The US seems to have a fairly adversarial, legislative rules-based relationship between policing and people's rights to justice, if that makes any sense. This i

The US seems to have a fairly adversarial, legislative rules-based relationship between policing and people's rights to justice, if that makes any sense. This is just speaking as a layman observing from outside. (Contrast with other countries. There are many places which achieve even less control of their police, or the police serve corrupt interests, but there are also countries which seem to have more public consent and less excessive force). So, the USA - the bill of rights, search warrants, Miranda rights. It's not exactly policing by consent, it's more like an understanding that the police will go to any lengths they feel necessary, so there need to be hard rules that completely invalidate the case against someone if breached. I guess the same model can continue to be refined through the democratic process. Technology can play a part. One can imagine future laws that impose strict rules about body cams (e.g. that absence of a recording implies innocence, or that 'lost' footage carries a presumption of guilt in police brutality allegations). Ubiquitous surveillance, not to say it's a good thing, but if it's happening anyway, it should be useful in preventing excessive force by police too. Laws could be passed specifically enabling (and preventing treatment as a crime) various technological forms of monitoring of law enforcement by the public. > What do you smart (non-cynical) internet people think? I don't know how one would start to rip up American policing and produce a kindly institution that was accepted universally by the community. No-one can be that non-cynical. But I guess I'm non-cynical in thinking that there's still some mileage in democracy and the rule of law, and progress might still be made via the normal channels. Of which, by the way, protesting is a part.