you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -1 points 1 month ago (9 children)

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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    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...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    So you simultaneously do and do not what them to be selective in their policing?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Lol oh that was the "witty snarky lemmy-ism", but not your reply pretending that you thought they meant homeless people?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments