It is like we are watching two different movies; in yours, the Police are constantly out of control, abusing their powers and bullying innocent citizens. Everything they do is wrong; they are the most dangerous gang in town, and when called upon to justify their behaviour, they always lie. You imply that all police are corrupt and aggressive.
In mine, the Police are public servants trying to do a dangerous job in trying circumstances where police are being targeted by snipers and the next person they speak to may well attack them. Society’s attitude to the Police has made them behave more and more like soldiers on patrol in enemy territory.
I think we both agree that is a bad thing, with plenty of opportunity for split-second judgements to go wrong, and lethal force to be used when it may not have been necessary.
I propose that the public treat their local police like human beings, not like enemies. I think there are a small number of police whose actions warrant investigation and potential prosecution, but I think most police do the job as well as they can.
You propose that we sack the entire police force and hire new ones, brushing over the chaos this would cause, with untrained recruits learning the trade. No doubt the rookies would make many procedural errors during their training period, which would be a bonanza for defence lawyers.
I suspect your anti-police bias was hardened into prejudice during your Law School training, but I don’t agree that lawyers are in “Law Enforcement”, not defence lawyers, anyway. Your job is to make sure that criminals are not successfully prosecuted by finding loopholes for the perpetrators, many of these being perceived technical errors by police. It is funny that a lawyer who is supposed to see people as “innocent until proved guilty” seems happy to classify police personnel as guilty until proved innocent. I will continue to treat police as my friends until one proves unworthy of this respect. Police lives matter, too.