There are 2 possibilities here: 1) The police have no real criminals to arrest but need to do something to justify their existence. So they're harassing people

There are 2 possibilities here: 1) The police have no real criminals to arrest but need to do something to justify their existence. So they're harassing people over things that not only aren't crimes but are examples of good parenting that teaches kids to be independent. In this case, "defund the police" would genuinely be justified as they're clearly overfunded. 2) The police are refusing to do their job and arrest real criminals. Instead, they are harassing people over things that aren't crimes because those things are "unsafe" due to the refusal of police to do their job. In this case, the police need to be reformed so that they do what they're supposed to do. Either way, the police should stick to arresting murderers, rapists and thieves to protect the fundamental freedom of decent people who respect the rights of others to use a public street whenever they want without fear of becoming a victim of violent criminals or of the police. Since this is literally why the government exists according to social contract theory (which the US was founded upon), the refusal of the government's police to do their job or the choice of the government's police to oppress others out of boredom is a breach of the social contract that makes said government illegitimate and no better morally than a street gang or mafia. Even if the laws are vague, enforcing a vague law in a way that is clearly evil and oppressive is unacceptable because the core principle of the American legal system is that our fundamental rights are the supreme law and supersede any laws that infringe upon them. The right to walk on a public street is clearly protected by the 9th Amendment as it is so obviously a basic right that there was no need for the 1st Congress to enumerate it. Thus infringing on such a right in the name of "safety" is flagrantly unconstitutional.