[flagged]
I'll start: qualified immunity. Make police carry malpractice insurance. No more civil forfeiture. No military surplus.
It's a negotiation. I start at one extreme (defund), you start at another (status quo). We meet in the middle.
You're completely correct, and it's a topic that the US urgently needs to have a serious, non-inflammatory discussion about. And that's why when you start off with shouting slogans:
> ACAB. Defund the police.
you get a response which is not one of the "perfectly germane ways forward with a discussion." Because the way you began things doesn't sound like you want a discussion. Maybe lead off with something that still gets at your point in a more productive way, e.g.:
> "To what degree should we defund the police? And how else might we limit their power?"
Do you have anything of substance to add?
Do you?
This part is a bad idea, imo. If malpractice insurance is required and (presumably) privatized then we've handed a great deal of control over the monopoly on violence to private enterprise. Imagine the power $yourLeastFavoriteBillionaire would have if they decided to start buying up insurance firms that offer malpractice. VP got a DUI? The officer will forget all about it unless they want to lose coverage and be fired.
I'm not against levying financial penalties, but I think privatized insurance is the wrong way to go at it.
To your point: sure, I would posit that the police officers who stopped the Nashville shooter would not qualify as bastards based on their publicly available work.