Whenever discussing police abolition with people outside of radical circles, the dynamic is almost always the same: the default position is that its existence is default-good and its abolition is the case that needs to be 'proven', and it boils down to "the other person feels unsafe about a world without police".

Which, like, sure. But isn't it a little weird that I feel unsafe about a world *with* police, and somehow that's considered the weird position to take? That for some reason, that's seen as a position that needs defending, rather than it being taken on face value?

Why is "I feel unsafe about a world without police" somehow considered a more valid or reasonable position than "I feel unsafe about a world *with* police"? Even though, being the status quo, the former is much less likely to be a careful and well-supported conclusion?