Respond to Hamads comment:

1. There is no doubt that the police should be allowed to use force on unarmed civilian who may decide to disobey the commands given by the police, but this should be done in a reasonable and proportionate manner. When force is reasonable but not excessive, simple verbal commands to stop or to stay should be regarded as well as reasonable presence of individuals, if necessary, simple pushing and holding the subject by the arms should be considered. Tasers and pepper spray are also suitable when the actions of protesters are provocative but non-violent. Lethal force should only be employed where threat is noted and is likely to result in taking the lives of policemen or any other individuals that may be nearby; most often, the use of lethal force against unarmed civilians results to negative consequences and is regarded as unlawful.

2. The second and a more preferable strategy that can be employed instead of force application when citizens will not obey orders involves the de-escalation measures. These measures address speech and non-speech actions to ensure order and to gain voluntary compliance willingly, concerning strategies such as listening, showing concern, and negotiating. Moreover, through the application of Community policing, he asserted that the chances of forceful actions will be reduced due to the mutual respect fostered within the community and the police force.

3. When it is not needed it is harm for the community in a manner that the commission of excessive use of force can lead to unnecessary deaths, people get physically assaulted, people complain, citizens lose their trust in police force, there comes compensation issues and civil unrest. Such incidents like the death of George Floyd in police custody in the United States by a police officer using excessive force in interacting with criminals has ramifications for the police in several way such as promoting distrust from the public and thereby hampering efforts to maintain law and order in society.