3 ms·

> 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 aw

> 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...
    - LawTalkingGuy 3y ago
      > I wonder if this is what the bourgeoisie had themselves convinced was the case in the late 1700s before the Bastille was seized. This guy was a criminal who preyed upon and endangered the working class. He didn't sell drugs to Macron's kids, or speed through a crosswalk where the elites would walk. That's why the riots are getting so little support from the average person, even other Algerians, despite the media telling us this riot is for them. The rioters claim to be upset over a situation that nobody would have a problem with if anyone else had gotten shot, and which the media would have ignored if it hadn't fit the USA's racism narrative.
      - shadowgovt 3y ago
        I think you might be missing the point. The point is not arguing whether Nahel Merzouk was breaking the law, or whether he was a danger, or whether the shooting was legal. The point is that the law that made the shooting legal may be sour. It puts a lot of power over life and death in the hands of law enforcement. It's also new for France; the authority to shoot drivers when the officers are in no imminent danger is only a power they have as of 2017. The Bastille was stormed on the rumor that Louis the XVI was going to arrest the National Assembly, not on action taken. Just as these riots are fueled on the risk of what on-paper authority has been given to French police: if they decide you could be a risk to other people and you move your car one inch, your life is legally forfeit (their call, and you'll be too dead to offer counter-testimony). People believe that bargain of safety vs. their right to life is untenable, and don't believe the system is set up to allow them to change it legally. Hence, the riots. Earlier, you said > The people of France, and everywhere else, want the police to stop criminals from joyriding through their neighborhoods. No disagreement, but I think the concern is the people of France don't want so much risk to their own right to life to protect the community's right to life. Letting the cops decide whether "You probably need killing; you look like a threat" is a huge power to hand to them, especially through the lens of out-groups vs. in-groups and subconscious assessments ("I have this power to protect the people from terrorists; this guy looks like a terrorist, therefore...").

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...
  - LawTalkingGuy 3y ago
    > I wonder if this is what the bourgeoisie had themselves convinced was the case in the late 1700s before the Bastille was seized. This guy was a criminal who preyed upon and endangered the working class. He didn't sell drugs to Macron's kids, or speed through a crosswalk where the elites would walk. That's why the riots are getting so little support from the average person, even other Algerians, despite the media telling us this riot is for them. The rioters claim to be upset over a situation that nobody would have a problem with if anyone else had gotten shot, and which the media would have ignored if it hadn't fit the USA's racism narrative.
    - shadowgovt 3y ago
      I think you might be missing the point. The point is not arguing whether Nahel Merzouk was breaking the law, or whether he was a danger, or whether the shooting was legal. The point is that the law that made the shooting legal may be sour. It puts a lot of power over life and death in the hands of law enforcement. It's also new for France; the authority to shoot drivers when the officers are in no imminent danger is only a power they have as of 2017. The Bastille was stormed on the rumor that Louis the XVI was going to arrest the National Assembly, not on action taken. Just as these riots are fueled on the risk of what on-paper authority has been given to French police: if they decide you could be a risk to other people and you move your car one inch, your life is legally forfeit (their call, and you'll be too dead to offer counter-testimony). People believe that bargain of safety vs. their right to life is untenable, and don't believe the system is set up to allow them to change it legally. Hence, the riots. Earlier, you said > The people of France, and everywhere else, want the police to stop criminals from joyriding through their neighborhoods. No disagreement, but I think the concern is the people of France don't want so much risk to their own right to life to protect the community's right to life. Letting the cops decide whether "You probably need killing; you look like a threat" is a huge power to hand to them, especially through the lens of out-groups vs. in-groups and subconscious assessments ("I have this power to protect the people from terrorists; this guy looks like a terrorist, therefore...").