Occam's Razor is often paraphrased as "The simplest explanation that fits the evidence is usually the correct one."
It should be obvious that Occam's Razor looks backwards in time.
A forward-looking corollary to Occam's Razor could be that given enough time, any finite set of starting assumptions will inevitably paint itself into a corner from which it cannot escape.
Take the proposition that being an effective Law Enforcement Officer is totally independent of physical stature or ability.
In support of that contention, most people can point to a tiny wisp of a woman who is a great cop. If not a great cop, then some analog of a cop...perhaps a coach or phys-ed teacher.
If you take three steps back and look at the proposition: "Being an effective Law Enforcement Officer is totally independent of physical stature or ability" then certain logical difficulties pop up. Can a blind person be a great cop? How about a quadriplegic?
I am not trying to be difficult. I am just pointing out that some parts of policing require the equivalent of a pick-ax and the blade of a Swiss Army knife will not suffice. While a blind cop or a quadriplegic cop can be great cops some of the time and under some circumstances, can they be great cops ALL the time?
But that observation, that parts of being an LEO are physical and 5th percentile woman (110 pounds) are not interchangeable with a 80th percentile man (230 pounds) is heresy to Progressives.
That leads to strange places and one of those places was the corner of 38th-and-Chicago in Minneapolis.
The same thinking that denies that there are any differences between petite women and husky men cannot turn around and declare that some methods of restraint are only permissible when used by women. That would be a de facto admission of what the Progressives consider an anathema: That the rules of engagement must be modified to make the job "doable" by women.
So a Progressive police force may find itself forced to allow riskier submission holds and methods based on the capabilities of a small portion of its force. They might train the cops to NOT USE THESE HOLDS unless absolutely necessary, but they cannot restrict them to a specific gender.
Thus, the politicians in Minnesota find themselves painted into a corner. While most people judge that what the cops did to George Floyd was excessive, the police can honestly state that they did exactly their department trained them to do.
They called for EMS. The subject refused to enter the squad car for transport. Policy undoubtedly had some form of weasel wording that recalcitrant subject were to be kept subdued for the safety of the public, the police and the subject himself.
Not only are the former-police likely to "walk", they are likely to counter-sue and get hefty settlements based on termination-without-cause and defamation-of-character.
It seems unlikely that the Progressives will have enough presence of mind to realize that they painted themselves into a corner and they need a "reset".