I keep seeing this misconception.
People seem to imagine a stateless society as growing vegetables, raising children, maybe putting up wood-and-mud buildings as a community. But their imagination doesn't stretch to violent defense and enforcement.
Oh shit what'll we do if there's a serial killer or rapist within our community? Surely our model will fall apart then!
The problem with this is that there's no evidence for it. Stateless societies have always organised force, just as they've organised education. Take the two contemporary examples: the Zapatista autonomous region and Rojava. They both are pretty heavily armed and enforce their social norms with community councils.
Pre-state societies had ways of dealing with destructive behavior. Neighbours (not a specialised class of police) brought the person acting harmfully to a community council where they were judged perhaps by a jury or perhaps by elders, and given a chance to atone for their crime and restore good standing. There was no concept of a criminal record; once the tort is set right, that is that.
You see variations on this model in Somalian Xeer, Norse Udal law, Irish Brehon law, Indian ācāra, Haudenosaunee law, etc.
Free people still have muscle, and still despise murderers, that's not an innovation of the state.