1. Your speculations are irrelevant. Mr. McClain’s death shows that even the most innocent black person can be killed by police recording it on body cams, and the system still lets them off. And even if we accept that body cams reduce force, there is no acceptable level of u justified force.
Even the most innocent person can be subject to violent crime by anyone (cop or not), and that alone is unacceptable too. Yet we accept as a reality this happens and that it's unlikely there will be no violent crime ever again regardless of whatever policy is implemented. At best, one can expect to reduce the general violent crime victimization rates. The same applies for people specifically subject to unjustified violence by the police - and this is no reason to simply say the policy isn't useful. That's exactly what a Nirvana Fallacy is.
Pants-of-dog wrote:2. You can split hairs as much as you want. Facts are that policing and laws were already started at least a century before abolition came to the northern states.
Yet it is true that such policing had little to do with modern one at both the institutional and practical levels. What you are saying is that we should somehow deem picking a gun and patrolling your own neighborhoods to be comparable to an actual policeman in terms of commitments, training and so on, which is of course nonsense.
Pants-of-dog wrote:3. I never made a claim about a funeral. Yes, it is a distinct possibility that the cops are corrupt. What are the chances of the cops investigating where the money came from?
You did mention the money for the Floyd family was raised for his funeral. As for the cops, it would be as simple as filing a suit if you think there is wrongdoing. I'm also not sure about what this has to do with democratic control over DAs.