"Armed robberies would probably require an armed response" You're the one who challenged us to think about how to enforce laws "without a militarized force".

"Armed robberies would probably require an armed response" You're the one who challenged us to think about how to enforce laws "without a militarized force". And now you're saying we'll need armed response. Which is it? This is why people who advocate getting "rid of the police" (your words) sound like they're talking out both sides of their mouth. "Get rid of police!" "No, I didn't mean to get rid of police entirely. Why would you think that?" It's not a good look. People who talk like this are self-sabotaging their side of the argument by using intentionally double-speak language. This will never go through so long as people continue to use phrases like "get rid of the police".