I think the protesters just want a reason to riot and to find a vehicle for their frustrations, but a framing like this is just as much a form of venting.
They haven't integrated and they never will. There were leaks showing Amazon's union busting efforts for Whole Foods - the more diverse a city, the less likely locations there were to unionize.
> the onus is on that group to integrate into their host country,
That's the belief. The reality is that the onus is not accepted and largely does not resolve for a couple generations. In the short term, the effect is obvious. Pure disruption from an economical and cultural perspective. A melting pot of the worst and best of both worlds. The worst effects necessarily dwarfing the short term benefits.
However, in the long term, a melting pot/diversity is believed to always be a net benefit. I'm not sure why the belief persists, other than convenience (can't really unmix populations after generations) and confirmation bias. Economies improve over time or nation economic models disappear, making it moot. I believe how a nation specifically deals with immigration has influenced the outcomes a great deal, for the better. Not dealing with immigration as a serious, ongoing concern, is a crap shoot.
they've been in France a few decades, France is a more than a thousand years old, how can they have been integral to building to French economy ? were they here during the industrial revolution ? the "30 glorieuses" ? no.
The saddest thing is people can only think about this topic in economic terms. People mock the "line must go up" thinking in capitalism, yet become enraged when you question this thinking with regards to migrants and the economy. That long term the economic benefits are marginal to non-existent is almost irrelevant.
My point is the U.S. is built on immigration, people from Spain, Germany, Africa and many other countries live with each other, and because of relatively successful integration, the U.S. is where it's now.
The % of the population who are immigrants is the highest it's ever been. You now have signs in 2 languages. The American south will be integrated into Hispanic culture, not the other way around.
You are kidding yourself if you think thats an actual possibility.
You think their children, who study at U.S. schools, and live their entire lives in the U.S. will still treat Spanish as their mother tongue?
Ah yes, as if Spanish and german americans haven't been influenced or changed by U.S. culture at all.
Ask anyone who was born in the U.S. with an immigrant background if they feel at home in their parents country, chances are they will say no and they will feel like a foreigner there.
> The American south will be integrated into Hispanic culture, not the other way around.
As someone born in that area, wow, is this ignorant. Yes, a lot of people speak Spanish but that doesn’t mean that most of them don’t identify as American – even the ones whose ancestors lived in that area for centuries before they became part of the United States. Trying to separate that out makes no more sense than trying to split out any other culture which contributed to us - for example, the Texan identity has included Mexican identity since before it was a state and trying to strip that out would produce a result as unrecognizable as it would if you tried to have Texas without the barbecue traditions brought over by German and Czech settlers.
Also, let’s be honest here that the American traditions haven’t exactly been uniformly good – in the Texas example, they seceded from Mexico and petitioned for statehood to protect the institution of slavery. If there’d been a popular vote, there were many thousands of enslaved people who would have enthusiastically stayed part of Mexico if that had meant their freedom decades earlier.
> in the Texas example, they seceded from Mexico and petitioned for statehood to protect the institution of slavery.
Rather ironic to bring this up as an example. Mexico opened its doors to unlimited mass migration from the US, the migrants did not adapt to the local culture, and then they seceded in an armed rebellion. Not exactly a success story when it comes to immigration policy.
If there is a large migrant population that is not integrating (eg. France, with the banlieues), that should be an indication to slow down or pause immigration while figuring out what went wrong. Meanwhile most Western governments see warning signs and then double or triple down to keep those raw GDP numbers up for another election cycle.
The Texas comparison is also strange because Texas was for Mexico a sparsely populated frontier territory under frequent attack from plains Indians. Mexico invited colonists willing to live in such a hostile environment specifically to establish a buffer zone between those tribes and Mexico proper. A lot of the Mexican influence in Texan culture came well after its settlement by these colonists.
> Rather ironic to bring this up as an example. Mexico opened its doors to unlimited mass migration from the US, the migrants did not adapt to the local culture, and then they seceded in an armed rebellion.
Yeah, it’s messy and nowhere near as simple as that – for example, the Mexican civil war is more significant than the immigration aspect (Tejanos joined the pro-secession side over that), the filibusteros weren’t normal immigrants, and arguably both the Mexican and American settlers were unwelcome immigrants from the perspective of the indigenous people.
More to the point, note that I did not recommend the Mexican Republic as a model but was instead rejecting the claim that the American south hasn’t been a complex interplay with Hispanic and other cultures since the beginning. That kind of brown horde rhetoric belongs on Stormfront, not HN.
Odd, it seems that the native Americans not wanting an influx of people with different values that don’t integrate illustrates this person’s point very well.
The US has a native population. A people who founds a nation is by definition native. Anyone descended from the American colonists is native. The fact that we today don’t understand what these words actually mean doesn’t change that. Americans used to.
In France's particular case over half of the underclass are descendants of population movements prior to the second world war. This instance of racial rioting, the largest since 2005, is more analogous to American black-white ghetto-centered race riots than to the popular image of migrant-native tensions.
As an American, it’s wild hearing someone claim that migration is a net negative. I constantly patronize businesses founded by successive waves of immigrants (and, no, not just white ones if you’re making some racial argument), many of my colleagues were born in other countries, and our culture is full of things which came from around the world.
What’s going on in France is the product of specific policies and antipathies dating back to the colonial era, just as in the United States our problems date back to the way we never finished dealing with the impacts of slavery, but that doesn’t mean that immigration as a concept is flawed any more than, say, the British Post Office scandal means IT projects cannot produce trustworthy systems.
Cost of living has risen significantly since the immigration and nationality act in 1965. California has seen the most immigration has one of the highest costs of living. Income inequality has increased drastically. Denmark's recent statistics showed a net tax burden on migrant families, even after successive generations. Cultural cohesion has been destroyed in America to the point people actually think there never was a dominant culture in America, it was always values based. It's not even a country anymore, just a giant corporation. Diversity is supposedly an unquestionable good, yet every statistic shows people are more isolated than they have ever been.
Odd. The wanton stabbing of multiple children in a park in Annecy [1] didn't trigger any sort of us-vs-them reaction. Meanwhile this case, where the officer responsible has already been charged with homicide [2] (and the victim had before tried to speed away, only stopping when forced to by traffic, and again sped away immediately before being shot), is causing nationwide riots. What gives? Why does the stabbing of multiple children barely register, but this case is an explosion?
The park stabbing was a lone crazy person, that was clear to everyone.
The police murder was perpetrated by a member of an omnipresent institution that people in disaffected communities have negative interactions with regularly.
Nonsense. Following your logic, there‘ll be no cops left eventually.
Also, it‘s obvious the killing was nothing but a bad reflex to an intense situation. I‘m sure the cop regretted this bad reflex the second thereafter.
„According to the public prosecutor of Nanterre, two Paris Police Prefecture motorcycle officers noticed a Mercedes-Benz A Class AMG with a Polish license plate driving at high speed in a bus lane, driven by a young-looking person at around 7:55 am. The officers activated their warning signals (audible and visual) and indicated to the driver of the car, then stationary at a red traffic light, to stop. The vehicle proceed to start moving and ran the red light. The officers followed the car and alerted their superiors via radio. The car committed multiple traffic violations, endangering a pedestrian and a cyclist. Due to traffic congestion, the vehicle was eventually forced to stop.“
If you think you‘d handle everything correctly in such an intense situation, while your life is also at risk due to a maniac behind a wheel, maybe you should consider becoming a cop.
It‘s always easy to feel like a better human being and badmouth people from your cozy safe space, when you‘ve never been in an intense situation like this before.
In the US, the police kill 25 white people per 10 million white people per year: https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/ (the graphic shows per 1 million, but over 10 years)
In other words, US police kill 4.5x more white people, than French police kill anyone. But you are absolutely right (despite the cop responsible being charged with homicide) - in one case the guilt is collective, in the other, it's just lone individuals, and no patterns can or should be perceived.
As a bonus, in that killings by law enforcement wikipedia table, there are many countries higher than France. But with a few notable exceptions (the US being one), those killings seldom provoke ethnic riots, despite being much more numerous. So what makes the killings in France so much more salient?
This is a misunderstanding of the psychology behind the unrest. Feelings of unfairness and unjust persecution (relative to other people you live around) is what motivates social unrest. And not just unfairness in Black/Arab vs non-Black/Arab statistics around police killings. Perceptions of general unfairness (e.g. being mistreated by police but not killed) build up over years and then you have a straw that finally breaks the camel's back. The straw is relatively unimportant in the bigger picture. It's just a catalyst that multiple people with the same built-up feelings can rally around. In order to have a protest movement, you need an acute emotional trigger that's shared by everyone at the same time. Otherwise it can't get started because the anger is too diffuse over time.
„According to the public prosecutor of Nanterre, two Paris Police Prefecture motorcycle officers noticed a Mercedes-Benz A Class AMG with a Polish license plate driving at high speed in a bus lane, driven by a young-looking person at around 7:55 am. The officers activated their warning signals (audible and visual) and indicated to the driver of the car, then stationary at a red traffic light, to stop. The vehicle proceed to start moving and ran the red light. The officers followed the car and alerted their superiors via radio. The car committed multiple traffic violations, endangering a pedestrian and a cyclist. Due to traffic congestion, the vehicle was eventually forced to stop.“
Where in any of that account was any violence committed? Traffic violations. You're calling that violence. So we should be charging everyone who runs a stop sign with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon now?
I don’t think we should treat it like they have a deadly weapon, but at the same time, cars are incredibly deadly at the best of times. A 17 year old trying to escape from law enforcement in a stolen vehicle is a significant danger to the public, regardless of if they have violent intentions. Apparently before the police had managed to stop the vehicle in the video in question he had nearly run down a pedestrian and a bicyclist while fleeing. I obviously don’t think people should just be shot, but I also think it’s insane to just let someone fleeing in a vehicle have free range. I’m not sure what the solution is.
I propose de-escalating the situation. We're talking about a kid whose record can best be described as "hooligan" and has not drawn a weapon. If he gets away, you have his plates on-camera and can put a warrant out for his arrest. If he poses a continued threat to the public, you can negotiate a traffic interception, pit maneuver, spike strips or an undercover tail.
It's hard to expect a perfect response from anyone in this situation, but it's not a war zone we're talking about here. He wasn't "the enemy". He was a citizen in non-compliance with the law and deserves due process. It's like having an ICBM sent to your house for pirating Kung Fu Panda.
Moreover - and this has yet to be publicly confirmed by some official - the kid, which police couldn't know was a kid - was fleeing because the car was declared stolen, the license plate tagged, and part of a drug money laundering scheme using stolen Polish rent-a-cars the dealer which was employing the young man was running.
Have you heard of the web? A quick Google search takes you far.
"he was 'known to the police, particularly for resisting arrest', and had been charged with resisting the previous weekend and five times since 2021. His judicial file included 15 recorded incidents, including use of false license plates, driving without insurance, and for the sale and consumption of drugs."
The only one "spreading misinformation" here is you who claims that endangering people with a car is a "traffic violation".
In short, sounds like you're the one with the "narrative agenda" here.
Not all cops are bad or "petty tyrants", as you call them, but if a person decides he wants to be a criminal, he risks getting killed, especially if he himself risks killing other people.
That text you quoted appears literally nowhere in the source you cited. Which is Wikipedia.
I combed all the article sources cited in that entry. And turns out the only source for the claims of criminal history was a single anonymous police tip to a gossip rag (https://www.europe1.fr/faits-divers/info-europe-1-mort-de-na... - Europe1 is not known for its journalistic ethics), and all credible journalism indicates he had no actual criminal record because he had never been tried for any of the alleged incidents. (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66052104) To be a criminal you have to be convicted. We assume innocence in western legal tradition.
Again, you're not providing any sources that actually back up your claims. Aside from a single anonymous cop - which if it actually were true, wouldn't the department have publicly revealed his criminal past since you seem to think it disculpatory?
Your replies here still reek here of agenda and your attempts to rebut are intellectually dishonest.
> endangering people with a car is a "traffic violation".
Nobody died, nobody was even injured, and no sources have claimed he even intentionally tried to hit anyone. He ran a red light while speeding. Those are both traffic violations, and unless someone was injured they would be prosecuted as such no matter how hysterically you try to whip frenzy over hypothetical harm to claim they're violence.
edit: the irony of trying to cite a "criminal history" that shows a history of cops harassing him and trumping up reasons to file reports that went nowhere because they had no case to actually prosecute - you're making my point for me. petty tyrants.
If the endangered cyclist, pedestrian and other folks in cars where your family members, you‘d think about your words again. Also, the cops have a life too and probably weren‘t sure what that maniac would do next.
It‘s obvious the killing was a bad reflex from a cop who felt endangered too. A bad reflex he surely regretted the second thereafter.
Also, if all you better human beings feel like you‘d act much wiser in such intense situations, maybe you should consider becoming a cop, and ideally in a crime-ridden area, instead of judging bygone situations from your safe space.
so there was still no violence, nor any actual victims of his driving, just traffic violations, and all you have to offer is appeals to emotion over hypothetical victims?
it's pretty clear you have a narrative agenda and don't care if you have to throw reason out the window to push it, since that's exactly what you're doing.
> maybe you should consider becoming a cop, and ideally in a crime-ridden area
people like you who say this never consider that people like me live in those crime-ridden areas and have already seen firsthand the abuse of power dynamics inflicted on my minority neighbors by power-tripping cops.
or in your hypothetical do you have to actually be the cop? bc not everyone dreams of growing up one day to be a petty tyrant. but again, nobody is forcing them to be cops. if they can't handle doing their job without murdering teenagers they should quit.
edit: it's also a fascinating choice to be humanizing the cop (he regretted it so much!) but there's a dead kid you have no sympathy for in any of your commentary, what's that about?
This take is absolute classic Telegraph shit. My own tendencies lay way more in sympathy to the people, support protests, believe it's part of the great arch of society. I don't want to agree with this article at all.
And it's not this incident specifically.
I hate it, but I have some unease about tensions in general & how they manifest. I believe in the social contract, and I'm not sure how we can fulfill our obligations to ourselves, and how we can renew a sense of justice & improvement after things go wrong. I don't know the situation in France well, but in general, I've harbored some worry in the last 5 years or so that (often justified & honest & deserved) reactions can have large negative impacts on society, and I don't think we the world have the margins to soak these kinds of losses that we used to. Ideally the world would be more oriented towards sustainability, towards resilience, would have safety nets, and be better prepared. But it feels like so much of our social structures do - and i hate to say this, hate the conservatism this implies - rest delicately or precariously in balance.
I really so strongly agree with what you are saying. But I also want to find some way to find some permissible perspectives that recognize some of the nuance / scaredness, that can acknowledge some of the very conservative fear for the status quo & it's disruption, ideally without having to also demonize & counter-attack while doing so.
I think a large part of it is that they imported a bunch of different disparate cultures over the last few years. All those cultures have their own little societies, and I think very little integration.
So you have a mixture of oil and water.
And when the new ones have no home or responsibilities and are fed by the government, well, ha, who knew they would bite the hand that housed, fed, and clothed them.
Everyone and their brother predicted the Brexit mess.
France definitely has a problem. Somewhere along the way people started to believe that the only way to affect change is thru riots and mass destruction. That's how I see it as an outsider. The bigger problem is that this type of actions is fuel for a conservative strong person to take over as a leader. It may not be the end for France but big changes are coming to it, if things don't change. Eventually the majority gets scared and vote in a law and order strong man.
Yes, and you know how that turned out. A world war, a strong man that called himself emperor and many lives lost. Napoleon was so hated that before there was a Hitler, Napoleon was used as the sample of the most hated and horrible man in history. There are better ways to bring about change than to riot and destroy.
Reading this (why?) I got the impression the writer was working feverishly to make people think France's police weren't heavy handed enough the past 25 years. Rabid authoritarianism is a core Telegraph value, and it's weird to see it getting upvoted here.
The problems in France run much deeper than the police murdering a brown person. Massive influx of a segregated immigrant population who are forced economically into neglected areas and discriminated against routinely. Over-incarceration and prison system create a breeding ground for criminality and terrorism. Worsening economic outlook for many combined with neoliberal systematic neglect and increased taxation through austerity. The populist fascist white nationalists under Nationally Rally (National Front) who hope to push out Macron would make the situation worse. Riots are what happen when people lack jobs, money, housing, safety, love, or justice.
I understand people flagging this, it's a sensitive topic. Though it's a shame we can't have a better discussion about this. This doesn't look like normal civil unrest which France has a history of. The current narratives aren't helpful. It seems that racism became an excuse to be criminal and crime an excuse to be racist.
I'm a a technologist but technology can't be dissociated from politics. Something is wrong, society is sick and I fear the immuno response may kill the host. People on both sides of the political spectrum are radicalizing, electing authoritarian figures and supporting censorship.
79 comments
[ 0.74 ms ] story [ 134 ms ] threadSorry, but no telegraph.
Common sense was that Ocitanians and Bretons could never integrate into France.
Common sense was that hundreds of independent principalities with mutually unintelligible languages could never integrate into Germany and Italy.
Common sense was that Samnium and Lucanium could never integrate into Rome.
Except all of them did and those countries were stronger for it.
That's the belief. The reality is that the onus is not accepted and largely does not resolve for a couple generations. In the short term, the effect is obvious. Pure disruption from an economical and cultural perspective. A melting pot of the worst and best of both worlds. The worst effects necessarily dwarfing the short term benefits.
However, in the long term, a melting pot/diversity is believed to always be a net benefit. I'm not sure why the belief persists, other than convenience (can't really unmix populations after generations) and confirmation bias. Economies improve over time or nation economic models disappear, making it moot. I believe how a nation specifically deals with immigration has influenced the outcomes a great deal, for the better. Not dealing with immigration as a serious, ongoing concern, is a crap shoot.
Ask anyone who was born in the U.S. with an immigrant background if they feel at home in their parents country, chances are they will say no and they will feel like a foreigner there.
As someone born in that area, wow, is this ignorant. Yes, a lot of people speak Spanish but that doesn’t mean that most of them don’t identify as American – even the ones whose ancestors lived in that area for centuries before they became part of the United States. Trying to separate that out makes no more sense than trying to split out any other culture which contributed to us - for example, the Texan identity has included Mexican identity since before it was a state and trying to strip that out would produce a result as unrecognizable as it would if you tried to have Texas without the barbecue traditions brought over by German and Czech settlers.
Also, let’s be honest here that the American traditions haven’t exactly been uniformly good – in the Texas example, they seceded from Mexico and petitioned for statehood to protect the institution of slavery. If there’d been a popular vote, there were many thousands of enslaved people who would have enthusiastically stayed part of Mexico if that had meant their freedom decades earlier.
Rather ironic to bring this up as an example. Mexico opened its doors to unlimited mass migration from the US, the migrants did not adapt to the local culture, and then they seceded in an armed rebellion. Not exactly a success story when it comes to immigration policy.
If there is a large migrant population that is not integrating (eg. France, with the banlieues), that should be an indication to slow down or pause immigration while figuring out what went wrong. Meanwhile most Western governments see warning signs and then double or triple down to keep those raw GDP numbers up for another election cycle.
Yeah, it’s messy and nowhere near as simple as that – for example, the Mexican civil war is more significant than the immigration aspect (Tejanos joined the pro-secession side over that), the filibusteros weren’t normal immigrants, and arguably both the Mexican and American settlers were unwelcome immigrants from the perspective of the indigenous people.
More to the point, note that I did not recommend the Mexican Republic as a model but was instead rejecting the claim that the American south hasn’t been a complex interplay with Hispanic and other cultures since the beginning. That kind of brown horde rhetoric belongs on Stormfront, not HN.
What’s going on in France is the product of specific policies and antipathies dating back to the colonial era, just as in the United States our problems date back to the way we never finished dealing with the impacts of slavery, but that doesn’t mean that immigration as a concept is flawed any more than, say, the British Post Office scandal means IT projects cannot produce trustworthy systems.
That’s not what the video shows. The kid in the car has a gun pointed at him and drives off, very clearly. He is then shot in the arm.
Nobody is disputing either of the above.
Some people say the officer was dragged but I can’t tell myself.
Video is at: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Nahel_Merzouk
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65841666
[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66075798
The police murder was perpetrated by a member of an omnipresent institution that people in disaffected communities have negative interactions with regularly.
Also, it‘s obvious the killing was nothing but a bad reflex to an intense situation. I‘m sure the cop regretted this bad reflex the second thereafter.
„According to the public prosecutor of Nanterre, two Paris Police Prefecture motorcycle officers noticed a Mercedes-Benz A Class AMG with a Polish license plate driving at high speed in a bus lane, driven by a young-looking person at around 7:55 am. The officers activated their warning signals (audible and visual) and indicated to the driver of the car, then stationary at a red traffic light, to stop. The vehicle proceed to start moving and ran the red light. The officers followed the car and alerted their superiors via radio. The car committed multiple traffic violations, endangering a pedestrian and a cyclist. Due to traffic congestion, the vehicle was eventually forced to stop.“
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Nahel_Merzouk#Shoot...
If you think you‘d handle everything correctly in such an intense situation, while your life is also at risk due to a maniac behind a wheel, maybe you should consider becoming a cop.
It‘s always easy to feel like a better human being and badmouth people from your cozy safe space, when you‘ve never been in an intense situation like this before.
In France, the police kill 5.5 people per 10 million people per year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_by_law_enforcement._R...
In other words, US police kill 4.5x more white people, than French police kill anyone. But you are absolutely right (despite the cop responsible being charged with homicide) - in one case the guilt is collective, in the other, it's just lone individuals, and no patterns can or should be perceived.
As a bonus, in that killings by law enforcement wikipedia table, there are many countries higher than France. But with a few notable exceptions (the US being one), those killings seldom provoke ethnic riots, despite being much more numerous. So what makes the killings in France so much more salient?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Killing_of_Nael_M._Vide...
You should also be aware that this person was known to the police and it is easy to research why.
„According to the public prosecutor of Nanterre, two Paris Police Prefecture motorcycle officers noticed a Mercedes-Benz A Class AMG with a Polish license plate driving at high speed in a bus lane, driven by a young-looking person at around 7:55 am. The officers activated their warning signals (audible and visual) and indicated to the driver of the car, then stationary at a red traffic light, to stop. The vehicle proceed to start moving and ran the red light. The officers followed the car and alerted their superiors via radio. The car committed multiple traffic violations, endangering a pedestrian and a cyclist. Due to traffic congestion, the vehicle was eventually forced to stop.“
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Nahel_Merzouk#Shoot...
It's hard to expect a perfect response from anyone in this situation, but it's not a war zone we're talking about here. He wasn't "the enemy". He was a citizen in non-compliance with the law and deserves due process. It's like having an ICBM sent to your house for pirating Kung Fu Panda.
Moreover - and this has yet to be publicly confirmed by some official - the kid, which police couldn't know was a kid - was fleeing because the car was declared stolen, the license plate tagged, and part of a drug money laundering scheme using stolen Polish rent-a-cars the dealer which was employing the young man was running.
This comment fails to contribute meaningful discussion at best, and at worst is openly attempting to spread misinformation.
"he was 'known to the police, particularly for resisting arrest', and had been charged with resisting the previous weekend and five times since 2021. His judicial file included 15 recorded incidents, including use of false license plates, driving without insurance, and for the sale and consumption of drugs."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Nahel_Merzouk
The only one "spreading misinformation" here is you who claims that endangering people with a car is a "traffic violation".
In short, sounds like you're the one with the "narrative agenda" here.
Not all cops are bad or "petty tyrants", as you call them, but if a person decides he wants to be a criminal, he risks getting killed, especially if he himself risks killing other people.
I combed all the article sources cited in that entry. And turns out the only source for the claims of criminal history was a single anonymous police tip to a gossip rag (https://www.europe1.fr/faits-divers/info-europe-1-mort-de-na... - Europe1 is not known for its journalistic ethics), and all credible journalism indicates he had no actual criminal record because he had never been tried for any of the alleged incidents. (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66052104) To be a criminal you have to be convicted. We assume innocence in western legal tradition.
Again, you're not providing any sources that actually back up your claims. Aside from a single anonymous cop - which if it actually were true, wouldn't the department have publicly revealed his criminal past since you seem to think it disculpatory?
Your replies here still reek here of agenda and your attempts to rebut are intellectually dishonest.
> endangering people with a car is a "traffic violation".
Nobody died, nobody was even injured, and no sources have claimed he even intentionally tried to hit anyone. He ran a red light while speeding. Those are both traffic violations, and unless someone was injured they would be prosecuted as such no matter how hysterically you try to whip frenzy over hypothetical harm to claim they're violence.
edit: the irony of trying to cite a "criminal history" that shows a history of cops harassing him and trumping up reasons to file reports that went nowhere because they had no case to actually prosecute - you're making my point for me. petty tyrants.
It‘s obvious the killing was a bad reflex from a cop who felt endangered too. A bad reflex he surely regretted the second thereafter.
Also, if all you better human beings feel like you‘d act much wiser in such intense situations, maybe you should consider becoming a cop, and ideally in a crime-ridden area, instead of judging bygone situations from your safe space.
it's pretty clear you have a narrative agenda and don't care if you have to throw reason out the window to push it, since that's exactly what you're doing.
> maybe you should consider becoming a cop, and ideally in a crime-ridden area
people like you who say this never consider that people like me live in those crime-ridden areas and have already seen firsthand the abuse of power dynamics inflicted on my minority neighbors by power-tripping cops.
or in your hypothetical do you have to actually be the cop? bc not everyone dreams of growing up one day to be a petty tyrant. but again, nobody is forcing them to be cops. if they can't handle doing their job without murdering teenagers they should quit.
edit: it's also a fascinating choice to be humanizing the cop (he regretted it so much!) but there's a dead kid you have no sympathy for in any of your commentary, what's that about?
Too bad they were much more "conservative" to predict this bloody mess that became Brexit...
And it's not this incident specifically.
I hate it, but I have some unease about tensions in general & how they manifest. I believe in the social contract, and I'm not sure how we can fulfill our obligations to ourselves, and how we can renew a sense of justice & improvement after things go wrong. I don't know the situation in France well, but in general, I've harbored some worry in the last 5 years or so that (often justified & honest & deserved) reactions can have large negative impacts on society, and I don't think we the world have the margins to soak these kinds of losses that we used to. Ideally the world would be more oriented towards sustainability, towards resilience, would have safety nets, and be better prepared. But it feels like so much of our social structures do - and i hate to say this, hate the conservatism this implies - rest delicately or precariously in balance.
I really so strongly agree with what you are saying. But I also want to find some way to find some permissible perspectives that recognize some of the nuance / scaredness, that can acknowledge some of the very conservative fear for the status quo & it's disruption, ideally without having to also demonize & counter-attack while doing so.
So you have a mixture of oil and water.
And when the new ones have no home or responsibilities and are fed by the government, well, ha, who knew they would bite the hand that housed, fed, and clothed them.
France definitely has a problem. Somewhere along the way people started to believe that the only way to affect change is thru riots and mass destruction. That's how I see it as an outsider. The bigger problem is that this type of actions is fuel for a conservative strong person to take over as a leader. It may not be the end for France but big changes are coming to it, if things don't change. Eventually the majority gets scared and vote in a law and order strong man.
Probably around 1789?
So I clicked her name.
If you've ever wondered what a blatant apparatchik looks like: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/authors/a/ak-ao/anne-elisabeth-m...
I'm certainly no great fan of Macron and his neolib smuggery, but this lady's list of articles is concerning. As are some of these comments...
I'm a a technologist but technology can't be dissociated from politics. Something is wrong, society is sick and I fear the immuno response may kill the host. People on both sides of the political spectrum are radicalizing, electing authoritarian figures and supporting censorship.