You are flirting with anarchism there. Here's the problem. If the police, the government, are made weak, it creates a vacuum that will be filled by, for example, criminals, gangs.
Look at countries where criminal elements dominate - sometimes the police just don't help people against powerful criminals, sometimes they actually work for the criminals.
Your concern is why we're supposed to be 'vigilant' about protecting democracy, so that the forces we entrust serve the public interest; that's why it's such a problem when the idea of democratic government, our leaders, our military, our police, can get 'corrupted' from serving the public interest - why there is such an opposition to things like a radical court doctrine becoming our law giving the constitutional rights for citizens to the most powerful corporations and wealthy class to buy our government.
And that's not going terribly well now in areas such as our leaders' oversight of the finance industry - though police in the US are generally pretty good, corruption is more of an exception - even if there have been pockets where hundreds of officers have been found to be acting wrongly, it's still rare.
Take a look at mafia dominance in our country in the 1950's, take a look at the power of some gangs in the country today - that's what happens if you just give up on having a good democracy with the force to defeat public enemies. Just giving in to paranoia isn't a good solution. Though blind support for corrupt government power isn't, either.
A basic difference between liberals and conservatives largely seems to be, though, that liberals understand that democracy is the citizens' shield against too much power among a few wealthy and powerful people and interests causing tyranny, while the 'conservative' often has no concern about 'private tyranny' and cares only about the government as a 'threat'.
Ironically, that's what leads to alliances between government and those powerful interests against the public, whether it takes the form of fascism or plutocracy - where the purpose of government is to protect the wealthy interests and keep the people serving them, with the use of force, often torture and murder against citizens trying to fight for more justice, rather than being a democracy to serve the public interest. 'Government' is a bad word in those cases, as we've seen in dictatorships.
It was also the case when colonization was common, but that's mostly gone now.
Anyway, what we need is not to weaken government too much, but to protect democracy so that it serves citizens.
And that means citizens need to do things like not support demagogues who promise them benefits by exploiting others. That's a reason 'universal equality of rights' is important.
You often find tyrants' rise to power came by supporting one group exploiting another. Remember Hitler's promises of benefits over groups such as gays and Jews and the handicapped and leftists, and other nations - even as he was secretly contemtuous of nearly all Germans; look at how Saddam gave minority Sunnis large benefits over majority Shia; look at how in pre-Chavez Venezuela and other countries minority groups - often light-skinned - exploited majorities, often dark-skinned, and many other cases.
Even in our own past, some political leaders have based their campaigns on promises to whites to continue discrimination against blacks, sometimes getting them elected, though they haven't been able to be tyrants; but note that some of our most pro-corporate politicians have gotten the edge to win elections in our recent past by using promises to continue denying equality to gays to get votes. Then they appoint judgets, and now we have the law saying the people have less and less power over corporations.
Don't just 'oppose power for the police', but don't let them get corrupted.
Facebook
Twitter