Laws without the threat of violent response are not laws, they are “suggestions”.
There are many other means of punishment, and many other ways to incentivize certain behaviors, that don’t involve violence.
“For walking home at night?” She flipped out. I’d imagine that means “resisted arrest” and I guess that included striking the officer.
He physically assaulted her first. Animals don’t tend to react rationally when they feel threatened, and human beings are no exception. If anything, she acted in self-defense.
Why didn’t she know he was calling after her? Wearing earphones and walking around oblivious? Does she want to get raped, mugged or killed?
This is a disgusting, victim-blaming response. You are literally trying to justify state violence against an innocent person, because that’s what it takes for you to uphold your belief in an unjust system.
I’m sure you’d think the same thing if you or the person you loved the most were in that same situation. Jesus Christ deserved to die for disobeying Roman guards, too, right?
Most likely because he followed the rules regarding escalation of force. Your wife didn’t.
Show me where my wife signed a legally-binding document requiring her to submit in the face of violence, foregoing her rights to self-defense?