Hacker News Reader

Comment by expertentipp | Hacker News Reader

> The killing of a 17-year-old of North African descent

One nuance picked up by Polish media - the car had Polish license plates. It's a scam disguised as an investment. Well off people get legit car lease for a high end car, then are baited to "rent it" abroad for a monthly payment. Sometimes receive multiple months upfront payment. Then car "vanishes", while of course physically driving with original license plates on the French roads, and the payments stop. Basically car version of "buy an apartment with a mortgage and rent it, the tenant will pay your mortgage, after X years you have an apartment for free". The victims are people who are even more greedy than well off. The 17 years old was likely linked to drug dealing and to financial scam, driving recklessly and running away from police.

View on HN

>driving recklessly and running away from police.

he was pulled over for driving on a bus lane (not something that is so reckless that it's punishable by death even in the most 'based' countries, in the middle east and things.)

and the running away thing is being questioned, as the passenger just testified. He says police beat the driver, which made him release the brake pedal, so the car creeped forward.

And anyway, police was on the side of the car, so at not point it time they were in danger. And their version of events didn't match the social media footage that has latter emerged.

Justice will take time. but it's hard to see anything but over-reaction and death penalty, as the teen matched the stereotype you described.

And anyway, police was on the side of the car, so at not point it time they were in danger. And their version of events didn't match the social media footage that has latter emerged.

That's not true. Police officers have been killed while standing beside the driver side door during a traffic stop. All it takes is for their arm to get trapped by the open window and they can fall and get dragged or even pulled under the rear wheel.

Were they shoving their arm through the window? Did they need to do so? Is their safety more important than that of a civilian?

These are leading questions, because the answer is obvious: if the choice is a dead cop or a dead civilian, a dead cop is the only moral choice that can be made. Optimizing for the safety of the police is how you turn police into fearful, scared "warriors" who view the citizenry as their enemy, like we have in the United States.

Risk is the police's business, taken intentionally and with foreknowledge on behalf of the citizenry. Or else they're bullies with badges.

you can't really compare the police in the USA and the police in France.

US cops are just a rogue and racist organisation, who apply their own law (mostly based on racial profiling).

I think that comparing it to the police in the Philippines would be more appropriate.

The victim in this case got hated by the right wing was because he was a stereotypical drug dealer who drove off, and nothing else, and they wanted the police to be able to work.

Of course. Your point is a good one. But police in France aren't being dragged by cars when they stick an arm through the window, so I was accepting the implicit move in framing.

Your use of the word "civilian" is super misleading because of its connotation of being an innocent bystander. Replace it with "fugitive" and see if your statement is still so obvious.

Sure, no problem! Let's sound it out, just for you.

If the choice is a dead cop or a dead fugitive, a dead cop is the only moral choice that can be made.

That was easy. And it's true and it's right, too.

The police are not judges and they are not executioners. If it takes a dead cop to bring in a non-violent fugitive, who in functional countries is to be presumed innocent until found otherwise by a court of law, that is a good price to pay for society. And I do note non-violent; somebody who's engaged in violence against other people--not property--has implicitly raised the stakes and I don't have a problem with the police then responding with force. (But they are not mind-readers, and so hypothetical future endangerment of civilians without cause is not within bounds.)

If police don't like defaulting to rules of engagement where civilians' lives matter more than their own, they can find another job where they can't employ force against other people.

When people are close enough to your car that speeding off is likely to run them over or drag them along, doing so anyway is violent.

> rules of engagement where civilians' lives matter more than their own

You're back to the word "civilians" again. And I don't accept that law enforcement's lives are worth less than lawbreakers' lives.

"Likely to run them over"? Please.

Is it possible? Sure, I guess. Did it happen? No.

Do you execute somebody for it could have happened? Well, I mean, I think officers of the peace shouldn't do so regardless of country.

> You're back to the word "civilians" again. And I don't accept that law enforcement's lives are worth less than lawbreakers' lives.

Because they are civilians! That's the definition! Words mean things!

You don't have to accept that cops are less important than civilians. I think your position is wrong and gross, but I concede that there's a discussion to be had about rules of engagement. We could have that, if you were packing for it.

But you want call me out for dirty pool about the word civilian?

How about lawbreaker?

In a liberal society, it is the job of a court to decide who's a lawbreaker. Cops don't make law and cops don't prescribe punishment. If we're talking about dirty pool, loading that implication onto an extrajudicial execution should make it really hard for you to look in the mirror. I hope you've got the same energy for taking one in the ten-ring when you go five miles an hour over the speed limit in an area with a few curb cuts. After all, you could have hit someone.

> You don't have to accept that cops are less important than civilians. I think your position is wrong and gross, but I concede that there's a discussion to be had about rules of engagement. We could have that, if you were packing for it.

There's bad faith arguing and then there's this, you're just rushing to claim a moral high ground you don't have to move the post towards someone having to dismantle the claim that cops are less important than civilians.

In my country, Chile, there was a brief flash of time when this attitude was taken, that even if a suspect threatens a cop's life to get away, they should be given that right.

People got sick of dead cops quite quickly, and the position was just thrown into the dustbin of history, poof, there, wrong side of history, discredited, shunned, almost forgotten. You don't have rule of law when "civilians" make their own in the street and the State giving up the monopoly of violence.

> You don't have rule of law when "civilians" make their own in the street and the State giving up the monopoly of violence.

This is true. This is absolutely true!

But that cuts both ways. Can you explain to me how, given that in a liberal society police do not and must not determine guilt or innocence, you can have the rule of law when the police are seizing that role for themselves? Because, when we go down this rabbit hole, the police committing extrajudicial killings is also the state yielding their monopoly on force; the extrajudicial action of an agent of the state, when not ordered by the executive, is seizure of that monopoly for personal ends.

You could convince me of a middle ground instituting an automatic venue-changed prosecution of every police killing and letting a jury sort it out--take your chances with that shoot!--but I tend not to think that would go over well with this crowd either.

>Police officers have been killed while standing beside the driver side door during a traffic stop.

But on his report, the officer testified that he shot because the car was heading toward him.

That didn't match the video.

There is an investigation because, with such a mismatch, you can wonder to what extent the officer was really in danger.

You can assume that if you really faced death, you would remember what happened and describe it exactly.

He was also driving without a driving license (in France you can’t drive if you are 17)

> He says police beat the driver, which made him release the brake pedal, so the car creeped forward

Fortunately there's a video to show this is an obvious lie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSfcLfoNkFk

This comment takes quite a journey.

Evidence: the car had Polish license plates.

Conclusion: The 17 years old was likely linked to drug dealing and to financial scam, driving recklessly and running away from police.

It's like Sherlock Holmes deducing an entire life story from a missing shirt button. Unfortunately that isn't possible in real life and this chain of logic is absurd.

Bayes.

Further, it's literally in support of "well, it's okay to kill him, he was probably a bad egg". Which...is certainly something you can believe, but it makes you pretty awful to do so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Nahel_Merzouk

> His judicial file included 15 recorded incidents, including use of false license plates, driving without insurance, and for the sale and consumption of drugs.

That might have been relevant evidence to include in the comment. However, these are unproven claims made by the same organization that murdered him and then lied about it. It is not particularly strong evidence given the context.

Which of those are convictions? Which of those convictions are capital offenses?

Get out of here with this "he was no angel" stuff.

This is corroborated by the fact that the car is a Mercedes A45 AMG, which has an MSRP of around £60k (~$/€75k) [0], and costs several hundred Euros per day to rent [1]. How could a 17 year old (who worked as a pizza delivery driver [2]) obtain such a rental, especially given that the minimum age to rent a car in France is 18?

This doesn’t excuse the fact that he was killed, which is an unforgivable overreaction by the police to someone driving recklessly in what’s likely a stolen car.

[0] https://www.carwow.co.uk/mercedes/amg-a45#gref

[1] https://www.eliterent.com/luxury-car-rental/rent-sport-conve..., https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F0GeUVAXsAIVsMm?format=jpg

[2] https://www.ladepeche.fr/2023/06/28/nahel-tue-a-nanterre-par...

The "rental" thing is a scam advertised to the Polish victim, on the French side it's likely organized crime all along.

someone gave him the car for the day ?

rich uncle ?

he works while living with his parents, and he's 17, so he just spends his check on stupid things any 17 year old would want to do ?

borrowing or renting a pricey car isn't a capital crime.

And you can ask questions before you shoot, if you're a skilled detective.

What is your point? He deserved to be murdered? This seems irrelevant, “he likely was maybe guilty of something…” and?

17 years old driving recklessly a sport car with foreign license plates, running away from the police. The situation strongly points he is linked to drug dealing, financial scam, car thievery, or all of them. What measures are expected in such situation, what was he expecting to happen?

None of these alleged offenses justify punishment without a trial. None of them justify death.

Death may not be justified, but neither were his actions. He put himself in a position where this could be an outcome. I'm not saying it was justified, but it did start with him, not the police. The mere act of skydiving doesn't justify death, but it is a possible outcome nonetheless.

I live in a country where being shot by the police absolutely _could not_ be an outcome unless you pose an immediate danger.

Police aren't a force a nature. A cop made a decision here too.

>> The mere act of skydiving doesn't justify death, but it is a possible outcome nonetheless.

Similarly, the mere act of driving with a broken tail-light doesn't justify death, but it is a possible outcome. Now...if someone comes and shoots you and kills you, that doesn't make it right.

Similarly, if someone comes and shoots a sky-diver and kills them, that is also not right, even if there was a possibility of death.

Not being murder.

> What measures are expected in such situation

Catch him and run a due process.

> The situation strongly points he is linked to drug dealing, financial scam, car thievery

How does it point to that? And does that justify murder?

Few weeks ago a Polish man was choked to death by 10 Dutch police officers [1] for...running away on a bicycle, and no on bat an eye. I guess this is the new normal?

[1] https://nltimes.nl/2023/06/10/32-year-old-man-dies-arrest-st...

Does that mean that other deaths should not be protested?

Does riding a bicycle with a working chainsaw on a leash sound like a rational protesting technique?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=qUutjFQ3y_U

Yes.

Yellow vests protested peacefully and that yielded nil.

Pension reform was protested peacefully and that yielded nil.

Anything that makes establishment scared is a valid protesting technique.

I hope you'll manage to jump quickly enough before it will chop off your legs.

Did climbing through a window justify Ashley Babbitt getting murdered? selective outrage

Is introducing people to your friends a crime now? Can we defend epstein with this sort of selective paring away of context?

We don't know what happened and an investigation in on-going.

If police draw their weapon and you try to run them over, IMHO suddenly things do not look exactly like "police brutality", for instance, so let's wait and see.

None of that's relevant. It kinda sounds relevant if you ignore the fact the kid was killed by police officers who weren't acting in self defense, but outright saying "The police should be able to perform summary executions" doesn't play well to most people, so flood the zone with irrelevant nonsense that pushes Culture War buttons.

Overreactive police it's the European new normal [1]. The same as turning blind eye on Maghreb-originating organized crime.

[1] - https://nltimes.nl/2023/06/10/32-year-old-man-dies-arrest-st...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com