The fact of the matter is this... undue force is obvious here. Unless she's some tai chi expert, he should have been able to restrain her without requiring anything but his hands and his training.
Or unless she had a Derringer concealed on her somewhere? How does anyone know?
He tried to restrain her twice and she yanked away.
1. She signs the ticket and goes home, none of this happens.
or
2. She puts her hands behind her back when told to do so, none of this happens.
Just because she is old does not make her innocent or not dangerous. This is her fault. Plain and simple.
You people are acting like resisting arrest is not serious. It is, regardless of age. It is very serious.
And, the officer used what is considered non-lethal force to subdue her. Had he continued trying to physically subdue, which already failed twice, he would have had to use more force and maybe bruised her or injured her in some way. She was NOT cooperating.
What, should he just let her go?
It's really pretty simple - when a policeman tells you to put your hands behind your back, PUT .... YOUR .... DAMNED .... HANDS .... BEHIND .... YOUR .... BACK.
It seems we have a lot of people that feel that it is OK to resist when you don't think arrest is justified. That is not how it works. You get processed, and then the court decides whether it is justified.
Go down to the station, then if they did something wrong, get it straightened out later. They are not going to put you in a fricking torture cell.