Does anybody else find this hypocritical?

[Narmer]

I have no opinion of the French riots but I hate the way people, especially politicians, word certain phrases. While there will be an "official inquiry" into the deaths of the teenagers, the President of France called the injuring of the police officers "completely unacceptable." Why can't he say the same thing for both incidents? Why does he have to presume innocence in one case and presume guilt in another? What if these cops were hitting children with nightsticks and their actions were countered with a bullet? Wouldn't that justify the shooting? I'm being hypothetical but I think people need to be impartial when dealing with everybody.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7116758.stm

Sarkozy issues warning to rioters

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has vowed to bring to justice rioters who shot at police in Paris in urban unrest that followed the death of two youths.

Mr Sarkozy, visiting policemen injured in the riots, said such shootings could not be tolerated.

He also met families of the teenagers killed in a collision with a police car and pledged to hold a judicial inquiry.

Mr Sarkozy then headed into crisis talks with key ministers to prevent the spread of three nights of rioting.

There was a decrease in violence on Tuesday night, but there were still arson attacks in some parts of Paris and in the southern city of Toulouse.

'Search for truth'

Mr Sarkozy touched down from a state visit to China on Wednesday morning and headed straight to a hospital in Eaubonne, northern Paris, to visit some of the 120 officers injured in the rioting.

Afterwards he said: "Opening fire at officials is completely unacceptable... [this] has a name - attempted murder... Those who take it into their hands to shoot at officials will find themselves in court.

"It is not something that we can tolerate, no matter how dramatic the deaths of these two youngsters on a motorbike may be."

Mr Sarkozy later met the families of the two teenagers, both of North African descent, and said he was opening a judicial inquiry into the deaths.

A lawyer for the families, Jean-Pierre Mignard, welcomed the move, saying it would allow relatives and their representatives "to participate actively in the search for the truth".

Mr Sarkozy then held emergency talks at the Elysee Palace with Prime Minister Francois Fillon, Interior Minister Michele Alliot-Marie and other senior members of the government.

Extra police were deployed to prevent further violence on Tuesday night.

Violence was down, but dozens of cars and several buildings were still set on fire in the worst-hit suburb, Villiers-le-Bel, in the north of the capital.

Petrol bombs were also thrown in Les Mureaux, north-west of Paris, and a flaming chair was thrown through the window of a school in Vitry-sur-Seine, south of the capital.

In Toulouse, about 20 cars were torched.

However, clashes with police were limited and only a few officers were hurt.

Mr Fillon said: "The situation is much calmer than the two previous nights but we can all feel that it remains fragile.

"The government will do all it can to ensure that order returns as soon as possible."

Initial findings

Relatives of the two teenagers have insisted that police rammed the motorcycle the boys were riding before leaving them to die on Sunday.

The initial findings of an internal police probe, which found that police were not to blame, sparked anger in Villiers-le-Bel.

Police say the motorcycle was going at top speed and was not registered for street use, while the two boys - who have been named only as Moushin, 15, and Larami, 16 - were not wearing helmets and had been ignoring traffic rules.

Police unions have said the rioting is more intense than during weeks of clashes in the French suburbs in 2005, because firearms are now more frequently used.

The 2005 unrest, also sparked by the deaths of two youths, spread from a nearby suburb of Paris to other cities and continued for three weeks, during which more than 10,000 cars were set ablaze and 300 buildings firebombed.

 

[sandorski]

Not really. Shooting at Police is clearly wrong, whether the teens who died in the collision were collided with intentionally or not is still unknown.

 

[EagleKeeper]

It is hypocritical ia a viewpoint is that a person believes that people have the right to disobey the law

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Not really. Shooting at Police is clearly wrong, whether the teens who died in the collision were collided with intentionally or not is still unknown.

No it's not. If I was in Texas and walking home with a concealed weapon and a police officer starts shooting at me for no reason, you better believe that'll be a dead police officer. No reason for him to kill me just because he wears the uniform. There's a reason why the 2nd Amendment exists, to protect us from an overbearing government. The police aren't angels from heaven here to protect us. They are human and capable of making mistakes. Somebody needs to correct them when they make such mistakes.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
It is hypocritical ia a viewpoint is that a person believes that people have the right to disobey the law

Are you saying that only civilians can disobey the law? It's funny how Westerners criticize the law in a police state and urge the people to disobey the law and bring it down, but when it comes to their own, they think it's sacred. You're a sucker if you belive that.

 

[EagleKeeper]

You cited to articles.

One where the people disobeyed the law - accepted as a fact.
The police were doing their job - how effective is in dispute - he said/she said

The second people chose to attack the police.

Do people want the law enforcement to exist or not?
Remove the law enforcement, given the type of society that we have evolved into, would create anarchy.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
You cited to articles.

One where the people disobeyed the law - accepted as a fact.
The police were doing their job - how effective is in dispute - he said/she said

The second people chose to attack the police.

Do people want the law enforcement to exist or not?
Remove the law enforcement, given the type of society that we have evolved into, would create anarchy.

My point was there was no official inquiry into how the cops were injured. Apparently there doesn't have to be because the cops were "just doing their jobs" and so are presumed innocent. But when it comes to the civvies, there will be in inquiry to see who is guilty and/or innocent. Why do we have an inquiry for one event and not for another? Is there a presumption that all in the crowd were rioting? Is there a presumption that all in the crowd were guilty of something? Is there a presumption that the shooter is automatically guilty because he shoots at a police officer?

My primary concern here is the double standard, not anarchy.

 

[manowar821]

I like this part the best:
..."It is not something that we can tolerate, no matter how dramatic the deaths of these two youngsters on a motorbike may be."...

Uh, sure it is. If the cops rammed their car on purpose, maybe laughed and then drove off without even checking to see if they were alright, I think then a little riot is in order.

I'm not going to stop saying it, President Sarkozy is a prick.

 

[piasabird]

So this started when two "Youths" stole a motorbike and and were running around on it with no helmet. How did the police force people in a stolen motor vehicle to die by crashing it and destroying someone's property. This is clearly abusive by police.

 

[Jaskalas]

So the cops love watching Paris burn, you?re telling us? Or maybe they had an accident and were going to be lynched if they sat there in the middle of the street.

Of course they should be investigated, but in the mean time the relevant question to all this is if you support the wounding/murder of the entire police force?

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
So the cops love watching Paris burn, you?re telling us? Or maybe they had an accident and were going to be lynched if they sat there in the middle of the street.

Of course they should be investigated, but in the mean time the relevant question to all this is if you support the wounding/murder of the entire police force?

I don't know where you got those thoughts from.

 

[hellod9]

We have options in life. We can choose to enslave our minds to the will of the law, and to the power of those who represent it, or we can choose to act according to principals that we define according to the very core of our being...principles which come from us, not from the government.

We can take responsibility for our actions, or we can submit our body, our minds, and our souls, to the power of others who will act in our name, because it is our name that we give them.

Obedience of law should never be motivated by a release of responsibility -- by naming the law as the reason for ones actions. Such reasoning is evil, because it places no value on the individual. This twisted reasoning leads to the murder of innocent people by dictators. Take, for example, the rule of Fidel Castro in Cuba. He has seized control of wealth, of business, of the ability for the individual to express himself, and it has resulted in a stagnation of Cubas economy, culture, and vitality. That stagnation, without a doubt, has resulted in the deaths of many people.

But that atrocity is allowed to exist by the very people who are subjected to it because they choose to obey the system under which they are enslaved. They have given away their freedom by allowing certain choices to be made by others, and not by themselves.

The same is true of the rule of law. If we allow the rule of law to dictate the choices we make in life, then we are allowing a certain part of our selves to stagnate and die.

In the case of the teens who died in the car accident -- we must ask ourselves who the murderer is. Who the victim is. We must look in our hearts and ask ourselves to what standards do we hold our own self accountable? We must ask ourselves if we are complicit in the system that lead to the death of those teenagers.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
You cited to articles.

One where the people disobeyed the law - accepted as a fact.
The police were doing their job - how effective is in dispute - he said/she said

The second people chose to attack the police.

Do people want the law enforcement to exist or not?
Remove the law enforcement, given the type of society that we have evolved into, would create anarchy.

My point was there was no official inquiry into how the cops were injured. Apparently there doesn't have to be because the cops were "just doing their jobs" and so are presumed innocent. But when it comes to the civvies, there will be in inquiry to see who is guilty and/or innocent. Why do we have an inquiry for one event and not for another? Is there a presumption that all in the crowd were rioting? Is there a presumption that all in the crowd were guilty of something? Is there a presumption that the shooter is automatically guilty because he shoots at a police officer?

My primary concern here is the double standard, not anarchy.

Generally a shooting victim is presumed innocent in the shooting incident, no?

While the shooting victim may be suspected of guilt in some activity leading up to their being shot, they are always presumed innocent in the actual shooting incident.

For example, if a suspected bank robber is shot, he may be tried (inquiry) for the bank robbery. But he is not tried for the shooting incident in which he was shot. The police doing the shooting may well be subject to inquiry.

So, if someone accusses the police of brutality, they (police) may be investigated for that. But not for being shot.

Otherwise, you imply some sort of civilian right under French law to shot police engaged in some type of prohibited activity. I'm unaware of such a law, and highly doubt one exists. France is not Texas as far as the right to self defense using a gun. (Even in Texas, police and other law enforcement officers are technically court officials. So, the courts and the law itself do more than just frown on shooting police officers when in the line of duty.)

If there is no law in France authorizing such a thing, guilt would be presumed (perhaps an individual innocence would be presumed, that is- innocent as to being the shooter. But no presumption of innocence if found to be the shooter).

More to common -type sense - traffic fatalities there as elsewhere (I've witnessed some in Paris) are rarely criminal acts; rather mere accidents.

So a presumption of innocence in a traffic fatality seems more than reasonable. Likewise, an inquiry to determine if there was negligence, or even malice present seems reasonable and approptriate.

I see no hypocracy.

Fern

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
You cited to articles.

One where the people disobeyed the law - accepted as a fact.
The police were doing their job - how effective is in dispute - he said/she said

The second people chose to attack the police.

Do people want the law enforcement to exist or not?
Remove the law enforcement, given the type of society that we have evolved into, would create anarchy.

My point was there was no official inquiry into how the cops were injured. Apparently there doesn't have to be because the cops were "just doing their jobs" and so are presumed innocent. But when it comes to the civvies, there will be in inquiry to see who is guilty and/or innocent. Why do we have an inquiry for one event and not for another? Is there a presumption that all in the crowd were rioting? Is there a presumption that all in the crowd were guilty of something? Is there a presumption that the shooter is automatically guilty because he shoots at a police officer?

My primary concern here is the double standard, not anarchy.

Generally a shooting victim is presumed innocent in the shooting incident, no?

While the shooting victim may be suspected of guilt in some activity leading up to their being shot, they are always presumed innocent in the actual shooting incident.

For example, if a suspected bank robber is shot, he may be tried (inquiry) for the bank robbery. But he is not tried for the shooting incident in which he was shot. The police doing the shooting may well be subject to inquiry.

So, if someone accusses the police of brutality, they (police) may be investigated for that. But not for being shot.

Otherwise, you imply some sort of civilian right under French law to shot police engaged in some type of prohibited activity. I'm unaware of such a law, and highly doubt one exists. France is not Texas as far as the right to self defense using a gun. (Even in Texas, police and other law enforcement officers are technically court officials. So, the courts and the law itself do more than just frown on shooting police officers when in the line of duty.)

If there is no law in France authorizing such a thing, guilt would be presumed (perhaps an individual innocence would be presumed, that is- innocent as to being the shooter. But no presumption of innocence if found to be the shooter).

More to common -type sense - traffic fatalities there as elsewhere (I've witnessed some in Paris) are rarely criminal acts; rather mere accidents.

So a presumption of innocence in a traffic fatality seems more than reasonable. Likewise, an inquiry to determine if there was negligence, or even malice present seems reasonable and approptriate.

I see no hypocracy.

Fern

You make some fine points but managed to subtley sidestep the issue. No one is saying whether or not the police officer deserved to be shot. What I'm saying is that the shooting could've been a preventive action to stop something worse happening. Perhaps the shooters did not have a choice in the matter. Perhaps the cop went temporarily insane or he was in fear of his life and was about to do some questionable activities. We don't know. Hence, an inquiry needs to occur to find out what really happened, just like in the fatal killing of the youths. The cops may be lawmen but they are not above the law.

As for your other point regarding the accident, I have no issue with that.

 

[First]

Lawmen get the benefit of the doubt versus teenagers. Not surprising in the least.

 

[glenn1]

What I'm saying is that the shooting could've been a preventive action to stop something worse happening. Perhaps the shooters did not have a choice in the matter. Perhaps the cop went temporarily insane or he was in fear of his life and was about to do some questionable activities. We don't know. Hence, an inquiry needs to occur to find out what really happened, just like in the fatal killing of the youths.

Should those responsible be caught, an inquiry would be held. It's called a trial. If you read the article you would know this:

Afterwards he (Sarkozy) said: "Opening fire at officials is completely unacceptable... [this] has a name - attempted murder... Those who take it into their hands to shoot at officials will find themselves in court.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: glenn1

What I'm saying is that the shooting could've been a preventive action to stop something worse happening. Perhaps the shooters did not have a choice in the matter. Perhaps the cop went temporarily insane or he was in fear of his life and was about to do some questionable activities. We don't know. Hence, an inquiry needs to occur to find out what really happened, just like in the fatal killing of the youths.

Should those responsible be caught, an inquiry would be held. It's called a trial. If you read the article you would know this:

Afterwards he (Sarkozy) said: "Opening fire at officials is completely unacceptable... [this] has a name - attempted murder... Those who take it into their hands to shoot at officials will find themselves in court.

Yeah, but he's presuming them guilty. Besides, even dicatatorships have trials. When the leader presume you guilty, you have an uphill battle to clear your name.

 

[glenn1]

Yeah, but he's presuming them guilty. Besides, even dicatatorships have trials. When the leader presume you guilty, you have an uphill battle to clear your name.

When presented with the evidence (namely, police officers that have holes in them from bullets) isn't it a reasonable presumption to say that someone shot them?

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. It's perfectly reasonable to argue that the shooters may have been justified in doing so in self-defense, or that they shouldn't be punished for whatever reason; but you're making it sound like there's some question about whether there was actually a shooting or not.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Yeah, but he's presuming them guilty. Besides, even dicatatorships have trials. When the leader presume you guilty, you have an uphill battle to clear your name.

When presented with the evidence (namely, police officers that have holes in them from bullets) isn't it a reasonable presumption to say that someone shot them?

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. It's perfectly reasonable to argue that the shooters may have been justified in doing so in self-defense, or that they shouldn't be punished for whatever reason; but you're making it sound like there's some question about whether there was actually a shooting or not.

No, I was questioning the use of words in regards to the two events.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: piasabird
So this started when two "Youths" stole a motorbike and and were running around on it with no helmet. How did the police force people in a stolen motor vehicle to die by crashing it and destroying someone's property. This is clearly abusive by police.

The police have created an atmosphere of fear and death. European police officers are brutal. You should read up on what they do in France as well as their history.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Nepoleonic code, you're not presumed innocent. You must prove it to the satisfaction of the court.