What do you mean the outrage "hasn't helped"? The public outrage against the police is precisely because they've given up on fighting crime, especially crime in their own ranks. The answer isn't a simplistic "more police" or "less police", it's "better policing" where the police actually do the hard parts of their job instead of overzealously focusing on the easier bits.

No, the outrage was over a few events

> The real problem is that police have given up on fighting crime.

The real problem is that the police never were about fighting crime for the masses. The police were always about fighting crime for the rich.

This occasionally resulted in fighting crime for the masses but also occasionally resulted in oppressing the masses themselves.

> The real problem is that the police never were about fighting crime for the masses. The police were always about fighting crime for the rich.

The police intervening in a domestic violence situation is not beneficial to the rich.

"This occasionally resulted in fighting crime for the masses"

> The police were always about fighting crime for the rich.

If you are inside a Starbucks, ordering latte’s and working on an expensive laptop, you are rich.

No you're not. A fairy high proportion of the poplulation can afford the small luxury of $10 to take a company laptop to a coffeeshop and buy an overpriced drink. When we're talking about who the police are fighting crime for, rich is the 1-2%.

The people the parent poster is talking about is more the "donates at least tens of thousands of dollars to local politicians' re-election funds every election" rich, not "can afford fancy coffee regularly" rich...