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.
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.
Wild that they don’t do that.
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.
… 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.
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.
I get your point and agree