19 ms·
Maybe in some circumstances, sure. There is good reason not to like this person, who demonstrated the will and ability to hurt or even kill innocent people.
by ibejoeb 3y ago
Maybe in some circumstances, sure. There is good reason not to like this person, who demonstrated the will and ability to hurt or even kill innocent people.
- jakelazaroff 3y agoBy fleeing the police who murdered him? I appreciate that you can’t drop the façade for even a moment or the whole house of cards comes tumbling down, but I just want you to know that no one is actually fooled.
- ibejoeb 3y agoThat's a lot of metaphors and innuendo. Can you explain a bit more plainly?
- jakelazaroff 3y agoSorry, not trying to use innuendo! I’m explicitly saying that you’re using a post hoc justification for Nahel Merzouk’s murder because you’d already decided that it’s okay for police to murder people like him.
- LawTalkingGuy 3y agoWhat does "people like him" mean, is that some racist dog whistle? > you’d already decided that it’s okay Before I heard his race, yes. Based on the fact that he'd risked people's lives before they stopped him and he was trying to flee to do it again. The police gave him a warning and a chance to surrender. > to murder [him] Shooting a violent criminal to prevent imminent further violence is the epitome of justification. > I just want you to know that no one is actually fooled. I assure you, no fooling, that I'd support shooting whatever color of criminal was driving the car. My thoughts are with the pedestrians they nearly hit and those people's families, and the police officers who risked their safety to stop him.
- jakelazaroff 3y agoA “violent criminal” who had never hurt anyone or been convicted of a crime? Whatever you say, man. It’s pretty clear what you’re doing here. We’re not going to be able to agree, so I’m ducking out.
- LawTalkingGuy 3y agoJoyriding and fleeing police at high speed through a city is a violent crime. He doesn't have to be convicted - they witnessed it. They told him he'd be stopped and yet he chose to endanger more people trying to escape lawful custody. > never [...] been convicted of a crime That's the injustice. He'd been arrested for resisting arrest just the weekend before and if they treated him properly he'd have still been locked up - unable to get himself killed. > Whatever you say, man. It’s pretty clear what you’re doing here. You're race baiting. You're taking something an entirely understandable reaction to violent crime that happened between two people of the same race and are distorting the facts to play it up as some systemic white supremacy despite that a whole country has been thrown into violence and people have already died for that lie. You're trying to get people killed and stoke tensions to support your politics at home because the lives of these people (French people, sit down) are worth so little to you that it's a game. But please, do go on about what I'm doing.
- shadowgovt 3y ago> arrested for resisting arrest Oh, so all the justification the police need to strip someone of their rights (or life) is to... Say they need to be stripped of their rights (or life)? Who has the power in France? The People or the cops?
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoThe police have the power to strip someone of (some of) their rights. It's called arrest. Since there are people out there who won't respond to a stern glare, that power is kind of necessary. Now here's someone who resists arrest. Yes, the police have the power to use violence in that situation. What's your alternative? A stern glare?