Disingenuous question.
It wasn’t the violation of the loosie law.
It was the violation of refusing to submit to arrest, regardless of reason for arrest.
ALL law is predicated on the government being willing & able to go so far as to kill you if you don’t submit to so little as jaywalking. You refuse to consent under whatever escalation of enforcement they apply, they will escalate further; they may choose to let it go, or re-engage under other conditions, but if you push it far enough they’ll push it further.
In this case, a very large man said & did things indicating his intent of non-compliance. So, they compelled compliance.
Pro tip: if you’ve got a serious health problem, don’t do things that can (directly or indirectly) cause that problem to turn fatal. I don’t ride roller coasters because there’s a good chance I’ll black out, and suffer a fatal consequence. I also don’t do things (like resist arrest) that might lead a cop to taze me, which could fry my internal wiring. If you’re morbidly obese, antagonizing police is probably a bad idea as whatever they do may overwhelm your already strained metabolic capabilities.
He’d been arrested for violation of the loosie law some 8 times. Obviously, he (A) knew it was illegal, (B) standard enforcement wasn’t persuading him to stop, and (C) to the contrary he was becoming belligerent about the confrontations. He escalated it, they escalated it further, he suffered the natural consequence of badgering them into escalation.
Whether the loosie law should exist is a different discussion. Insofar as a law, however bad, exists the government shall operate on the premise that those subject thereto shall comply therewith. If the law in question is immoral, unconstitutional, etc then while resisting it may be right, do not be under any delusion that the government will instantly cease aggressive enforcement thereof.
It’s not a disingenuous question. Sure, you are correct insofar as you identify refusal to submit to arrest as the immediate cause of the confrontation and all subsequent events flowing from that.
But, it doesn’t begin and end there, does it?
Surely you can’t be suggesting that a society where police can arrest and detain anyone with force on almost a whim is one we ought to celebrate and encourage.
Physical arrest ought to be used only when necessary - and not for crimes such as over-flushing a toilet or selling an odd cigarette or two on the street. Cops have better things to do, and we as taxpayers have better things to do with our money than to fund this sort of waste.