Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

PaxNova t1_je389f4 wrote

Reply to comment by Amazingawesomator in Police using ‘excessive force’ at France protests, rights groups say by rein_deer7

Believe it or not, police are supposed to protect everyone, not just those that benefit them personally. That's what is supposed to separate them from any other gang of people.

6

PigeonMelk t1_je3cn7m wrote

The police are the armed paramilitary for capital owners. They are literally only protecting those who benefit them in this situation and most situations.

60

GreenCoatBlackShoes t1_je3lv9x wrote

Because the function of the policy is social control and protection of property. They do the bidding of the law makers, paid for by the rich. It’s systemic violence from the top and aimed at the bottom.

7

Prestigious-Letter14 t1_je452ox wrote

The police, as seen by them being excluded from this pension reform, are a force of oppression against these demonstrators.

Police in Europe has been started as professional paid wage slaves and they stayed the same till now. Somewhere along the way like-minded people like the privileges they got with becoming riot police (aka beating up leftists) and increasingly flocked into these positions.

The argument of „protect and serve“ can be at most be done for the classic patrol cop who is a first responder. Riot police is nothing else than a paid private army to protect the state from its citizens.

7

dclxvi616 t1_je4ivfk wrote

That’s what they want you to think. Seriously. They’re supposed to find any excuse they can to charge you with a crime. Misleading you into believing they are supposed to protect you only makes that easier. If you want protection, you get a lawyer, a bodyguard, or a condom, depending on what kind of protection you need.

5

meatismoydelicious t1_je8dhuv wrote

Failing that, firearms. Why do you think the US won't even consider giving up theirs?

1

dclxvi616 t1_je8enqg wrote

Sure I just try not to convince myself my pistol is "protection." It does not make me safe. It is a hail mary last resort act of desperation that might give me a small chance to survive a situation that might never occur in my life where I would otherwise certainly die. It's better to have and not need than need and not have. Nothing more.

There may be some people trained and skilled enough to consider their firearm protection, but I don't think that counts for most of us.

2

meatismoydelicious t1_je8g0yc wrote

Nah, just a means of leveling the playing field as well as technology can. I hope it was clear that "you" was used in the royal sense. Just making that clear for other readers.

1

dclxvi616 t1_je8g877 wrote

Oh it was clear to me, just figured I’d throw in my two cents since I met the demographic.

2