Hacker News Reader

Comment by hackerbeat | Hacker News Reader

He wasn‘t „nonviolent“ though:

„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...

View on HN

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.

Can't really de-escalate without communicating.

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.

Moreover - <a series of incredible escalatory claims with absolutely zero sources>.

This comment fails to contribute meaningful discussion at best, and at worst is openly attempting to spread misinformation.

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."

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.

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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com