However, would you agree that except for the most extreme circumstances, the police should be able to "make you comply" without ending your life?
...and if a law enforcement officer can't find a way to "make you comply" without killing you, they should probably find another line of work?
I understand that when officers are going up against superior force they need to do what they need to do. I get that. It doesn't mean they should walk into someone's yard and shoot their dog when it barks at them or "accidentally" kill criminals who are resisting.
In this particular case, the officer knew that Brown had already tried to get his gun once and was charging him again to presumably try once more. If the facts as they are reported are accurate, the officer had no other choice than to shoot him. The Garner case is not so clear. There were enough LEOs onsite that they should have been able to subdue him without killing him.
It should be obvious that nothing the officers did nothing that was lethal - the guy died because he was a morbidly obese sack of crap who was dehydrated from standing around in the summer heat for hours.
Did any officer punch him? No. Kick him? No. Nightstick him? No. Shoot him? No.
One officer put a single arm (not both, which is essential for an actual chokehold) around his neck for about 4 seconds.
99.999% of people subdued using that method would have been just fine.
They picked a guy who was apparently diabetic, asthmatic, had high blood pressure, was more than 100lbs overweight, had a history of drug use, who probably had heat exhaustion into the mix.