Hacker News Reader

Comment by hinata08 | Hacker News Reader

>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.

View on HN

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com