6 ms·

> 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

> 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...").
- LawTalkingGuy 3y ago
  > the authority to shoot drivers when the officers are in no imminent danger is only a power they have as of 2017. That's not relevant here - they've always had the ability to shoot drivers who are using their car as a weapon or otherwise endangering the public. There's never been a time officers haven't been allowed to use lethal force to stop a deadly crime in progress. > I think the concern is the people of France don't want so much risk to their own right to life The only people who seem to be upset about this other than literally other child street criminals in France, are upper-class liberals from the USA who see it as an opportunity to push the racism narrative. The law abiding people of France don't see themselves in this guy's shoes - fleeing from a justified arrest and endangering people. They see themselves as the people almost killed on the crosswalk, or in almost hit driving their kids home from school. > Letting the cops decide whether "You probably need killing; you look like a threat" is a huge power to hand to them The police didn't arbitrarily decide this guy was a risk, they had witnessed him risking people's lives just moments before. They shot only when he took off again. > this guy looks like a terrorist, His actions made him look like a threat.
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    I think we saw the same video and are arriving at different conclusions about the fact pattern, so we likely will not see eye-to-eye. At no point when the officer opened fire was the driver in imminent danger of harming or killing anyone. I agree the driver may have been about to become a danger again; there are myriad ways to deal with that (cutting the driver off with backup, for instance) that don't result in an immediate loss of life. You see a justified shooting likely (definitely?) preventing other deaths. Those setting town halls on fire do not. > The law abiding people of France Again... The law-abiding people of France ca. late 1700s obeyed the orders of their King. Until a revolution swept that entire pattern away. Recoursing to "The law-abiding people's" behavior as inherently correct, just, or righteous fundamentally misunderstands the nature of why riots happen or what effect they intend to have.
    - LawTalkingGuy 3y ago

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...").

LawTalkingGuy 3y ago
> the authority to shoot drivers when the officers are in no imminent danger is only a power they have as of 2017. That's not relevant here - they've always had the ability to shoot drivers who are using their car as a weapon or otherwise endangering the public. There's never been a time officers haven't been allowed to use lethal force to stop a deadly crime in progress. > I think the concern is the people of France don't want so much risk to their own right to life The only people who seem to be upset about this other than literally other child street criminals in France, are upper-class liberals from the USA who see it as an opportunity to push the racism narrative. The law abiding people of France don't see themselves in this guy's shoes - fleeing from a justified arrest and endangering people. They see themselves as the people almost killed on the crosswalk, or in almost hit driving their kids home from school. > Letting the cops decide whether "You probably need killing; you look like a threat" is a huge power to hand to them The police didn't arbitrarily decide this guy was a risk, they had witnessed him risking people's lives just moments before. They shot only when he took off again. > this guy looks like a terrorist, His actions made him look like a threat.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  I think we saw the same video and are arriving at different conclusions about the fact pattern, so we likely will not see eye-to-eye. At no point when the officer opened fire was the driver in imminent danger of harming or killing anyone. I agree the driver may have been about to become a danger again; there are myriad ways to deal with that (cutting the driver off with backup, for instance) that don't result in an immediate loss of life. You see a justified shooting likely (definitely?) preventing other deaths. Those setting town halls on fire do not. > The law abiding people of France Again... The law-abiding people of France ca. late 1700s obeyed the orders of their King. Until a revolution swept that entire pattern away. Recoursing to "The law-abiding people's" behavior as inherently correct, just, or righteous fundamentally misunderstands the nature of why riots happen or what effect they intend to have.
  - LawTalkingGuy 3y ago