Okay okay, but clever bites aside, here's the problem: You hit the core issue on the head with that one sentence and are still not addressing it.
A. Yes, this is basically a police state now.
B. Yes, the police exist to enforce the will of the local power.
What you're not getting is that A is a real problem, and B is only half of a picture. In truth, the purpose of the police force is to be the least civilly disruptive (e.g. the least oppressive) enforcement of local power. Their absence doesn't solve A at fucking all, it just forces the local power to move on to the next enforcement arm. And it's pure fantasy to think they'll run out of those any time soon: if it's not the police or the military, then it's mercenaries, criminals or even fucking terrorists. There's a point where appeals to reason stop working, because if there weren't a lot of people willing to beat or kill for money then there wouldn't be people paying them to do so in the first place.
As long as A exists, people will get beaten, B or no B.
So yes, if you're not going to address the fact that, you know, someone besides the police is responsible for the actions of the police*, then the only conversation we can have is who you want to be carrying the big stick. As is, those of us who fucking care about something bigger than those mean people in cars are seeing that stick getting less blunt, and that's progress.
* To a certain point; the police have their hands tied re: clearing the place out but can certainly choose not to attack people, which is what they chose last night.