4 ms·

Can't really de-escalate without communicating. Moreover - and this has yet to be publicly confirmed by some official - the kid, which police couldn't know was

by pbak 3y ago

Can't really de-escalate without communicating. Moreover - and this has yet to be publicly confirmed by some official - the kid, which police couldn't know was a kid - was fleeing because the car was declared stolen, the license plate tagged, and part of a drug money laundering scheme using stolen Polish rent-a-cars the dealer which was employing the young man was running.

gingerrr 3y ago
Moreover - <a series of incredible escalatory claims with absolutely zero sources>. This comment fails to contribute meaningful discussion at best, and at worst is openly attempting to spread misinformation.
- hackerbeat 3y ago
  Have you heard of the web? A quick Google search takes you far. "he was 'known to the police, particularly for resisting arrest', and had been charged with resisting the previous weekend and five times since 2021. His judicial file included 15 recorded incidents, including use of false license plates, driving without insurance, and for the sale and consumption of drugs." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Nahel_Merzouk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Nahel_Merzouk The only one "spreading misinformation" here is you who claims that endangering people with a car is a "traffic violation". In short, sounds like you're the one with the "narrative agenda" here. Not all cops are bad or "petty tyrants", as you call them, but if a person decides he wants to be a criminal, he risks getting killed, especially if he himself risks killing other people.
  - gingerrr 3y ago
    That text you quoted appears literally nowhere in the source you cited. Which is Wikipedia. I combed all the article sources cited in that entry. And turns out the only source for the claims of criminal history was a single anonymous police tip to a gossip rag (https://www.europe1.fr/faits-divers/info-europe-1-mort-de-nahel-ladolescent-connu-pour-15-mentions-au-fichier-des-antecedents-judiciaires-4191433 https://www.europe1.fr/faits-divers/info-europe-1-mort-de-na... - Europe1 is not known for its journalistic ethics), and all credible journalism indicates he had no actual criminal record because he had never been tried for any of the alleged incidents. (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66052104 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66052104) To be a criminal you have to be convicted. We assume innocence in western legal tradition. Again, you're not providing any sources that actually back up your claims. Aside from a single anonymous cop - which if it actually were true, wouldn't the department have publicly revealed his criminal past since you seem to think it disculpatory? Your replies here still reek here of agenda and your attempts to rebut are intellectually dishonest. > endangering people with a car is a "traffic violation". Nobody died, nobody was even injured, and no sources have claimed he even intentionally tried to hit anyone. He ran a red light while speeding. Those are both traffic violations, and unless someone was injured they would be prosecuted as such no matter how hysterically you try to whip frenzy over hypothetical harm to claim they're violence. edit: the irony of trying to cite a "criminal history" that shows a history of cops harassing him and trumping up reasons to file reports that went nowhere because they had no case to actually prosecute - you're making my point for me. petty tyrants.

by pbak 3y ago

gingerrr 3y ago

Moreover - <a series of incredible escalatory claims with absolutely zero sources>. This comment fails to contribute meaningful discussion at best, and at worst is openly attempting to spread misinformation.

hackerbeat 3y ago
Have you heard of the web? A quick Google search takes you far. "he was 'known to the police, particularly for resisting arrest', and had been charged with resisting the previous weekend and five times since 2021. His judicial file included 15 recorded incidents, including use of false license plates, driving without insurance, and for the sale and consumption of drugs." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Nahel_Merzouk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Nahel_Merzouk The only one "spreading misinformation" here is you who claims that endangering people with a car is a "traffic violation". In short, sounds like you're the one with the "narrative agenda" here. Not all cops are bad or "petty tyrants", as you call them, but if a person decides he wants to be a criminal, he risks getting killed, especially if he himself risks killing other people.
- gingerrr 3y ago
  That text you quoted appears literally nowhere in the source you cited. Which is Wikipedia. I combed all the article sources cited in that entry. And turns out the only source for the claims of criminal history was a single anonymous police tip to a gossip rag (https://www.europe1.fr/faits-divers/info-europe-1-mort-de-nahel-ladolescent-connu-pour-15-mentions-au-fichier-des-antecedents-judiciaires-4191433 https://www.europe1.fr/faits-divers/info-europe-1-mort-de-na... - Europe1 is not known for its journalistic ethics), and all credible journalism indicates he had no actual criminal record because he had never been tried for any of the alleged incidents. (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66052104 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66052104) To be a criminal you have to be convicted. We assume innocence in western legal tradition. Again, you're not providing any sources that actually back up your claims. Aside from a single anonymous cop - which if it actually were true, wouldn't the department have publicly revealed his criminal past since you seem to think it disculpatory? Your replies here still reek here of agenda and your attempts to rebut are intellectually dishonest. > endangering people with a car is a "traffic violation". Nobody died, nobody was even injured, and no sources have claimed he even intentionally tried to hit anyone. He ran a red light while speeding. Those are both traffic violations, and unless someone was injured they would be prosecuted as such no matter how hysterically you try to whip frenzy over hypothetical harm to claim they're violence. edit: the irony of trying to cite a "criminal history" that shows a history of cops harassing him and trumping up reasons to file reports that went nowhere because they had no case to actually prosecute - you're making my point for me. petty tyrants.