Re: Question for John McAdams

>>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/06/12/minneapolis-city-council-unanimously-votes-to-replace-police-with-community-led-model/?sh=736afcf71a52 

Changing the manner in which a police department by replacing it with 
another law enforcement agency is not abolishing it. It is a reform.

It is not without precedent.

Camden, New Jersey, disbanded its police department and replaced it with a 
new force.  Camden went about reforming their police. In short, they fired 
everyone, dissolved the police union, expanded the police force with 
stricter hiring criteria, and rewrote the new department’s use of 
force policy. The net result was lower rates of crime and lower rates of 
civilian complaints about police behavior.

You said "We need more police. They need more training," exactly what 
Camden did.

https://www.aei.org/articles/dont-abolish-the-police-reform-them/

Ithaca, New York has begun enacting its own police reforms, and wants to 
rebrand the city’s police as the Department of Community Solutions 
and Public Safety. Under the Ithaca proposal, the new police department 
will be made up of both armed and unarmed officers, with each responding 
to different types of calls — one for criminal activity and the 
other for social and mental health concerns where force, actual or 
potential, can do more harm than good.

But, of course, some countries faced with endemic problems have taken 
drastic action such as abolishing its police forces and building anew. 
Georgia in the Caucasus mountains did so - successfully.

https://www.centreforpublicimpact.org/case-study/siezing-moment-rebuilding-georgias-police/

A useful interview about the inherent difficulties with American policing 
policies by an Israeli expert

https://prospect.org/justice/expert-u.s.-police-training-use-deadly-force-woefully-inadequate/

The rest of your post is simply a rant, not worth responding to.