You are correct that these policies are all subject to debate and compromise, but I think "demands" is the perfect way to frame these things. The small picture

You are correct that these policies are all subject to debate and compromise, but I think "demands" is the perfect way to frame these things. The small picture of these protests is that an unarmed black man died while handcuffed, on his stomach, pleading for his life, with a police officer's knee to the back of his neck. The bigger picture is that systemic racism has been an ongoing issue for decades (but since the country's founding, actually). Oregon itself has quite the history with systemic racism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Oregon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Oregon So the frustration isn't necessarily that policies are subject to debate or that compromises have to be made; the frustration lies in elected officials that help maintain a level of systemic racism via inaction and non-enforcement. Hence, the particularly aggressive use of "demands" which is also framed around ongoing protests in Portland and elsewhere. This, I think, is far more clear in the use of the phrase "defund the police." A lot of people have issue with this phrase because they think it means entirely eliminating the police force. And yes, some percentage of those who say "defund the police" do mean completely eliminating the police force, but the majority actually mean "divert significant funding from the police department to social programs and health workers." However, there are two issues with that; 1, it's not very succint. 2, it does not adequately express the frustration people have with police.