Spyke
rockSlayerreply
lemmy.world

Wait, if cops in the US, France, and Germany are bastards, does that mean All Cops Are Bastards?

4
kbin.social

"You can't protest agains police violence because we don't have enough police officers". I'm sure that will stop them

58

It almost seems like a trap, they are all but saying “please stop protesting we can’t take it any more”, a protest becomes a coup/revolution if the authorities refuse to concede to the demands and are overwhelmed by the protesters

17

Well the protestors will have to stop now that they aren't allowed to protest

47

So we are commanding you not to protest police, also we don't have enough police to enforce our command.

We know you're upset with the police but don't come into our police-free zone. Pretty please.

Longer I think about this the funnier it gets.

8

French authorities confirmed that a protest against police violence set to take place in Paris on Saturday could not go ahead due to police shortages.

"We don't have enough cops to commit violence on everyone protesting so we have cancelled the protest."

4
lemmy.world

People protesting: no problem

People protesting and then certain groups “joining” them and burning cars and breaking windows requires a police presence.

Stop burning shit.

And yeah it won’t stop the protest from happening just because the French authorities banned the protest. Probably a few people will get arrested though.

-35
andrewtareply
lemmy.world

Yes I have and that was basically the point of my comment.

It isn’t the protestors burning shit it’s other bad actors. But whether it’s the protestors burning stuff or the other bad actors is really irrelevant. Either way stuff is getting damaged so there needs to be a police presence.

-23

The police presence is to arrest (violently) anyone who tries to stop the agents provocateur.

If you miss the chance you have to set more small businesses on fire.

6
kbin.social

Either way stuff is getting damaged so there needs to be a police presence.

why, what are they going to do, arrest the fire? Shoot at it?

16
andrewtareply
lemmy.world

Where was I blaming the victim?

I openly said it isn’t the protestors burning shit.

The other victim would be the owners of the cars and businesses… how am I blaming them?

-7
andrewtareply
lemmy.world

I’m hoping there is a hidden /s in there.

It is entirely possible to talk about who is burning shit and care about the protests and care about the protestors and care about the businesses that are being destroyed. Just because I didn’t mention every single one of those things in a comment doesn’t mean I don’t care about them.

0

Please do try to mention them anyway, because not doing so comes across as callousness, regardless of how you actually feel about it.

Your argument is a valid viewpoint - you want positive change for the people protesting, but you want it without any of the wanton violence or burning that goes along with rioting; correct?

However, it is also true that you were: (1) placing the onus of non-violence on the people who were wronged, and protesting here. (2) assuming there was some way for the people protesting, to seperate themselves from the bad actors who engage in these riots with the sole purpose of destroying and looting shit. (3) assuming that there are other easily available methods were the masses could change the system they're in without any of the rioting. (4) assuming that the powers that be (legislative bodies/lawmakers/policy builders) willingly engage in these methods in good faith, for which history already has plenty of counter-examples.

3

You reached the end