ACAB, especially that bastard relative of yours.

The capitalist state and it’s forces in the form of Police and Military primarily exist to protect the private property of the rich. All other functions are secondary.

  • chaogomu@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Let me introduce you to asset forfeiture, which is a thing cops do to steal from people by claiming that the property or money was guilty of a crime. The owner isn’t actually allowed to argue in defense of their stuff, because the owner isn’t on trial, their stuff is.

    If you’re poor and a minority, you have it much worse.

    A quote from that last one;

    Police seized as little as $25 in cash, a cologne gift set worth $20 and crutches.


    Now, contrast that to this little article that says police solve about 2% of all major crime, and you see the reality of American policing.

    They rob the poor and then ignore crime in favor of harassing the poor a bit more. So yes, if you only have $40 to your name, cops will not protect your money, they’re more likely to take it from you.

    • atomicfox@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m aware of what civil forfeiture is.

      I read the techdirt article you linked, but it doesn’t state how many people were affected, what percentage of people the police interacted with had money or items taken from them, or any data that supports your claim that police are “much more likely to beat you and take it”. Moreover, the article did not mention any of the victims being physically beaten by the police before being robbed.

      To be clear, I do not support civil forfeiture or the police stealing from anyone. I am just not convinced that a person is significantly more likely to be beaten and robbed by the police.

      • chaogomu@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I said that cops are more likely to beat you and take your money than they are to protect you from someone else taking it.

        That context is important. Don’t try to strip it away.

        As to backing that statement up, it’s easy, It’s the combination of article A and article B.

        Or rather the Reason article that plots out the tens of thousands of times cops stole from poor people in Chicago in a 5-year period versus the 2% of major crimes that cops solve yearly.

        Which make the statement, “much more likely to rob you themselves than save you from being robbed” true.

        Because saving people from criminals isn’t their real job. No, their real job is enforcing the status quo of rich and poor, and keeping the poor nice and oppressed.

        • ggleblanc@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Which make[s] the statement, “much more likely to rob you themselves than save you from being robbed” true.

          In Chicago, sure. What are the statistics for Lafayette, Illinois? Harvel, Illinois? Kell, Illinois? I could go on, but astute readers already get my point.

          • chaogomu@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Astute readers know that you’re mindlessly pro-police. They also know that the police will never return the favor. Because we all live in the real world, not your thin blue line magic world where the police don’t go out of their way to harass the poor and minorities.

        • atomicfox@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Solving a crime and protecting someone from being robbed are not the same thing.