Or you just didn’t work somewhere with a lot of protests.

Tampa, so I'd say middle of the road in that sense - at least for the US. We have occasional protests but they're pretty lackluster. A more Republican area would have none and a more Democrat area would have more - and more busy/big/effective/etc.

What you’re doing is using anecdotal evidence, as if it’s statistical.

Yeah it's all I have to draw on, but all you need to disprove a blanket statement is a single contradictory anecdote.

What’s more the past is more important to how things got this way than today.

Yes and No. You didn't say "Police (and military) used to be used to keep workers in line," nor did you qualify what you meant by "keep workers in line." I'm plenty familiar with Blair Mountain and similar historic incidents. Frankly your entire reply here could've been better served at the top, if your desire is to be rational about the issue; with the asterisks you present, I have nothing to say because a lot of what you have moved the goalposts to is completely true.

The government, all governments fear riots and uprisings. That the nature of government globally. Most protests that get anywhere remotely riotous have a police presence.

Sure, but that's in the realm of "[government] exists to keep workers in line" which is at least a lot closer to the heart of the issue, even if I don't categorically agree with it; it's definitely an increasingly central function of our increasingly auth-right state.

The notion that “police are good boys and never used violence” is fucking idiotic.

Then thank fuck I never said that, but I appreciate your straw-man.

The rest of your comment is kinda you tooting your own horn and getting giddy about said straw-man and other nonsense, so let me know when you're ready to be an adult again and I'll respond accordingly.

A union protects labor from power. A police union is power that needs to be protected from. It’s just like if all the corporate bosses started calling themselves unionized… and yeah, they all work together for their own personal interests. But that’s not what a union is.

That's got little to nothing to do with the power of police unions and everything to do with the power of unions and defense attorneys.

Either an employee should or should not have a defense against an accusation of wrongdoing from their employer.

Either a defendant should or should not have a defense against an accusation of wrongdoing from the state.

If you answer "should not" to both, I would argue you are authoritarian, including if your excuse is, "Well, we should be able to peel back certain legal protections for certain groups I don't like."

Police is the strong arm of the bourgeoisie. They are the weapon wielded against the working class. That is why (even though they work for a wage) they can not have class solidarity and should not be considered part of the working class. They are de facto agents of capital and their "unions" are usually used to shield them from being held responsible by the working class instead of class struggle against the bourgeoisie.

Other municipal workers are usually not de facto agents of the bourgeoisie and can therefore be considered part of the working class. Their unions are real unions because they are part of the class struggle.