> I don't think resisting arrest qualifies
This pull quote isn't related to your main point, but to digress a bit on it...
The state, having a presumed monopoly on the legitimate use of pre-emptive force, reacts this way to application of laws, no? For example - there is a law that says that I can't plant pink flowers or sell looseys or whatever. I violate that law. The progression of consequences subsequently goes like this:
o I get a fine. I don't pay it
o I get a fine on that fine. And a stern warning. I don't pay it.
o They send a note or an armed-or-not person to invite me to go spend a few days in a metal box. I do not go.
o They send armed persons to forcibly retrieve me to put me in that metal box. I resist.
o They apply overwhelming force to ... well, force me. I resist more.
o They kill me.
It does NOT matter what the law is (chewing bubble gum, paying taxes, open container, lemonade stand licensure, drinking a beer outside of 7-11), the sequence of escalation is largely the same.
How can we NOT expect cops to kill us? That's what the state is - that's what it does - that's its function when faced with non-compliance with whatever set of rules our elected representatives have put into place.