7 ms·

> 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 ha

> 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
  > there are myriad ways to deal with that (cutting the driver off with backup, for instance) Your ideas involve letting him flee and trying to stop him, which is how they got to this point in the first place. What happens when they cut him off and he just speeds off again, or dives onto a sidewalk to make his escape? > You see a justified shooting likely (definitely?) preventing other deaths. Justified because it stopped the risk. > that don't result in an immediate loss of life. The criminal who risked other people's life lost his, not an innocent person. Those are not equal outcomes. > The law-abiding people of France ca. late 1700s obeyed the orders of their King. Until a revolution swept that entire pattern away. The law abiding people decided they didn't want a king and they made it happen. The power of the masses. > 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. You keep shouting out to the revolution kind of like you'd enjoy watching another, but the point is that "the people" aren't upset about this situation. This is their police functioning as intended. Pretty much everyone is France is sick of the riots and the rioters.
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    > Justified because it stopped the risk. You can apply that thinking to literally anyone behind the wheel at any time. In fact, as of 2017, police basically have carte blanche to do that, by law. That is concerning. Especially coupled to the perception that it isn't native white French people getting shot. Ever. > The law abiding people decided they didn't want a king and they made it happen. The power of the masses. Executing the king and establishing a new government was de facto illegal. There was no legal process for deposing the monarchy. > You keep shouting out to the revolution kind of like you'd enjoy watching another Oh, quite to the contrary: I believe it would be a disaster and leave the country in a much worse state. Which is why I'm positively praying the duly-elected leadership get its collective head out of its derrière and start listening instead of trying to blame, of all things, videogames. They'd be doing a much better job of serving their people (who, I hear, are sick of the riots) by doing so. The US suffered a little over a year of BLM rioting because, among other reasons, the decentralization of US police authority meant the federal government could do very little to alter police policy (and, by extension, police brutality). When the New York police union responded to the videotaped death by strangling of a man on the street with a "Won't someone think of the cops" speech, there was little to be done. France, IIUC, has no similar division of power. I hope, for their sake, they chart a better course than the US did, because they aren't nearly as big; I don't know if they can afford a year and a month of this.

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
> there are myriad ways to deal with that (cutting the driver off with backup, for instance) Your ideas involve letting him flee and trying to stop him, which is how they got to this point in the first place. What happens when they cut him off and he just speeds off again, or dives onto a sidewalk to make his escape? > You see a justified shooting likely (definitely?) preventing other deaths. Justified because it stopped the risk. > that don't result in an immediate loss of life. The criminal who risked other people's life lost his, not an innocent person. Those are not equal outcomes. > The law-abiding people of France ca. late 1700s obeyed the orders of their King. Until a revolution swept that entire pattern away. The law abiding people decided they didn't want a king and they made it happen. The power of the masses. > 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. You keep shouting out to the revolution kind of like you'd enjoy watching another, but the point is that "the people" aren't upset about this situation. This is their police functioning as intended. Pretty much everyone is France is sick of the riots and the rioters.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  > Justified because it stopped the risk. You can apply that thinking to literally anyone behind the wheel at any time. In fact, as of 2017, police basically have carte blanche to do that, by law. That is concerning. Especially coupled to the perception that it isn't native white French people getting shot. Ever. > The law abiding people decided they didn't want a king and they made it happen. The power of the masses. Executing the king and establishing a new government was de facto illegal. There was no legal process for deposing the monarchy. > You keep shouting out to the revolution kind of like you'd enjoy watching another Oh, quite to the contrary: I believe it would be a disaster and leave the country in a much worse state. Which is why I'm positively praying the duly-elected leadership get its collective head out of its derrière and start listening instead of trying to blame, of all things, videogames. They'd be doing a much better job of serving their people (who, I hear, are sick of the riots) by doing so. The US suffered a little over a year of BLM rioting because, among other reasons, the decentralization of US police authority meant the federal government could do very little to alter police policy (and, by extension, police brutality). When the New York police union responded to the videotaped death by strangling of a man on the street with a "Won't someone think of the cops" speech, there was little to be done. France, IIUC, has no similar division of power. I hope, for their sake, they chart a better course than the US did, because they aren't nearly as big; I don't know if they can afford a year and a month of this.