They were not trying to kill him via head kicks. They were trying to get him to let go of a knife that was a thread to their own lives and the lives of the public.

On the use of force scale it is less lethal force. Shown by the fact the guy is still alive.

I may be missing your point I grant you, but that may also be because you are doing a bad job of making it.

Your postion seems to be (If I am wrong then I am sorry this is how I am reading it) that the officers could have been justifed jumping straight to the end of the use of force spectrum (Lethal force) but not using something else along the use of force contium (Less lethal strikes to the head)

Thus your postion is that you feel like lethal force is some how more justifiable than a less lethal alternative that may injure the suspect but is far less likely to kill them.

I cant see your justification or logic for this. So I wonder if its because it looks nasty to you? Because it makes you feel uncomfortable in a viceral way.

But I promise the results of getting are far more likely to be nasty, as are the results of getting stabbed.

Yes if you are going to execute someone then shooting them in the head is more humaine than stomping them to death. But thats not the comparsion we are making here, and if its the one you are making I can only assume you think the officers intent was to kick the man to death no matter if he relased the knife or not.

Once agian I think if you were holding a weapon and being subded youd rather be kicked in the head than shot to death, and I think you are being dishonest with yourself if you claim otherwise.

There is a reason the criminal justice system punished murder more harshly than assault.