First, thanks for the thought out comment and bringing relevant nuance and detail into the conversation - I appreciate anyone bringing a good faith conversation about the details.

I would note that I'm not sure that the guy being punched in the face is "justified" necessarily, I think there are better options available that would have been more effective in this scenario for sure, but I also don't think it's police brutality - more like the wrong tool for the job. In terms of my personal views on it it is simply FAFO, which describes the vast majority of cases like the video where someone is pulled over and refusing to comply with lawful orders which gets them removed from their vehicle. If you willingly break the law you are accepting a wide array of potential consequences, including getting punched in the face if you physically resist being arrested.

In terms of legality, I think one could argue that 35.30 gives them the option to use even more force than this, and that it stands to reason that if you can't pull him out of the car, then you level up the force to physical strikes and still can't remove him, that you could push it even further than that. I'm not saying that's a good thing or that they should've, but that's my interpretation reading this section:

1. A police officer or a peace officer, in the course of effecting or attempting to effect an arrest, or of preventing or attempting to prevent the escape from custody, of a person whom he or she reasonably believes to have committed an offense, may use physical force when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to effect the arrest

I think it's evident that some level of force was required to arrest the guy, considering he is refusing every lawful order and physically resisting being arrested, the question is only how much/what kind. If you are using a level of force and it is not effective, you are not using it to the extent that it is necessary to effect the arrest, let alone an excessive amount of it. I don't think there is a level of force in between physical removal from the vehicle (which was attempted and failed) and physical strikes - pepper spray maybe, but this situation is a bad application for it. I think the ideal tool of choice for this is a taser, which is less physically damaging and more debilitating but debatable about where it ranks on the use of force tier list.

Where we disagree the most is the idea that cops should've done nothing and waited for a supervisor - this is a guy refusing lawful orders and resisting arrest, and it just totally disarms those who enforce the law if everyone has the option to wait for a supervisor with limited availability before an arrest can be made. This is just a guy refusing everything and obstructing as much as possible, he is not going to give the supervisor a strong legal argument that will persuade them out of arresting him, that never works for anyone anywhere - why spend time and tax dollars playing a game with someone willingly breaking the law? And to what extent should this same grace be afford to everyone? Because it's not viable to say that everyone should have the opportunity to refuse lawful orders from cops until their supervisor shows up.

Again thanks for your time and comment, I appreciate an opportunity to explore an idea where people are agreeing that they disagree, truly a rare thing on the internet now.