cross-posted from: https://quokk.au/c/mop/p/1164153/amazon

This is the police union's idea of solidarity... with the ruling class.

Yup!

There’s The Money, and then there’s everyone else.

At this point though, they’re even taking art away from us. They’re not making anything though, only manufacturing trash into giant piles.

End game? No one knows. Not even them.

Idk maybe this one

Dumb fucking idiot pigs

Its the main reason the police ‘union’ always gets its pay rise come budget year and Nurses, Firefighters and Teachers are left to fight for the ever diminishing crumbs.

The ruling class will always need there little army of oppressors.

But firefighters are hallowed FIRST RESPONDERS! /s

I love it that cops know they are hated and so hide behind people that actually save lives instead of murdering people when they "feel unsafe."

You can add paramedics to the list of the grossly underpaid, too.

i have a few ideas...they wont like it tho

And paramedics also get completely shafted, I think they're often contractors not even state employees, though that may vary

Police protect property. If you don't have any of that, they are not very useful. If you have a lot of it, they're at your beck and call.

You pay the taxes, they evade them. You get controlled, they get protected.

Systemic racism is part of the greater class war.

That is a fantastic picture, however.

And they suffer a lot of abuse.

I don't get it, honestly.

What would you like the police to do in this situation?

Not be there. Or exist for that matter.

Hope they are singing 'we shall overcome'

Protect tax payers instead of non tax payers

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.

I’m my area they’re all contractors and the pay is shit. Many try to become fire fighters because starting pay is double

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.

I get your point and agree

How can ambulance journeys be 1000's and their drivers be paid shit? What stops an independent ambulance service simultaneously paying higher wages and charging patients less?

Pretty sure the reason to use private companies as they won’t have to deal with unions if the employees were county employees like police and fire fighters. So they can pay less collect more money

Your next day shipping fee at work.

A 17-year-old civil rights demonstrator, defying an anti-parade ordinance of Birmingham, Alabama, is attacked by a police dog on May 3, 1963.
Bill Hudson—AP Photo

There's a decent article with wider context on the Equal Justice Initiative site.

I can understand why current ambulance service owners want to charge more and pay less.

I don't understand why rival services dont appear and give better wages for a cheaper service.

Where are the Uber ambulance companies?

I’m sure you gotta pay your local politician to make sure there is no competition

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.

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?

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.

Something something class traitors.

It all boils down to the same thing: protecting capital.

During the Civil Rights marches, the whites in power 100% saw these people as a threat to their money, as well as a threat to the established hegemony that had them squarely at the top.

How about lose like 75% of their funding for a start?

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.

Which police functions would you curtail?

You forgot the part where if you have a little they steal it.

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.

Oh fuck off, you know I'm right. You did the exact same thing you were criticizing.

I don't know what point you're trying to make. Police already do not protect homeless people.

They already are

My Dad was a firefighter in a city that had a referendum requiring firefighters and police receive the same salaries for the same ranks.

Council let the police hire all officers in one rank higher than the fire department to get around it.

The were never of the people.

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.

"To Serve and Protect [the status quo]"

Get a real job.

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

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.