As a supervisor with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, it was my responsibility to investigate any deputy-involved use of force that occurred on my watch (assuming another supervisor didn't). This entailed interviewing any and all witnesses that could be located; often, this included friends and relatives of the suspect, as well as the suspect himself.
Rare was the occasion where a witness said that the use of force was excessive. Rarer still were the times when such allegations held up under the barest of scrutiny. In other words, a vast majority of the time—the smart-ass in me wants to say ninety-eight percent of the time—the force used was not only justifiable, but prudent.
Indeed, I've documented incidents wherein deputies wrenched their backs or otherwise injured themselves trying not to hurt a suspect. At least one deputy was medically retired behind such an injury.
Is it unreasonable to ask why this poll was conducted in the first place? What was the agenda? To get published elsewhere and offer up one more pernicious sliver in the side of law enforcement (which it did). And doesn't it say something about the physicians that responded to it?
Still, the fact that some two percent backed our play on the one point makes me wonder if there were a few police reserves among the doctors polled. Doctors who'd been more exposed to the less savory aspects of our profession and were therefore more inclined to recognize the stark contrast between a suspect's violent behavior in the field and the docility he may display in an emergency room.