Alleged context (feel free to correct if you have info in comments):
After Israeli Maccabi hooligans terrorized Amsterdam, the Dutch government demonized the pro-Palestine movement and banned protests. People came to protest anyways (peacefully)
The police arrested peaceful protesters and put them in a bus. They were driven to a parking lot. The police released them from the bus in a parking lot near a station.
While the protesters were walking to the station the police started hitting them. Allegedly for not moving fast enough.
It’s not silly. It is the most reasonable lens through which to examine the citizen’s relationship with police: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
Normalizing via speech is entrenching this very problem. I’m not saying this thread is gonna tip the scales, I’m discussing that the above commenter replied as if it’s the right response. They are condoning and almost evangelizing the topic (evangelizing is way too active a word, I can’t think of a better one, but this one is too much).
I think there’s distinction between your raising the issue that police have a monopoly on violence, and their commenting that violence is their job. Given the context, it comes off as they are saying “it is correct and GOOD that the police met this group with violence.”
I contend it is not appropriate, but accept that is is common (even systemically so)