I'll accept that, NJ, although in this case the circumstances point very clearly to a crime being committed. Floyd was "restrained" with a knee on his neck, and two other officers on top of him, for almost nine minutes, which is approximately 8 and a half minutes longer than reasonable force would justify. Passers-by, and even one of the police involved, asked Chauvin to let up. Chauvin did not.
The 17,000 figure I mentioned earlier (since 2009) presumably includes many examples where the use of force was justified, as it makes no distinction between cases such as Floyd's and cases where the police officer was acting in clear self-defence. In that case, as I said, there are still potentially issues to address. The comparison between the UK, say, and the US shows that there is a vastly greater proportion of interactions with the police that end up with somebody dying than could be "reasonably" expected -- and even this assumes that the police in the UK are *always* right to act the way they do, which is demonstrably false (Jean Charles de Menezes springs to mind).
In a narrow sense the role of police is to protect the community ensure that criminals are, as far as possible, able to face Justice. It is clear that if a suspect ends up dead then it is in some sense a failure, as they will then never be able to face Justice. Each death, at the very least, deserves to be seriously and impartially investigated, and the police held to the highest of standards. In this case it is clear that Chauvin failed in his duty as a police officer and, for that matter, as a human being.