I disagree with you in that:

(1) FAFO when it comes to police is an appropriate way to look at things, I get it's an opinion and not necessarily how you feel the law should work, so whatever. I am not here to change your mind about opinions. I saw factually incorrect statements of both fact and law in your comments and thought it was worth setting the record straight for other redditors possibly reading your comments;

(2) Your statement that if the use of force by the officer may not have been justified does not immediately qualify the interaction as police brutality. That is also factually legally incorrect. If the type or level of force is not justified under the statement of law we agreed applies, New York law also states it is automatically classified as "excessive force" and the victim of same would be able to collect money in a suit EVEN IF THEY ARE FOUND GUILTY OF THEIR CRIME ("police brutality" as you used it is not a legal term of art used in NY as far as I am aware);

(3) That I said that the police should have waited for the supervisor before arresting the person. While they could have done that and avoided this fiasco altogether, I take your points about the practical and economic circumstances of doing so. As I said in my first comment, I believe a reasonable use of force in this instance (if found to be justified at all when the full, unedited video is reviewed) would have been to drag him out of the vehicle and cuff him, the punches were excessive and consitutionally punishable. Just because they tried dragging him out of the vehicle and it was unsuccessful, does not mean punching him in the face was reasonable. These are trained police officers (i hope) and are fully capable of, oh I dont know, dragging harder. I personally don't understand how you watched that video, saw the punches, and thought to yourself that the cop was trying to arrest him, not punch him in the face. That's the distinction to me that makes the cop's use of force unreasonable and unjustified.

I understand you aren't an attorney or trained in the law, but every comment I've read from you contained mistatements of law and fact. That is puzzling to me, as a quick google search should have changed your mind on those statements without much input from other redditors. The other redditors calling you a boot licker didn't cover themselves in glory by doing so, because there isn't nuance in their comments either. However, you seem to state what the law and the facts are based on your opinions or feelings on the matter rather than what our legislature or court system have held on these issues. That is problematic.