If you disband and replace the police with different services, one of the services will be armed and capable of responding to violence with greater and more organized violence, which will be a recursive creation of "the police". You're not arguing for the removal of "the police" from society, you're arguing for reform.
I'm in favor of whatever course of action leads to a satisfying result. If reform were the ticket, that'd be fine. It happens to be the case that it isn't.
What I'm saying is that our conception of what the police is, what they do, and what they are for is wrong. This organization needs to be abolished; it's purpose is to inflict violence, in all manner of places, for any infraction the officer cares to enforce (while ignoring those they don't care to). A police force does not create safety or justice. It creates danger for those at the fringes of society, fails to stop bad actors (and often exacerbates the factors that lead to such bad actors), and creates innumerable injustices.
In replacing it, we'll have to address the thorny question of how to intervene in violent situations. It's true that we will need to organize something to address this. You're saying this will necessarily be a recapitulation of a police force; that's certainly a danger, but not a necessity.
A police force is a standing army which has broad authority over the populace. I am proposing we can change those parameters; they may not need to be standing, their authority and mandate can be very narrow.
