These are just two examples of the misguided opinions held by too many police administrators. Use-of-force instructors are responsible for educating administrators about all of the tools available to them, as well as educating the officers themselves in the proper application of and justification for using these tools.
Available and Viable
It makes no sense that a law enforcement agency equips and trains its officers with pistols, rifles, shotguns, batons, OC, TASERs, canines, horses, ballistic shields, battering rams, empty hand self defense, and countless other potentially dangerous law enforcement tools, but it becomes hesitant when an officer properly and justifiably uses kicks to defend himself or to subdue a suspect.
Kicks by law enforcement officers are no less proper or less ethical than any other law enforcement tactic or tool when employed under the proper circumstances. The Supreme Court held in Graham v. Connor that the reasonableness of an officer's actions must be judged by the circumstances at the time the force is used. It did not restrict or limit the tactics that an officer can employ.
A subsequent case, Plakas v. Drinski, held that there is no requirement that officers seek a less-intrusive means of subduing a suspect as long as their actions are reasonable. Nowhere are kicks singled out as some sort of taboo technique that automatically transforms an officer's otherwise legal use of force into excessive force. However, many administrators react just that way.