im_fine_sandy

such as pop star Pink.

Is Pink some kind of authority on oppressed peoples of the world?!

Hanson is a one trick pony and shameless racist stunts like this are her one trick.

Pathetic. Board should be fired.

The table by my bed that i put my laptop on to watch tv in bed.

I don’t think they take photos of the burtilization of ceos.

Police burtilise everyone.

There’s not really any counter argument to be made to a argument like “profit is theft”

God I’d hate to be burtilized.

I’m not defending police violence. That’s not what’s happening in this photo though.

you have no clue what solidarity is and are probably lonely AF and having bad faith arguments

Ad hominem, a classic faith argument.

Hah. Pathetic.

I thought you actually had something to say but it seems you just parrot what everyone else says.

I’m not answering in a circle, I’m pointing out the absurdity of your question.

If you have a point then make it.

Very strong I’m-13-and-this-is-deep energy. Well done.

That’s true, but the purpose of laws is to establish a bare minimum of satisfactory behavior in contemporary society.

That is to say, people who don’t understand why you shouldn’t steal things, are still held to that standard of behavior.

The parties who are at risk I guess.

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.

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.

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.

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.

They either are or are not selective in policing. Mutually exclusively options. They can’t be both and you can’t want both.

Which police functions would you curtail?

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.