A couple of points to offer up on the above:
I think that while believing that the police are perfect defenders of civilization who can do no wrong is a colossal error, believing that the police are all jackbooted thugs to start with and that they are automatically suspect in everything they do is also a colossal error.
I think one of the underlying issues when we discuss this is that I tend to argue like you think police are perfect defenders of civilization and you tend to argue like I think all police are jackbooted thugs. Am I right?
For the sake of information, I've worked along cops in a number of occations, and I'm quite well aware that they are, in 99 out of 100 cases, good, proper people. I'm after the 1 out of 100 who aren't. Those who slip through the net. Those who ruin the reputation of the police forces and good cops. They're the only force in society who's alloved to use violence (outside clear cut cases of self defence), so it's important to make sure they do behave.
I've got a huge amount of respect for police, but it's important to keep in mind that there are dirty eggs in the vaffles, and they do a lot of damage.
In situations like this, the bad ones, the ones who don't care in normal day to day policing, will know that the chances of being caught are impossibly small. So they'll care even less about what amount of force they use, and wether or not the persons on the recieving end have warranted such use of force.
Some weeks ago, I told an idiot who wanted to ban islamophobic expression in Norway that he was an idiot. I swore a lot and got quite a red face. Because it's in crisis we really need to keep our heads calm. That's when we need to remember what values we're trying to protect. That's all I'm saying.
The objective of the force that I am advocating be used is not as a de facto punishment but a means to get the rioting to stop in the most rapid and effective way possible. You can't fix the underlying problems while modern barbarians are running around raping, pillaging, looting, murdering, etc., etc. over wide areas and there are a limited number of means that are known to be effective at quelling such riots. Many of them tend to be lethal, yes - but they also tend to be less costly in terms of human lives than letting the rioting go on. Check the history books for that one. One example is the New York Draft riots; more people were killed and injured by the rioters than were killed by the military advancing at bayonet point, shooting looters and shelling the city with artillery. It's a simple if cold calculation and it's been proven for centuries.
Proved and proved. That's debatable. Generally speaking, it can go both ways. And it has. So I'll really leave it at that.
I would also disagree with you on 'a normal person's reaction' - most normal people when told to stop will actually stop and put their hands up in the air. Sure, riot armor is threatening, it's supposed to be. But so's a mugger, and most people don't actually try to run from them either. They stop and surrender.
Most normal people are completely unpredictable in a heated situation. Some will lie down and cry, some will run and some will get agressive. It's impossible to call this an abnormal reaction.
As long as he didn't pose a threat, I feel it unwarranted to hit him. There are less dangerous methods of subduing people. Let's not forget that people do, from time to time get killed by blunt trauma. They're trained to hit meat, but you can easily hit the wrong part of the body. As we've seen before. And that's ruling out the number of serious injuries that might result from heavier, riot truncheons in particular.