If Not Defunding, Define Policing

On both sides of the Atlantic, policing is in crisis. Or, in the case in Memphis, it is 'business as usual' where a Black man is confronted by angry policemen, and in the case of Tyre Nichols beaten so badly he later dies in hospital.

The case raises obvious questions:
-why was he stopped? Reckless driving, the original cause, cannot be proven from existing CCTV.
-why, when stopped, was he subjected to such abusive language and physical violence?
-why did he run for it when he could, and did this seal his fate?

Most important: why is policing in so many US cities confrontational, encouraging angry citizens to protest, thereby increasing the aggressive response by law enforcement?

In the UK, there is a crisis created by police officers with a history of rape and violence against women either not being properly vetted, or getting through vetting procedures even when there are 'red flags' against their name.

Is this a crisis of policing in general, a crisis of management, of training, created by a culture of confrontation rather than co-operation -and what is policing for, if the result is rape and murder by the police themselves?

As the Police Commissioner for Bedfordshire put it

"... when we don't have confidence in policing and trust in policing, we do not have policing."
Policing in crisis after Met rapist, says Bedfordshire's police commissioner - BBC News

Met Police chief faces crisis over serial rapist officer (telegraph.co.uk)

US
Death of Tyre Nichols - Wikipedia

The underlying problem is that policing attracts a percentage of people who like the idea of being able to use their position to exert control over others. Such people are enabled by a deeply-embedded culture of police protecting other police.

Police in the US seem to view black America as some kind of enemy territory where every inhabitant is a potential threat, just like in Iraq or Afghanistan. Their training emphasises that these interactions are always potentially dangerous, and that they need to respond forcefully without hesitation to any hint of trouble. The mentality seems to be that dominance must be established at all costs.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...memphis-police

I suspect the reason nothing ever changes is that most Americans accept this approach because they believe it will make them safer. It's only when police blatantly go too far that they feel any qualms, and even then they will sometimes rationalize it (eg the Rodney King verdict).

Maybe there is a division between Confrontational Policing, and Community Policing, in the latter case said to be the positive outcomes in Boston. Or it is at another level, where in Boston it has been said=

“One of the biggest — if not the biggest — hindrances to fully adopting aspects of community policing, is the police subculture,” said Kochel. “'We’re the heroes, we’re the white knights, we’re going to protect you and save you, and . . . being macho and in control of the situation’ — all of that goes counter to a lot of the ideas behind community policing.”
Despite praise, ‘community policing’ in Boston does not work for everyone, experts say - The Boston Globe

And in a city where 70% of the police stops were of Black people-
Black People Made Up 70 Percent Of Boston Police Stops, Department Data Show (wgbh.org)

But in a country where men and women are seen with guns on tv most of the day as if it were no different from a tie or a handbag, and where killing people is often seen as the solution to the problem, cops killing Black men in cars is to be expected as part of the 'kill or be killed' culture. And if he really was just driving home without a weapon, I guess that is 'tough shit'.

But when the guy runs for it when he can, he is not evading arrest, he is running for his life, and isn't that the moment policing has failed?