At a minimum, watch 100 videos. I did last night, only took about an hour, it's easy to find some to nitpick, some which are ambiguous ... and plenty that are totally horrifying.
If you can watch 100 videos in a row from Greg Doucette's list and say, "the militarization and use of force tactics of US law enforcement are not a problem" then I'd like to hear why you think so given this evidence.
Otherwise you're not speaking from an honest grappling with what these videos contain.
There are way too many cases where a cop provokes a confrontation, often by stopping to allow someone else nearby to run into them, and every other cop in the group responds by beating anyone nearby and shoving back anyone with a camera.
You don’t get coordinated responses like that without planning and practice.
This is absolutely true, but the problem goes much deeper than just the police force itself. We seem to want to solve every imaginable social problem with police/courts/prisons. Drug abuse needs to be viewed as a public health problem, not a criminal problem. Homelessness as a housing and mental health problem, not a criminal one. Many other issues as economic problems not criminal ones. Address the root cause, rather than sending people with badges and guns. I realize this is easier said than done, but it's clear the old approach is no longer acceptable to society.
"Address the root cause", exactly, and the root cause is the unjust laws. Though cops pretty much never being found guilty for unjust use of violence is a big one too, and I wonder what law changes can solve that issue.
There are crimes that put people at risk but don't always create a victim. Do we allow for crimes that have a risk of a victim even if there isn't a direct victim?
There are crimes where we say that someone is a victim despite their own feelings of being victimized or having suffered a crime. Do those stay as well?
We have crimes where there isn't someone physically hurt and not a direct theft, but there is a reduction in value of items. Do those crimes stay?
Take zoning laws. Is violating a zoning law victimless? If I open a foul smelling poultry factory in the middle of a downtown commercial zone, it could greatly negatively impact that commercial zone to the point where businesses would not be able to afford to stay open. But if that makes it a victim crime, then what about when homeless people living in that same area also drive away customers to the point it no longer functions as a commercial zone?
As for drugs, what happens when companies start selling direct to users? Antibiotics and opioids without needing a doctor's prescription. We already have seen the problems even when doctor prescriptions are required, imagine what happens if drugs are declared a victimless crime and no longer prosecuted.
I think the notion that some crimes are victimless is based on looking at specific incidents that don't have victims and not considering it at scale. Which is to say that the example by the other poster of drunk driving might be a much more fairer comparison than what people originally took it as, because while the relation between the risk and possible victim is easier to understand, the question is if such a relationship is consistently used to justify a victim, not if the relationship is easy to understand.
The most obvious answer seems to be to fine the offenders, but really, how do you fine a homeless person?
But I can easily imagine that out of 8 million people living in New York City, a certain number does not want to live at home and actually prefer staying outside.