Police hold the monopoly on deadly force.
In interactions with the police, if you assault them, you can end up dead.
Don’t assault them.
Self-defense against a police officer get you arrested or killed. You submit. Period.
This is both the point of what I was originally writing, and where we disagree. What you’re describing is literally tyranny, i.e., “cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control,” and authoritarianism, i.e., “the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.”
You gleefully accept a system that works that way, because you don’t think that it will bring you arm. Will I try to keep my life when I’m speaking with a cop? Absolutely. But I won’t for a second delude myself into thinking that it’s right or just under natural law, moral law, or the philosophical foundations of this country.
If the police have a right to a monopoly on violence, then governments have a right to tyranny, which means people do not have a right to self-defense from that government, it pretty much renders moot the entire point of gun ownership, and makes the people entirely dependent upon and oppressed by the state.
And FWIW, I brought up Christ because he stormed a temple and beat the crap out of some bankers in the days leading up to his arrest and crucifixion. While I fully understand this was part of a prophecy (and it’s frankly one of my favorite acts of his), I don’t think that excuses the authorities who committed the violence as a means of coercive power.