- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmit.online
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmit.online
You must log in or register to comment.
Some people seem to frame the shooting as justifiable to prevent the potential danger the kids reckless driving would pose to others. While I personally think this was a completely undefensible escalation of violence on the police’s end, I think there can be some reasonable discussion on what the appropriate level of force to stop the kid from speeding off would be. Sure, why not. Would I argue a person who is speeding away from the cops while shot is likelier to cause an accident involving others than one who isn’t shot? Also yes.
But having a crowdfunder for the individual that did the shooting, in practice rewarding someone for executing a kid for speeding without a license? What the actual fuck?
Like the article says, the crowdfunder is for the family of the officer (as the officer is likely going to jail). French authorities would have immediately stopped a crowdfunder going directly to the officer, as that would be illegal per French law.
This is s tragedy all-in-all but what I would like to know: Nahel M. was 17, therefore driving illegally (no license), why was he doing this? Why didn’t he stop at the checkpoint? Why try to drive away? Was it a stolen car (it had Polish plates)?
Sadly, had Nahel M. stopped and done what the police say, I believe Nahel M. would still be alive. They would have certainly arrested and charged him (reckless driving, no license, possibly stolen car, and so on). Perhaps Nahel M. was afraid of being arrested like this, possibly a justified fear based on his experiences in the banlieue.
However, his attempt to drive away suggests he was aware of his actions being illegal and he wanted to avoid the consequences. Why would one do something illegal in the first place, if one wants to avoid consequences with the police?
I appreciate that you provide more info on what caused the death, but that’s not really what this post is about. If the officer did his job correctly, there’s no reason to crowdfund for him or his family. He did his job and he gets paid for it. If he used excessive force and goes to jail - why hand his family more money? As a reward for playing US sheriff? That crowfund seems just cynical, putting more hurt on the family of the deceased.
Yes, I agree, there is certainly the “screw you”-angle in the crowdfunder! Just look at who created it.
Regardless, there is another angle, perhaps unintentionally, and I think it is more important in the big picture:
The officer will likely never work as a policeman again, regardless if he goes to jail or not.
He likely ends up unemployed, and will probably have a hard time finding work for the rest of his life because of the reputation he has obtained.
If the consequences for a police officer following their training – crime happens, suspect does not comply to verbal commands, suspect needs to be stopped per training, in this case firearms were allowed – is that the officer’s life will be destroyed and also their family will suffer tremendously and ends up losing whole or half their income, what do you think happens next time when police has to uphold the law?
The police will choose to look the other way and let whatever is happening take place. This is very bad for society as a whole in the long term.
I beg to differ. This is not about a police officer either acting or failing to act. This is about determining what is appropriate use of force and what is not.
Shooting a teenager into a car seat (and lying about it before getting caught) is very different from a situation where a police acts in self defence or chooses to use violence to stop other people from getting hurt. It’s that simple.
A misconduct has to be punished and not rewarded. Always.
Any breach of police conduct should be investigated and judged on case-by-case basis. If an officer is able to justify his actions and they are reviewed to be according to rules, He should be allowed to continue working. If He has misused his authority He should be punished accordingly.
In a civilized, functioning country, this does not scare the rest of the police, but rather forces them to evaluate their practices and actions for the benefit of their work and the society. In the long term, this is much better for the society than just wiping misconduct under the rug.
I understand your point and I even agree with it.
However, the law applying to the French police force, after the 2017 terror attacks, specifically allows use of firearms against drivers who flee traffic stops, even if the officer(s) are not under immediate danger.
Now, if the police has to, as the situation develops quickly, start weighing possible consequences of letting or not letting a fleeing car go because of the driver’s possible ethnic background, age, etc., they WILL certainly play it safe and not do anything, if the consequences of a wrong decision for the officer and/or their family end up being economically catastrophic.
Thanks for pointing out that law. I did not know about, although now that you mention it, it does ring a distant bell. I think we agree but are talking from slightly different perspectives.
I guess what I am trying to say is that, drawing general conclusions from a single case should not be used as a basis for generalizations or concern. It is more important to look at how the police community reacts to this incident and draw conclusions from that. If they express the type of fear that you proposed, there should be a further discussion on how to avoid that in practice. This basically means a political/societal discussion and maybe some changes in the legislation.
Just out of curiosity; do you know if the French police have publicly stated that sort of concerns?
I find this important as it is crucial that anyone with authority and a license to use force to enforce laws, should be accountable of what they are doing. We can look at counries like the US or Russia to see how things can end up, if this is not supervised properly.
In this particular French case I would still return to the need to make a case-by-case review of what happened. If a car is fleeing, use of LETHAL force should always be the last option to take. It might be justified if a car was speeding or driving overtly recklessly. However, if you have car driving at a walking speed, you could for example shoot the tires and not the driver (i know it is not as easy as it sounds, but that seemed to have been case with this shooting).
Breach of authority must be surveiled and sanctioned. If this causes systematic problems, then those need to be fixed by changing the system.
Server update ate my reply, sorry. Here’s a summary from the top of my head. It is incoherent, my apologies.
From what I know, mixed messages about the law. A researcher from CRNS has said recently that the law is vague, but DPGN (General Directorate of the National Police) said years earlier that the law makes police more effective. The police has to my knowledge complained about lack of training.
I doubt legislative change will make a difference since police is only one side of the equation; the repeating customers of the police generally do not follow the law at all and also have a mindset of ignoring the police.
The questions which have to be firstly clarified in court/parliament/elsewhere are: 1. should police try to stop cars at all, and, if so, 2. should police allow stopped cars to flee.
I believe the answers are “yes” and “no”, because anything else is the same as ignoring reckless driving and basically a decriminalisation of ignoring the police and the law.
As for how to stop a car… There is no good way to do it in an ad hoc traffic check against an uncooperative, fleeing driver. Shooting the driver is the only way, and there is a really narrow window to do this.
Shooting tires won’t stop the car, it may make the car harder for the driver to control or accelerate. Depending on the car type (FWD, RWD, 4X4), the car may still be able to accelerate, with possibly less control, thus putting surroundings in more risk.
Nonlethal devices like gas or taser do not work if the driver window is closed, or if the car moves too fast.
Shooting at the engine may not have effect. Also, it can be difficult to hit the engine at all from the position and angle where verbal commands are likely given (front, near driver window). Furthermore, if the car accelerates quickly, there is a danger of hitting the passengers, bystanders or the driver while aiming at the engine.
In a planned traffic stop, one can have spike mats and obstacles etc. which can help stop a car. These are obviously not available if the car stop is done ad hoc by patrolling police, such as two motorcycle police in this case.
All in all, the police officers truly have a shit sandwich on their hands with these kind of cases, even if they follow the law to the letter.
PS. Not sure if you are aware of events in Baltimore in 2015 but it is interesting in this context. After the death of Freddie Gray, police started ignoring criminal activity to avoid going to jail for “wrong arrest”. The effects of this behaviour could be seen on the crime level of Baltimore.
I seriously doubt that. If he is not convicted criminally, there is no way every future employer would know his name and tie him to the shooting. Unlike in the US names and faces of people charged with crime are not publicised and plastered all over the news.
Also if there is no criminal conviction, it is well possible, that he would get back into police work. Also judges tend to favorably set criminal convictions just so, that police officers do not lose their jobs based on being convicted of too serious of a crime.
So he has every mean to get back to his old life without further trouble, if he is not convicted. If he is convicted, well then he is a criminal and certainly not fit for duty.
And in no country that has due process, fair trial for a police officer would incentivise other police officers from “looking the other way”. That is just a boogeyman.
You really think that the full officer’s name won’t leak somehow?
I am almost certain the officer’s name will leak if it already hasn’t. There are plenty of people with political interest one way or the other to make it public. Or simply someone greedy enough for a scoop to build their journalistic reputation.
As for “look the other way”, once the police work and field decisions gets politicized enough, this can happen. And case Nahel is politicized to the max due to the scale of follow-up rioting. For example, I recommend to check what happened in Baltimore post-2015. The part from David Simon, a Baltimore police reporter, is interesting here: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/02/baltimore-murder-rate-homicides-ceasefire
How would violating journalistic principles help someone build a reputation?
If the name leaks, the leak can be subject to criminal liability and civil damages, hence no reputable and attackable source would publish it to general access.
Do you think more than maybe a tiny fraction of french employers would read obscure online forums, or be involved in organizations, where such a name might circulate? i find that highely improbable.
Your article shows that the problem is the “tough on crime” approach that led to deteriorating relationships between the people and the police. It further says those to be vital to be able to identify and arrest suspects of serious crime, which in turn leads to polices inability to police murder in Baltimore. That no police officer was convicted after the dead of Gray further eroded those relationships
So the article emphasises, what you seem to argue against. It is crucial for the police to be able to effectively take its role, that the police itself is properly policed and violations by police officers are met with consequences.
To get back to France, killing someone in a traffic stop certainly will not help to build relationships and trust between the community and police.
So his actions deserved death? France really is turning into USA
deleted by creator
Where did I say this?
I don’t think he deserved to die! I also don’t think the police shot him for fun and/or for being of North African descent.
It’s not a reward for the perpetrator, it’s a preemptive Defense fund in case an example shall be made from him.
That’s what is written, but we both know the reason people are donating.
I think the danger of becoming a political scapegoat is very real, and when the government wants your head you need every bit of resources you can get.
… when what government wants your head? The government controlled by macron and Darmanin? The government that called for “a time of unity and peace” last Monday to try to tell everyone “actually it’s fine if the police can kill people extra judicially, don’t worry about it”?
Either he’s convicted of a crime in which case the justice system will punish him, I hope appropriately (note that death is not among possible punishments, funny how that works) or he’s not, in which case the government will no longer care about him because of what Americans call double Jeopardy. Either way this guy is not in danger from the government.
I doubt that’s the primary reason people donate. I think it’s more of a way to show disagreement with the protests in general. I’m not donating btw, just saying.
I know people who donated (or tried to, seeing the crowdraiser was cancelled yesterday). They did it because they believe the cop did the right thing, and because it was launched by Jean Messiha, a far right pundit.
99% of the french population is against these moronic riots, but most wouldn’t give a dime to those assholes.
There are no good sides here. Kid absolutely should not have been driving recklessly and should have stopped for police. But the video doesn’t lie. He basically got executed by that cop.
Being on the “good side” should not be a prerequierment to the right to life.
Absolutely.
My comment lacks context. I was musing about how people always choose to take a side where one party is “good” and the other “bad”. You’re with us or against us mentality.
I have zero sympathy for reckless drivers, they’re a ticking timebomb. But this is murder by police and in no possible way justifiable.
