7 ms·

Joyriding 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

Joyriding 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 ago
  The 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?
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    Arrest is a fine power. Resisting arrest as a crime independent of other crimes is nonsense. If they have no right to detain you, they have no right to detain you, period.
    - LawTalkingGuy 3y ago
      Ackshually, no. They have the legal power to detain you for the purposes of figuring out if they need to arrest you. If they had to have proof, and a conviction, to show that someone was guilty before detaining them they'd never be able to arrest them to take them to court and have them convicted in the first place. What you're saying is somewhat relevant to false arrest, where a police officer is acting outside his legal role. In this case though, they had a duty to remove him, even with deadly force, from the car which he'd just risked people's lives with, above and beyond their power to arrest him after removing him from the car.
jakelazaroff 3y ago
All I’ll say is that the police statement and the video of what actually happened are both available. So to anyone reading this: you can decide for yourself how reliable the cops are as witnesses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Nahel_Merzouk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Nahel_Merzouk
- LawTalkingGuy 3y ago
  Nobody is disputing the reckless driving before he got stopped and that's all that matters. The cops weren't chasing him because of racism, they were try to stop a dangerous driver joyriding through traffic. For whatever reason he didn't stop when the police had their guns on him and he tried to escape in the same car he'd already endangered people's lives with. Had he let the police remove him from the car he wouldn't have needed to be shot to accomplish it. He's endangered people's lives with his car, it's a weapon and he should be treated like an active shooter when he tries to flee with it. Consider the rights and feelings of the pedestrians he almost hit and their families and communities rather than the gang banger. (If it helps you have empathy, imagine that they - the real victims - might also not be white.)
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    > Consider the rights and feelings of the pedestrians he almost hit and their families and communities I don't think "we should stack up feelings against a human life" (or "we should stack up their right to feel safe against a right to be alive") is a winning argument. There were options for diffusing the situation that didn't involve killing a man. People are justifiably angry they weren't taken.
    - LawTalkingGuy 3y ago
      > There were options for diffusing the situation that didn't involve killing a man. Those were explored, in the time they had, but in the end he accelerated away. > People are justifiably angry they weren't taken. No, they aren't, they're all lying. They say stuff like "he was shot at a traffic stop", pretending he hadn't just sped through crosswalks and didn't have a history of resisting arrest. They don't care one bit what was tried, only that they've got a martyr for their class warfare. > I don't think "we should stack up their right to feel safe against a right to be alive" is a winning argument. That's not quite what I said, but regardless it is a winning argument. That's why the police officer has more donations than the joyriding criminal.

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 ago
The 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?
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  Arrest is a fine power. Resisting arrest as a crime independent of other crimes is nonsense. If they have no right to detain you, they have no right to detain you, period.
  - LawTalkingGuy 3y ago
    Ackshually, no. They have the legal power to detain you for the purposes of figuring out if they need to arrest you. If they had to have proof, and a conviction, to show that someone was guilty before detaining them they'd never be able to arrest them to take them to court and have them convicted in the first place. What you're saying is somewhat relevant to false arrest, where a police officer is acting outside his legal role. In this case though, they had a duty to remove him, even with deadly force, from the car which he'd just risked people's lives with, above and beyond their power to arrest him after removing him from the car.

jakelazaroff 3y ago

All I’ll say is that the police statement and the video of what actually happened are both available. So to anyone reading this: you can decide for yourself how reliable the cops are as witnesses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Nahel_Merzouk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Nahel_Merzouk

LawTalkingGuy 3y ago
Nobody is disputing the reckless driving before he got stopped and that's all that matters. The cops weren't chasing him because of racism, they were try to stop a dangerous driver joyriding through traffic. For whatever reason he didn't stop when the police had their guns on him and he tried to escape in the same car he'd already endangered people's lives with. Had he let the police remove him from the car he wouldn't have needed to be shot to accomplish it. He's endangered people's lives with his car, it's a weapon and he should be treated like an active shooter when he tries to flee with it. Consider the rights and feelings of the pedestrians he almost hit and their families and communities rather than the gang banger. (If it helps you have empathy, imagine that they - the real victims - might also not be white.)
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  > Consider the rights and feelings of the pedestrians he almost hit and their families and communities I don't think "we should stack up feelings against a human life" (or "we should stack up their right to feel safe against a right to be alive") is a winning argument. There were options for diffusing the situation that didn't involve killing a man. People are justifiably angry they weren't taken.
  - LawTalkingGuy 3y ago
    > There were options for diffusing the situation that didn't involve killing a man. Those were explored, in the time they had, but in the end he accelerated away. > People are justifiably angry they weren't taken. No, they aren't, they're all lying. They say stuff like "he was shot at a traffic stop", pretending he hadn't just sped through crosswalks and didn't have a history of resisting arrest. They don't care one bit what was tried, only that they've got a martyr for their class warfare. > I don't think "we should stack up their right to feel safe against a right to be alive" is a winning argument. That's not quite what I said, but regardless it is a winning argument. That's why the police officer has more donations than the joyriding criminal.