This is something I put together quickly for the benefit of conservative family and friends on FB; I venture to share it here in the hope that, despite my lack of expertise and the distinct possibility of unintentional errors herein, some might find it of use.
Some people (mostly conservatives) are up in arms (pardon the pun) at the thought of defunding police forces. As a longtime student of history I have a few thoughts on that.
The first modern police department was founded in London in 1829; for many decades prior to that there had been local (neighborhood) watches and constables, but they were often disabled or elderly men who were made watchmen or constables partly so they did not starve (as there was no public provision for seniors, the poor, or the disabled until the 20th century, except, oddly enough, in the German Empire after 1883).
As can easily be imagined, this was a wildly inefficient method of law enforcement for a rapidly growing metropolis, but despite what would seem to be such an obvious need there was massive resistance from the public, due to the ancient British aversion to standing armies—an aversion shared by our own ancestors in Colonial America and the early United States, as clearly expressed by James Madison and others. So Sir Robert Peel, the cabinet official (and later Prime Minister) who created London's Metropolitan Police was *very* careful not to disrespect tradition and public opinion: he gave "bobbies" (nicknamed for him) blue uniforms rather than the red coats worn by the British Army, and they were at first armed only with truncheons (batons) and noisemaking rattles (to raise an alarm and summon help).
Over time the force was gradually supplied with firearms, but were instructed to use them only in extraordinary circimstances, and as a matter of fact the first time a London policeman fired his gun while on duty was over 50 years later, in the 1880s—and that was not during a violent confrontation, but to alert residents that their house was on fire.
The whole raison d'être of the London Metropolitan Police was based upon "policing by consent" by civilians in uniform rather than by the military; part of a code of ethics known as "Peelian principles," the first of which was "To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment."
This, it seems to me, is EXACTLY what today's protesters are seeking, and by rights it ought to resonate with everyone, but in particular with honest, principled conservatives, who should embrace this traditional approach: a sort of "limited government" of law enforcement. Alas, today's "conservatives," despite their constant bleating about "liberty, not tyranny," are themselves authoritarian and indeed more than a few of them are proto- if not outright fascists; but if we the public are vocal enough we can induce our governments at every level to better honor—with appropriate (minimal) adjustments for present-day needs and conditions—the long and worthy tradition of civilian, "Peelian" policing that has been a hallmark of Anglo-American democracy for centuries, and to undo the "radical" (unconservative!), unAmerican militarization of our law enforcement agencies.