You don't understand how it
really works. There are numerous things wrong with your statement but to cut straight to the point, yes police are trained to use many different take down techniques. That being said, you could train your whole life and never even scratch the surface of the variety of situations you'll be in when you need to use a take down. Contrary to popular belief (or what people
expect from the police anyways), cops are not ninjas.
In the full internal investigations report that was just released, the officer actually specifically cites the fact that due to the close quarters as well as the position the prisoner took, a typical leg-sweep "take down" would probably not have worked.
The story gets even better. The officer was a k-9 unit. After spending several years with his k-9, he was understandably attached. He requested to keep his dog. Chief said no. At this point, I understand - police dogs are anything but cheap. You pay several thousand for the dog and several thousand in training when the dog and the handler are paired. The police department said that they have about 10k invested in this dog. So then the officer says, ok well I'll pay 10k to keep the dog. Chief STILL says no way jose.
This is where I disagree. The dog is almost completely useless to the department anyways. After a dog has been with a particular officer for that long, it generally considered unsafe to attempt to pair the dog with another officer. The liability of even the slight chance of a mishap involving a police dog alone is too great to justify keeping the dog. Not to mention the fact that the officer is trying to pay the full value of the dog plus training. Talk about political, the decision by the chief made the citizen review board very happy btw
