Then how about we call it "oversensitized" or "embrittled" instead of "hardened"? They are far more fitting terms for what you just described.
Not only is the "Colonel Jessup hypothesis" total baloney (note how the deputy at the end saw what happened as the mark of a rookie), but accepting it glorifies moral failure and belittles the efforts of officers who have managed to develop a thick hide along with the integrity to judiciously wield the authority they have been given.
"Hardened" was the first term that jumped to mind, though the more I thought about this, and after reading the police report, the more I understand the police's motives and generally agree with their response (it might be they were too harsh physically, but they had good reason to be physical, and the guy fully deserved to be arrested).
While I feel bad for the guy for getting himself into trouble, we had a situation where a guy called 911, the first responders showed up, and the guy had such a sense of entitlement that he acted like he was still in charge of the situation, and because of that misbehaved in a few serious ways. Probably the fact that he was drunk played into his foolishness, but by his own account and the account of the police report, the cops had a drunk guy and his friend interfering with the first responders' work, the police asked them to step back, they were belligerent to the police about it and refused to step back, when the police tried to move him he resisted physically, so the cop put a lock on him, cuffed him, and arrested him. When a drunk is interfering with first responders, disobeying lawful orders, and physically resisting efforts to move out of the scene what else are they going to do? They ordered him to leave, he was belligerent, they pulled him away, he resisted, so they pinned him, cuffed him, and off to jail he went. Maybe they were too forceful, but all we have are the memories of the angry drunk guy prone to fits of screaming by his own account - no medical records or corroboration, and the cops actually made sure there was surveillance of the incident preserved.
They treated him pretty harshly in the jail, but by his own account he was screaming and acting out. It's not a real shocker that the drunk screaming guy misbehaving in jail is going to suffer for it.
There are legitimate cases of serious police abuses. This is more a case of a drunk fool getting himself in trouble by acting like an entitled clown and not complying with the officers' requests to give the first responders space to work.
> and after reading the police report, the more I understand the police's motives and generally agree with their response
Wow. Are you and I reading the same report? I'm able to understand the police's motives, but that's the problem. It was reasonable for them to clear bystanders away from the EMTs, but it was unreasonable for them to resort to physical force so quickly after encountering hesitation that a) posed no threat to the EMTs and b) could have been easily addressed without violence. I don't think police SOP should be "1) make demand, 2) attack civilian that hesitates due to objections with demand." Some situations allow time for rational conversation, this was one of them, and the police rejected that possibility (which had a lower likelihood of resulting in bodies flying into the EMT's workspace) in favor of using force.
Sgt. Espinoza used Woosley's passive insistence on getting his phone back, which explicitly did not interfere with the wellbeing of the patient or the actions of the EMTs, as a justification for employing violent compliance techniques. If Sgt E doubted W's ability to get his phone back without interfering (not unreasonable), he should have volunteered to do it on W's behalf rather than violently subduing him for what to me looks like entirely reasonable hesitation (reasonable in the moral sense, not in the maximize-probability-of-avoiding-arrest sense).
Partensky's case is more difficult to assess without a video recording. It's conceivable that P's hesitation justified violent escalation (as opposed to a more rational but slower approach with higher P(success)) but I doubt it.
> This is more a case of a drunk fool getting himself in trouble by acting like an entitled clown and not complying with the officers' requests to give the first responders space to work.
It took two to tangle, and I believe the police were unambiguously in the wrong, whatever you think of W and P.
Woosley's behavior wasn't solely passive resistance according to the report. He was resistant until the cops tried to move him (reasonably), at which point he flipped. The cops put the drunk guy freaking out in an arm lock at that point. Could they have handled things more ideally? Probably, but they didn't do anything particularly wrong given what they were dealing with.
Parentsky was a drunk guy insisting he was a medic and pushing his way past the cops. He was told by the police and EMTs to get clear of the scene. The guy was buzzed and acting like a complete fool, trying to push his way through the cops when they blocked him. There was a scuffle, one of the cops got a minor injury from the scuffle, and Parentsky was cuffed. Then when he was in jail he acted like a drunk fool and started screaming.
If they were sober I'd probably look at it differently, but having dealt with enough drunk idiots, I recognize that they don't generally respond to reasoning. The cops were dealing with a couple drunk guys interfering with the EMTs doing their job. I think they handled the situation as best as they could given what they were dealing with.
Parentsky's bizarre self-justification sounds like a stringing of excuses and railing over narcissistic injury.
Not only is the "Colonel Jessup hypothesis" total baloney (note how the deputy at the end saw what happened as the mark of a rookie), but accepting it glorifies moral failure and belittles the efforts of officers who have managed to develop a thick hide along with the integrity to judiciously wield the authority they have been given.