[bpt3]

A cursory internet search would back up my statement. Feel free to do that if you're interested. I note that you aren't asking the parent poster for any citations for their claim, which I would say is quite extraordinary.

And to be clear, my "argument" is that the parent poster is objectively incorrect, which is accurate. I decided not to posit on why the parent poster made an objectively incorrect statement, though I am curious.

[hitarpetar]

[flagged]

[bpt3]

[flagged]

[hitarpetar]

[flagged]

[bpt3]

[flagged]

[hitarpetar]

God forbids I engage in bad faith arguments with trolls who put words in my mouth

[bpt3]

Exactly what words did I put in your mouth?

This is your statement: "just to make this explicit, protecting civilians has never been the purpose of modern police forces. they were developed to put down rebellions/catch slaves/protect rich people's property"

That statement is incorrect, no matter what your definition of "modern police force" is. That's it. It's not complicated, despite your attempts to deflect from the invalidity of that statement.