The “defund" people mostly don’t tend to deny that the “abolish” camp exists, they mostly just tend get upset when people mistake (honestly, or even moreso when it is clearly for rhetorical convenience) them for us. Both camps recognize that, in terms of persuasion, the “abolish” camp has a harder task.

My experience (which can also be seen here in this thread) is usually that someone will come out vocally opposing the idea that "defund" and "abolish" mean what they say. The person doing this doesn't really seem to hold either one of these beliefs to the extent that they actually want specific actions or could break down what it means, but they vaguely defend parts of it and brush off other parts (like 'actually abolish') as not real and only held by extremists.

This is frustrating because one gets into a debate where the other side doesn't really hold a set of beliefs and it ends up being an inaccurate discussion of what the movement wants instead of about what should actually be done.

Which leads to my conclusion that the vast majority of people don't really have any specific thoughts on what they want to happen but a vague attachment to a slogan and a dubious explanation of what the people with actual ideas want. This is why I appreciate your viewpoint in that you actually have one and haven't steered into pointless quibbling about who wants what or if ideas even exist in a movement.

A followup question for you which might help me understand what you really want to happen:

I was the target of a road rage attack this week. A broken window and minor damage and inconvenience to myself in the process. From the law enforcement environment (or whatever you choose to call it) you would find ideal, what does the response look like?