That is your opinion, and while I agree with it, police exist to enforce laws (with discretion), not to promote or otherwise engage in discussions regarding civil liberties.
I think he did an excellent job making his points without taking sides.
If that's not reasonably interpreted as a right to (peaceful) protest, I don't know what to say.
Is it OK for your neighborhood to protest by sitting in your house? What about in supermarket checkout aisles? or on the interstate?
These are just random examples, but in all these cases, they are breaking laws.
I think it was smart of him to discuss general discretion rather than civil liberties.
We the People further reserve the right to struggle for life, freedom, and happiness should any subset of the people get funny ideas that they are 'above the law'.
The essence of that document is a rejection of any notion of stratified rights and obligations, and the uniformity of the application of the law.
The OP is about the POLICE. It does not appear that the POLICE are subject to the same laws as the rest of us, Citizen.
Fixed that for you.
I mean what about the simple text of the Sixth Amendment: "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
The $20 Dollar limit is complete arbitrary and doesn't even make sense in today's era. Really this is an artificial boundary. Rules set in place by men to govern men. Rights with boundaries.
Open your self to challenge your own thoughts and opinions. These are not areas of black and white but of shades of Red, White, and Blue so complex that good, thoughtful men can and will come to reasonable but differing conclusions.
I propose you test this claim by one of the methods the grandparent suggested. The protest-by-occupying-a-random-person's-house idea seems like a good one to pick.