Not exactly the proudest moment, but with public support it works.
Source: my Texas history class. Wikipedia is totally silent and most other sources seem sketchy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre
That power has been taken away from the army in the UK. It now lies with the police, who, er, well at least they don't have swords:
https://www.legendsofamerica.com/sanfrancisco-vigilantes/
The federal courts eventually upheld the vigilance committee’s actions.
I struggle to understand this. Isn't this what an election does? One administration controls the military, then another one does. So... the US, every 4 years?
I feel like this comment romanticize "power" in a common (yet, to me, very odd) way. We take power away from police officers all the time: "desk duty". As a group, we give power to the national guard ("mobilize") and take it away ("demobilize") all the time. I understand that police have a lot of political will behind them, but why is this problem all of a sudden a fundamental dynamic of power rather than a policy choice we as society continue to make?
And in case you are wondering, it made most of the country into chaos because while most of the citizens are going their way there are people who will seek trouble.
There must, certainly, be a middle ground. But government do enjoy a strong police force that they can use at will.
Sure. Most countries didn’t have an independent police complaints body a century ago. Now most (developed) do. And many countries require body cams these days, of course.
Specifically as to the military: My country's military went from worst-of-history to has-50-helicopters-but-none-that-fly in two big steps: First losing a hot war, then winning a cold one.
Plenty of countries have drastically reduced military spending after the Cold War ended. European police has also mostly avoided US-style militarisation. The UK Police used to hang petty criminals every second Tuesday. Nowadays, they don't even carry guns anymore.