Arrest Amazon suits. If not then they should quit and join the strikers,
The fact that you have trouble imagining police NOT being bastards should invoke a realisation that it’s not good for us to be at the mercy of mercenary cop bastards in the first place.
Arrest Amazon suits for what crime? Just the vibe? I’m sure you can imagine how that might not work out how you plan.
Its true that citizens should not be “at the mercy” of police. The US does seem to be a bit fucked in that way. The solution to that, or at least the first step in the right direction, would be higher entry requirements, better training, and actual consequences for misconduct.
vibe based arrests of people you don’t like is not going to solve your police problem.
They should arrest the Amazon execs for regularly and brazenly violating labor laws… the fact that they don’t already is why a lot of us hate cops so much.l
Wage theft? Environmental damages? Privacy violations? Inhumane working conditions? Bribery and coercion? H&S violation? Insider trading?. Like there is so much they do illegally but they get away with it because they are the ruling class. People have been killed by cops for alledgedly spending a fake 20. The ruling class steal billions, and nothing happens to them.
To not be there, they’d have to make a choice about which altercations they ought to attend. Does that really sound like a good idea? If there’s a protest with a risk to person or property it seems sensible for a police force to attend to mitigate that risk.
There’s a lot of criticisms to be made of any police force, and it’s absolutely proper and right to do so in a democracy (even if that’s not how things roll on .ml), but expecting them not to attend a protest just because your opinions align with the protesters is pretty daft.
So you don’t want the police to protect homeless people, for example?
I get your witty snarky lemmy-ism, but obviously in practice police can’t conduct an assessment of who ought to be protected. They need to just protect everyone. In this case there’s no threat against the “tax-payers” if you will.
So you don’t want the police to protect homeless people, for example?
What we might want and what actually happens are different things. In philosophical terms it’s the difference between the normative and the descriptive.
Example: for the several years I was unhoused police harassed me regularly (despite being careful of to break no laws or inconvenience any Normals) and offered help exactly zero times. Admitted it’s anecdotal but I don’t think it’s an outlier case.
What we might want and what actually happens are different things.
Yes, but we’re sat here commenting on a picture of police protecting corporate property during a protest, so we are dealing exclusively with “what we might want”
Everyone piling on complaining that police shouldn’t be doing that, but no one has any idea what a competent and well trained police force would be doing instead.
I apologize in advance for the long reply. In my defense A) I am retired; and B) I had two cups of coffee this morning.
TL;DR: I don’t know for sure what’s happening in the picture. I do know that police forces are agents of the State. I will suggest below that police forces are not structured for (and have no significant interest in) protecting or serving the public.
Yes, but we’re sat here commenting on a picture of police protecting corporate property during a protest, so we are dealing exclusively with “what we might want”
Seems to me that the picture is of “what actually happens”. Or happened at that moment.
Everyone piling on complaining that police shouldn’t be doing that,
I didn’t say anything about what the police in the pic were doing.
no one has any idea what a competent and well trained police force would be doing instead.
what a competent and well trained NYPD would be doing instead:
the NYPD’s official mottto is Faithful Unto Death. Doesn’t shed much light on what they should be doing.
the NYPD Street Crime unit’s motto was We Own The Night . That seems a little sketchy to me. Like a statement of power rather than an indication of what they should be doing.
the NYPD’s old cruiser slogan was Courtesy, Professionalism, Respect . Indicates how they aspired to behave but not what they should have been doing.
the NYPD’s new slogan cruiser slogan is Fighting Crime, Protecting The Public . Now we have something to work with, a clear statement of what they think they should be doing.
So. Are the officers in the pic fighting crime and/or protecting the public? It’s not clear to me that they are but I’m willing to listen to other interpretations.
what a competent and well trained police force would be doing instead:
Normatively, I might say
intervening in criminal behavior they observe
responding to reports of active criminal behavior
investigating reports of past criminal behavior they did not witness
first response (along with firefighters and EMTs) to emergency situations
Descriptively,
catching slaves and returning them to their owners, historically speaking. Radley Balko does a good job laying this out.
uttering the magic words like “I suspect this was involved in a crime” and seizing [cars, houses, cash, whatever]. Bonus points for using seized assets to buy frozen margarita machines.
manipulating suspects (Reid technique) and lying to them (Frazier v. Cupp). It’s illegal for suspects to lie, though. Laws for thee but not for me.
Basically citizens are forced to pay for a police force under penalty of fine or imprisonment, but the police don’t have to do anything for the citizen. And the police can steal the citizen’s stuff with effective impunity. Don’t get me started on Q.A. or the incestuous relationships PDs have with DAs (the latter having absolute rather than just qualified immunity).
Yes we do know exactly how a competent police force would act. They would arrest the capitalists who run Amazon and enforce the legal rights of the workers who are being exploited. I won’t hold my breath.
That’s a generalisation which isn’t true. I’m certain there are innumerable crimes against homeless people which have been prosecuted. What a silly thing to say.
Well, an immediate thought that comes to mind is any action related to mental health. We need a separate group that responds to 911 calls regarding mental health incidents, that are not cops.
I would stop, and completely walk back, the obscene militarization of US police forces that has been happening over the last 30+ years. No they don’t need military surplus shit built for warzones in the middle east.
And I would consider not allowing them to carry firearms (at least not at all times, or maybe needing remote permission to unlock).(I can’t wait for people to glom directly onto this one and ignore everything else I’ve said 🙄)
I would make covering or turning off a body cam at any time for any reason a criminal (and fire-able) offense.
I would remove qualified immunity.
I’d make it so police need to purchase their own malpractice insurance like doctors so taxpayers aren’t the ones paying out millions when they kill people they shouldn’t.
That was all off the top of my head. I could probably think about it more and keep going
Edit: the problem really is fundamental. Police exist, and have always existed, to protect capital. Not people (see original photo for prime example).
I’m honestly not sure if it’s even possible to remove or change that unifying purpose, and instead shift it to serving people. Especially not with the douchebags we currently have our precincts staffed with.
We need an entirely new type of civil servant for that, I’m afraid.
the problem really is fundamental. Police exist, and have always existed, to protect capital.
This, in my experience (exclusively outside the US), is just plain wrong. If I enumerate my interactions with police over the years the vast majority is personal well being, not corporate property or capital.
They showed up to my neighbours house a few times over domestic violence complaints. Actually she got a restraining order against him, then a few weeks later was threatening suicide, and the police picked him up and took him to see her. They got back together after that (for better or worse, but they do have kids and seem happy enough).
Another neighbour had a psychotic break and appeared in my back yard one morning. The po-po showed up and managed the situation in a humane and sympathetic manner. Actually years later he was prosecuted for possession of CSAM.
I had some expensive trainers (shoes) that were stolen from my front door. I got the perps on camera and the police showed up to see. The thief was known to them and the video allowed them to get a warrant for a search. They didn’t get my shoes but they got a bunch of other stuff. I suppose you could call this “protection of capital” but I don’t think anyone really thinks of their shoes and other personal effects as capital.
I regularly see the police on the road. Conducting breath tests to check no one is driving drunk. When there’s an accident they show up to manage traffic and so on.
My kids (3yo twins) have weekly gymnastics lessons at a local Police and Community Youth Centre. There’s always a couple of coppers hanging around. That centre has dance, music, boxing, et cetera. It’s not funded by the police but a lot of events and programs are conducted with police participation.
In contrast I called them about an annoying alarm that was going off in a nearby bus-depot all weekend. They were decidedly disinterested in whatever was going on. They looked around and said that there was no sign of an imminent threat or ongoing crime so they weren’t going to enter the property. Not much protection of capital going on there.
The assertion that police exist [only to] to protect capital just doesn’t align with my observed experience. Sure, police in the US might be more concerned with shooting people, not getting shot, and protecting capital, but that’s an American problem rather than a police problem.
Congrats, the copaganda has worked on you. No matter where you live on earth; the police orgs we have today descend from slave catching institutions in the USA and it shows.
Well it kind of depends on where you live and what language you’re speaking as to whether or not we’re referring to the same group (or if your country even has a proper analog).
For example, France has both the police and the gendarme, the latter of which (to my understanding) is more militarized, allowing the former to often be much better liaisons to the public in situations that might not require force.
They also didn’t completely abandon all spirit of comradarie as a nation after their revolution.
Police in the US help landlords forcibly evict tenants. It’s literally one of the job responsibilities.
I don’t get it, honestly.
What would you like the police to do in this situation?
Arrest Amazon suits. If not then they should quit and join the strikers,
The fact that you have trouble imagining police NOT being bastards should invoke a realisation that it’s not good for us to be at the mercy of mercenary cop bastards in the first place.
Arrest Amazon suits for what crime? Just the vibe? I’m sure you can imagine how that might not work out how you plan.
Its true that citizens should not be “at the mercy” of police. The US does seem to be a bit fucked in that way. The solution to that, or at least the first step in the right direction, would be higher entry requirements, better training, and actual consequences for misconduct.
vibe based arrests of people you don’t like is not going to solve your police problem.
They should arrest the Amazon execs for regularly and brazenly violating labor laws… the fact that they don’t already is why a lot of us hate cops so much.l
Wage theft? Environmental damages? Privacy violations? Inhumane working conditions? Bribery and coercion? H&S violation? Insider trading?. Like there is so much they do illegally but they get away with it because they are the ruling class. People have been killed by cops for alledgedly spending a fake 20. The ruling class steal billions, and nothing happens to them.
Not be there. Or exist for that matter.
To not be there, they’d have to make a choice about which altercations they ought to attend. Does that really sound like a good idea? If there’s a protest with a risk to person or property it seems sensible for a police force to attend to mitigate that risk.
There’s a lot of criticisms to be made of any police force, and it’s absolutely proper and right to do so in a democracy (even if that’s not how things roll on .ml), but expecting them not to attend a protest just because your opinions align with the protesters is pretty daft.
Is that not what they already do?
Who are police mitigating risk for?
The parties who are at risk I guess.
Do these parties have names? Or do you plan to answer in another circle?
I’m not answering in a circle, I’m pointing out the absurdity of your question.
If you have a point then make it.
Childish boot licker
Hah. Pathetic.
I thought you actually had something to say but it seems you just parrot what everyone else says.
Protect tax payers instead of non tax payers
So you don’t want the police to protect homeless people, for example?
I get your witty snarky lemmy-ism, but obviously in practice police can’t conduct an assessment of who ought to be protected. They need to just protect everyone. In this case there’s no threat against the “tax-payers” if you will.
What we might want and what actually happens are different things. In philosophical terms it’s the difference between the normative and the descriptive.
Example: for the several years I was unhoused police harassed me regularly (despite being careful of to break no laws or inconvenience any Normals) and offered help exactly zero times. Admitted it’s anecdotal but I don’t think it’s an outlier case.
“To Serve and Protect [the status quo]”
Yes, but we’re sat here commenting on a picture of police protecting corporate property during a protest, so we are dealing exclusively with “what we might want”
Everyone piling on complaining that police shouldn’t be doing that, but no one has any idea what a competent and well trained police force would be doing instead.
I apologize in advance for the long reply. In my defense A) I am retired; and B) I had two cups of coffee this morning.
TL;DR: I don’t know for sure what’s happening in the picture. I do know that police forces are agents of the State. I will suggest below that police forces are not structured for (and have no significant interest in) protecting or serving the public.
Seems to me that the picture is of “what actually happens”. Or happened at that moment.
I didn’t say anything about what the police in the pic were doing.
what a competent and well trained NYPD would be doing instead:
So. Are the officers in the pic fighting crime and/or protecting the public? It’s not clear to me that they are but I’m willing to listen to other interpretations.
what a competent and well trained police force would be doing instead:
Normatively, I might say
Descriptively,
Basically citizens are forced to pay for a police force under penalty of fine or imprisonment, but the police don’t have to do anything for the citizen. And the police can steal the citizen’s stuff with effective impunity. Don’t get me started on Q.A. or the incestuous relationships PDs have with DAs (the latter having absolute rather than just qualified immunity).
Yes we do know exactly how a competent police force would act. They would arrest the capitalists who run Amazon and enforce the legal rights of the workers who are being exploited. I won’t hold my breath.
I don’t know what point you’re trying to make. Police already do not protect homeless people.
That’s a generalisation which isn’t true. I’m certain there are innumerable crimes against homeless people which have been prosecuted. What a silly thing to say.
You’re sure, but do you have evidence? Have you ever talked to a homeless person about this? Hell, have you ever talked to a cop about this?
Police beat unhoused people.
Police burtilise everyone.
Show me all the photographs of police brutalizing ceos. I’ll wait.
I don’t think they take photos of the burtilization of ceos.
I think they’re implying that Bezoes doesn’t pay taxes and they very well could be right
That’s the witty snarky lemmy-ism I’m referring to.
I get it. Obviously the guy should pay taxes. No one should be able to accumulate wealth in that way.
My point is, it’s daft to suggest the police should make an assessment about whom they ought to protect, without reference to the law.
Lol oh that was the “witty snarky lemmy-ism”, but not your reply pretending that you thought they meant homeless people?
My reply about homeless people was pointing out the unintended consequences of their daft “tax payers” assertion.
If that’s something you would describe as a witty or snarky response, that’s up to you I guess.
Oh fuck off, you know I’m right. You did the exact same thing you were criticizing.
Ok ?
I’m criticizing an idiot that said police shouldn’t protect people who don’t pay tax. Clearly a position they hadn’t really thought through.
… But they already do…
So you simultaneously do and do not what them to be selective in their policing?
They already are
They either are or are not selective in policing. Mutually exclusively options. They can’t be both and you can’t want both.
I get your point and agree
How about lose like 75% of their funding for a start?
Which police functions would you curtail?
All of them. Defund, disarm, disband. There is not a single situation wherein I would ever call the police because they are worse than useless.
Well, an immediate thought that comes to mind is any action related to mental health. We need a separate group that responds to 911 calls regarding mental health incidents, that are not cops.
I would stop, and completely walk back, the obscene militarization of US police forces that has been happening over the last 30+ years. No they don’t need military surplus shit built for warzones in the middle east.
And I would consider not allowing them to carry firearms (at least not at all times, or maybe needing remote permission to unlock).(I can’t wait for people to glom directly onto this one and ignore everything else I’ve said 🙄)
I would make covering or turning off a body cam at any time for any reason a criminal (and fire-able) offense.
I would remove qualified immunity.
I’d make it so police need to purchase their own malpractice insurance like doctors so taxpayers aren’t the ones paying out millions when they kill people they shouldn’t.
That was all off the top of my head. I could probably think about it more and keep going
Edit: the problem really is fundamental. Police exist, and have always existed, to protect capital. Not people (see original photo for prime example).
I’m honestly not sure if it’s even possible to remove or change that unifying purpose, and instead shift it to serving people. Especially not with the douchebags we currently have our precincts staffed with.
We need an entirely new type of civil servant for that, I’m afraid.
This, in my experience (exclusively outside the US), is just plain wrong. If I enumerate my interactions with police over the years the vast majority is personal well being, not corporate property or capital.
They showed up to my neighbours house a few times over domestic violence complaints. Actually she got a restraining order against him, then a few weeks later was threatening suicide, and the police picked him up and took him to see her. They got back together after that (for better or worse, but they do have kids and seem happy enough).
Another neighbour had a psychotic break and appeared in my back yard one morning. The po-po showed up and managed the situation in a humane and sympathetic manner. Actually years later he was prosecuted for possession of CSAM.
I had some expensive trainers (shoes) that were stolen from my front door. I got the perps on camera and the police showed up to see. The thief was known to them and the video allowed them to get a warrant for a search. They didn’t get my shoes but they got a bunch of other stuff. I suppose you could call this “protection of capital” but I don’t think anyone really thinks of their shoes and other personal effects as capital.
I regularly see the police on the road. Conducting breath tests to check no one is driving drunk. When there’s an accident they show up to manage traffic and so on.
My kids (3yo twins) have weekly gymnastics lessons at a local Police and Community Youth Centre. There’s always a couple of coppers hanging around. That centre has dance, music, boxing, et cetera. It’s not funded by the police but a lot of events and programs are conducted with police participation.
In contrast I called them about an annoying alarm that was going off in a nearby bus-depot all weekend. They were decidedly disinterested in whatever was going on. They looked around and said that there was no sign of an imminent threat or ongoing crime so they weren’t going to enter the property. Not much protection of capital going on there.
The assertion that police exist [only to] to protect capital just doesn’t align with my observed experience. Sure, police in the US might be more concerned with shooting people, not getting shot, and protecting capital, but that’s an American problem rather than a police problem.
Congrats, the copaganda has worked on you. No matter where you live on earth; the police orgs we have today descend from slave catching institutions in the USA and it shows.
Well it kind of depends on where you live and what language you’re speaking as to whether or not we’re referring to the same group (or if your country even has a proper analog).
For example, France has both the police and the gendarme, the latter of which (to my understanding) is more militarized, allowing the former to often be much better liaisons to the public in situations that might not require force.
They also didn’t completely abandon all spirit of comradarie as a nation after their revolution.
Police in the US help landlords forcibly evict tenants. It’s literally one of the job responsibilities.
Get a real job.
All labor matters to make your life comfortable.
Cops don’t do labor because they don’t produce anything.
I apologize I thought you commented on something else. You are correct.