Quote (El1te @ Sep 14 2022 03:02pm)
so you're changing the topic, okay.
I'll re-iterate: police are not obligated to protect property rights.
1. You first claim that police are only there to protect property rights.
2. I counter that they are also there to protect life and safety rights.
3. You counter that they are not obligated to protect the right to life and safety (perhaps true) to support your argument that they exist to protect property rights, implying that they do have an obligation to protect property rights.
4. I counter that they clearly do not have an obligation to protect property rights either and cite a recent example.
5. You change the topic and bring up that police "abused protesters" and say that they did so "illegally" without evidence
Just because their primary purpose is to protect property rights doesn't mean they can't also sometimes do other things. Sometimes police help people, but more often than not they don't even when it's children getting gunned down in a school. They rarely miss an opportunity to enforce property rights though, as evidenced by the fact they were willing to brutalize peaceful protesters and journalists during the Floyd protests.
You said they just stood down during the protests. That is categorically untrue. They actively brutalized protesters and journalists and the investigations afterwards revealed they actually made attempts to incite the crowds to violence so they could have cover to brutalize them.