You have to consider the stochastic nature of crime and policing. The size of the population, the size of the force, behaviour altered by substance abuse, the p

You have to consider the stochastic nature of crime and policing. The size of the population, the size of the force, behaviour altered by substance abuse, the prevalence of deadly weapons, the mental toll of dealing with criminals every day, the presence of organised crime, the antagonism, the heat of the moment, the type of personality needed to want to do the job: of course you are going to end up with some bad encounters. That is the price of having police. The price of not having police is the constant and imminent danger and cost of crime. We all have to avoid certain parts of our cities. Women can’t walk safely at night even in the “safe” parts. Children can’t be left unattended. Public goods are ruined by vandalism. The stabilising effect of family households is lost as many flee to safer locations. Property values languish. Nobody can invest in the area, lenders and insurers aren’t interested. Innocent people are brutalised and they can’t rely on the police to protect them. Violent criminals operate with impunity. These aren’t isolated incidents, this is a trend of misery. And this will be the legacy of many of these BLM protests/riots. More misery heaped on the poorest communities. That’s why I say that many people seem to have no real idea about the trade-off.