On 27 June 2023, Nahel Merzouk, a 17-year-old French youth of North African descent, was shot and killed by the police in Nanterre, a suburb of Paris, France. The Police reported it as self-defence but was later contradicted by a video posted online in which the policeman is pretty clearly in the wrong and basically just shot Nahel who was trying to flee a road interpelation. This led to widespread protests and riots, some really peaceful and some extremly violent. Which is now giving the government excuses to block social media in order to prevent further protests.
this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2023
52 points (98.1% liked)
Explain Like I'm Five
14230 readers
1 users here now
Simplifying Complexity, One Answer at a Time!
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive.
- No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Engage in constructive discussions.
- Share relevant content.
- Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
- Use appropriate language and tone.
- Report violations.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 42 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
The video posted online does not make it look as cut and dry as you put it. The kid is clearly driving away and was warned multiple times.
EDIT: guys, maybe respond to the point instead of downvoting. Or are we back to Reddit ways?
2nd EDIT: People are misconstruing my comment as if I'm defending the cop. I'm not condoning the actions of the police officer. All I'm saying is that it's easy to armchair pontificate about the correct moral action. But imagine from all sides: what if the kid runs over a child and kills that child as they are speeding away. Then what? Just think it through a little more. All I'm saying is it's not so black and white and it's really easy for us to keyboard warrior from our office chairs.
The cop lied about the danger he was supposedly in. Which you can clearly see in the video.
The kid drove away after allegedly getting hit with the hilt a few times and absolutely being held at gunpoint, with the other cop screaming at his colleague to shoot him. And as far as I am aware, driving away in this situation should not be punishable by death.
I don't condone the extreme shit that happened next with the riots and all, but it was an execution plain and simple. Both cops should get fired and go to jail for that.
His friends said that his leg slipped because the cop kept hitting him with the butt of the gun. Nevertheless, running away is not a reason to shoot someone. It is cut and dry as he put it.
That's a great reason to shoot someone. 🙄
So if the kid had run over someone while driving away and killed them would that have been ok ? Or at what point do we draw the line?
Sinply put, you can't judge someone on something they haven't done yet or they could potentially do.
True, but would you agree that past actions are predictors of possible future outcomes? Aren't we always doing a risk assessment each time we perform an action? A 17 year old kid driving recklessly is not the same as a 40 year old driving to work, right? Can we agree on that at least?
Not necessarily no, and especially here, the kid had no previous issues with the police (he had no criminal record).
He was definitely an idiot for driving recklessly (and without a license I believe), and being arrested by the police for that is fair.
But then for some reason he got held at gunpoint by two angry and racist cops. I assume he got scared and tried to drive off (also a somewhat fair reaction especially coming from a teenager), then he got shot and killed.
If he got away with it and ran over someone while fleeing, he also should have gotten served a prison sentence or similar, but definitely not death.
As for the hypothetical 40 years old, he could get distracted one day and run over someone as well, and that doesn't warrant death penalty either.
I agree with your post here so have an upvote. I think I'm realizing Lemmy is the same clone of reddit where virtue signaling is more interesting than having a Convo. At least you tried so I appreciate that
It's not virtue signaling to downvote someone who is acting reprehensibly.
If your immediate instinct is "these 30 people are virtue signaling," maybe you should reconsider your position. Maybe shooting someone who is fleeing is actually wrong and indefensible.
If you plan to reply to insult me, save it. Use that energy for something contructive like self-reflection, or showing empathy to someone who just got brutalized by police.
I have asked this question multiple times, and no one seems interested in answering. When people engage with the conversation in good faith I'll stop seeing it as virtue signaling. It's as if the only possible positions are: a) the cop is right or b) the kid is right which is so bizarre. It's not how the real world works. I wish the world was so simple and black and white and we could discern good and evil right away.
So I will ask you: at what point is it ok to let a person fleeing in a vehicle drive around recklessly? Where do you draw the line? This is a version of the trolley problem. Do you do everything you can to stop the kid and hope that you prevented someone else from being injured or do you let the driver escape and drive recklessly and hope for the best?
When the action you perform is pulling the trigger of a gun aimed at a human being you better be pretty fucking sure of your risk assessment.
There was no immediate and unavoidable risk to that cop nor to anyone else. Even if the kid was on drugs and speeding for fun shooting at him is not an acceptable response.
There was no immediate and unavoidable risk to that cop nor to anyone else
Wow, thanks for your analysis, Lemmy expert on conflict resolution! I'll be sure to ping you next time I need some clear and unbiased analysis of an obviously dangerous situation. Man, I wish I could be half as confident as you sound when dishing out an opinion.
Even if the kid was on drugs and speeding for fun shooting at him is not an acceptable response.
Are you saying drugged up drivers that are speeding in high pedestrian traffic areas pose no risk to anyone at all??? Am I reading your comment right???
Edit: this response was for u/riodoro1 but for some reason Sync won't let me reply to them.
So by your logic we should be able to shoot anyone driving a car because they could potentially hit someone and kill them. Nice. I'll keep that in mind.
So by your logic we should be able to shoot anyone driving a car because they could potentially hit someone and kill them
My logic doesn't entail shooting everyone that drives a car. My logic is saying that context matters. Should we allow all drivers in all situations to drive recklessly regardless of the outcomes? You know the answer is no, so why are you asking that question?
So we can shoot anyone doing anything at all reckless? Okay, gotcha.
America is leaking, someone build a wall
Come on...what a bad faith reduction of my position. I can tell there is no interest in having a conversation, just virtue signaling
Because your position is callous and deserving of reduction.
Yes, because asking for nuance and context in high stress situations is callous. Also, I never defended the cop but keep stroking your dick to feel good about your online virtue signaling.
Dismissing the extra judicial killing of a 17 year old for the sake of "discussion" is callous. BuT fEeL gOoD aBoUt BeInG a PeDaNtiC DouChE.
At what point did I ever say anything about the cop being absolved of any culpability? Thats the funny thing is people assume that just because someone asks for context in a conversation about a difficult situation that means we are automatically taking sides. Also, gotta love the loaded language used by keyboard warriors such as yourself. "Extra judicial killings" Tell me you're 12 without telling me youre twelve. Fuck outta here
A couple of things immediately come to mind:
-
Long standing protests against the retirement age being raised to 72 (someone correct me on this one, please)
-
Police fired into a car that would not comply with a traffic stop and killed the occupant (who, I believe was a minority person). Rioting has ensued as a result.
Retirement age in France raised to 72??? Hell no bro, there would be no France if that were the case. Retirement age is being raised from 62 to 64. Here's a source : Source
Appreciate the clarification. I couldn't remember the actual age, only that it was being raised.
Retirement age was raised to 64 here, but they also added new regulations and kind off point system where unless you were working since 18 you have to retire much later (around 68), but this protest is kind off died over months ago to be honest.
And now protests are: 2 police man killed 17 y.o who happened to be brown and Muslim because they first threatened him and he refused to comply, then tried to speed off away, almost hitting a pedestrian on his way. Policeman guys happened to have right wing associated tattoos as well, and even though the killed boy was someone with many criminal offences, shooting at him was not justified.
Thanks for the info and update. I couldn't remember the actual age and wasn't aware that the protests for this particular issue had died off.
If I wanted to protest a police action that I thought was unjust I would do it peacefully so that others would consider my view and give it some thought. If I wanted to be sure to turn many off to my view I would engage in the destruction of property.
Also wanna know so Imma drop this dot here: .
I did not down vote you but if you're wondering I think they are down voting because Lemmy has a save post functionality you could use, in case you didn't know.
frenchies aren't happy unless they're rioting - I think there's something in the water there
I hope you’re not an American.
Because there literally is something in the water there and people still not rioting.
rioting changes little, you'd think the frenchies would have figured that out by now.
view more: next ›