The unpredictable nature of policing makes it difficult for me to accept sending somebody who might be mentally prepared but not physically prepared and equipped for any number of possible outcomes into situations they have no control over. As a member of society, it's my responsibility to ensure the people I employ to do the dirty work dealing with some of our most unfavorable situations humanity puts forth, are safe.
You say, "Usually calls say what they're calling about." Someone hears yelling and screaming in the distance and wants the police to go check it out. Who do you send? And if they're no longer treated equally, is the dispatcher then to blame if they make the wrong decision? Is the member of society responsible for that social worker's demise?
Even conservation officers in Canada go to work packing heat. Just because that old man boating without a license and catching fish with illegal equipment seems harmless, that doesn't mean he won't want to shove a fishing rod up your ass then dump your body in a lake for attempting to give him a fine he feels he can't afford.
On a side note, technically, creating a new branch of policing meant for specific scenarios then employing thousands of people to fill those roles; that costs a lot of money, but it's still policing. Therefore nothing is being defunded. It's simply labelling some forms of policing something else, yet the money is still spent. Most likely that total amount would increase substantially after a shake up like reinventing policing. A uniform is just superficial nonsense and means very little on paper.
Awhile back I left a few thoughts on things related here:
@nonameslefttouse/soup-of-the-day
But even though it may seem like I don't agree or can't find reasons to agree, I feel the conversation is an important one. Also, that conversation isn't taking place in society, generally speaking. Far too politically charged and when that happens, it becomes a pointless clash of clouded judgement.
RE: How Power Determines Real Life Villains