Lmao. You clearly don't know what it means either. You seem to think my argument is that it is right because the police said so. I didn't. My argument is that it is legal and acceptable because as far as can be seen...the legal system (lawyers and judges) have upheld that the action is an acceptable use of force based on the use of force continuum...which in and of itself would be the determining factor as to whether he was justified. The Use of Force continuum being used as the guideline in use of force encounters. The use of force being reviewed and analyzed and discussed and upheld multiple times by a variety of experts in the field.
It is not an appeal to authority in that "the authority says it is right so it is." That would be a falcious argument. Just like your argument stating that I believe in segregation because at one point someone said it was ok would be a falcious argument. The fact is you have not ONE TIME presented a single SHRED of evidence as to the use of force being outside the scope of what is legal. Your issue is that she landed hard. You can't seem to show how the officer was NOT allowed to get her into custody and physical detain her. You also can't show us how or why the officer was not allowed to use a physcal takedown move to get her to the ground and cuff her as part of that detainment for arrest.
Now I'm sure you will come back with some form of "yes I did," but that isn't the case. And if you THINK his actions are outside the law or the use of force guidelines...I am issuing you the challenge now...prove it. I gave you use of force guidelines for the department and state of Colorado law on the subject. If your only argument is that it was wrong because you disagree with the law...then your argument is DOA because the fact is...he was justified based on the story. Then your argument must devolve to the concept that it shouldn't be legal for him to physically take her down for her actions.
Actions that are defined as...physically resisting arrest after committing an act of violence against an officer and interfering with an ongoing police investigation. I can see why you are trying to avoid really getting into the nuts and bolts of this particular topic. It boils down to the fact that you are just too sensitive to watch videos about police matters.