly there. The girl could lay down on her face at any moment, and the use of force by the officer ends, but she continually tries to remain standing or to sit up. Not all forms of resistance are violent, but they are resistance none the less. My opponent may feel that the officers actions are wrong, but all he is doing is talking about his feelings. This is a debate and my opponent needs to make arguments, not just merely express feelings.