4 ms·

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 sto

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
    > That's why the police officer has more donations than the joyriding criminal. That implies the officer has the support of the moneyed class, not the most people. Pitting the moneyed class against the people has historically gone poorly in France. Best of luck to them. ETA: It is entirely possible that the shooting of Nahel Merzouk was completely legal and the law says there should be no repercussions for the officer who shot him. That's rather the problem: the people, it seems, are tired of the arrangement the law presents and feel powerless to change it. That is not a stable arrangement and historically, France doesn't alter such arrangements bloodlessly. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/07/07/french-riots-banlieues-00105143 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/07/07/french-rio...
    - LawTalkingGuy 3y ago
      > That implies the officer has the support of the moneyed class Who do you think is walking through the city and driving to work? The idle rich? The joyriding criminal was in a $100k car, he was hardly a worker. You've got the class situation exactly backwards. > It is entirely possible that the shooting of Nahel Merzouk was completely legal and the law says there should be no repercussions for the officer who shot him. The people of France, and everywhere else, want the police to stop criminals from joyriding through their neighborhoods. > That's rather the problem: the people, it seems, are tired of the arrangement the law presents and feel powerless to change it. No, the rioters aren't "the people". They're generally also child criminals and race-baiters (his mother) and they're just upset that one of them got the consequences of his dangerous actions. The vast majority of the population, including pretty much the entirety of the working class, do not support the riots or the rioters or the criminal.
      - shadowgovt 3y ago
        > No, the rioters aren't "the people". I wonder if this is what the bourgeoisie had themselves convinced was the case in the late 1700s before the Bastille was seized. After all, only about 600 people participated. Hardly "the people," not by a long shot...

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
  > That's why the police officer has more donations than the joyriding criminal. That implies the officer has the support of the moneyed class, not the most people. Pitting the moneyed class against the people has historically gone poorly in France. Best of luck to them. ETA: It is entirely possible that the shooting of Nahel Merzouk was completely legal and the law says there should be no repercussions for the officer who shot him. That's rather the problem: the people, it seems, are tired of the arrangement the law presents and feel powerless to change it. That is not a stable arrangement and historically, France doesn't alter such arrangements bloodlessly. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/07/07/french-riots-banlieues-00105143 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/07/07/french-rio...
  - LawTalkingGuy 3y ago
    > That implies the officer has the support of the moneyed class Who do you think is walking through the city and driving to work? The idle rich? The joyriding criminal was in a $100k car, he was hardly a worker. You've got the class situation exactly backwards. > It is entirely possible that the shooting of Nahel Merzouk was completely legal and the law says there should be no repercussions for the officer who shot him. The people of France, and everywhere else, want the police to stop criminals from joyriding through their neighborhoods. > That's rather the problem: the people, it seems, are tired of the arrangement the law presents and feel powerless to change it. No, the rioters aren't "the people". They're generally also child criminals and race-baiters (his mother) and they're just upset that one of them got the consequences of his dangerous actions. The vast majority of the population, including pretty much the entirety of the working class, do not support the riots or the rioters or the criminal.
    - shadowgovt 3y ago
      > No, the rioters aren't "the people". I wonder if this is what the bourgeoisie had themselves convinced was the case in the late 1700s before the Bastille was seized. After all, only about 600 people participated. Hardly "the people," not by a long shot...