I don't know anyone at all who thinks cities shouldn't have police departments, or that crime control is a trivial concern. But virtually all liberals are prepared to see that while many police officers are brave and dedicated public servants, many police departments also have problems of various kinds with corruption and mistreatment of suspects. It's not, I think, "cop bashing" to suggest that a minority of police officers are substantially worse than average or that cities would be better off getting rid of those cops.What's more, it's also obviously true that crime and crime control are complicated sociological phenomena driven by many forces that have nothing in particular to do with police officers or the internal procedures of police departments. But at the same time, if I were to observe that the leading sociological correlate of getting beaten up by the cops is being a low-income minority male I don't think any liberal would conclude that the real problem here is poverty rather than police abuse. Rather, the problem is that when important public agencies underperform low-income people tend to be disproportionately victimized.
This is obviously a complicated subject. But my experience is that a lot of people on the left, rather than arguing the merits of the issue, seem to take it as self-evidently un-progressive to try to improve the performance of a public agency in part by doing things that the people who work at the agency don't like.
If life is a series of infinite possibilities, what does it mean to be alive?