Ado shot for refusing to stop for traffice police

[Blaze]

Protests and unrest erupted in the Paris region overnight after police shot dead a 17-year-old who failed to stop when ordered to by traffic police.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66038227

Protests and unrest erupted in the Paris region overnight after police shot dead a 17-year-old who failed to stop when ordered to by traffic police.
Video circulating on social media shows a police officer pointing a gun at the driver of a car, before a gunshot is heard. The car then crashes to a stop......
Naël M is the second person this year in France to have been killed in a police shooting during a traffic stop. Last year, a record 13 people died in this way

The video shows he was shot in the chest at point blank range.

[Polly]

I found it hard to believe it was true - and in France!

[niemeyjt]

Is it worse than in US -I am not sure that it is?

And the Marc Duggan case happened in London.

All involved close-range use of weapons.

Maybe we need full facts rather than a video shot from a distance?

[p4psb]

It does seem from the video evidence, that the driver had been stopped and spoken to and then as the car was starting to drive off the officer shot the driver, so not sure if you can call that refusing to stop!

[MAD87]

We definitely don't know the facts - after all, if it was "point-blank range" from an officer standing in front of the car (and the bonnet presumably), we're talking a couple of metres at least. The ado was apparently 17, so unlicenced and uninsured.
I'm not making excuses for anyone...

[Blaze]

https://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/ ... 6APNUU.php
The video shows clearly the policeman with the gun standing close to the near side of the vehicle and you can hear the shot as the car starts to drive off. No mention of either of the policemen standing in front of the vehicle. Doubtless the PM would reveal the exact distance from which the ado was shot.
That is, if the video isn't a fake .....

We'll have to wait for the results of an investigation.

[p4psb]

We definitely don't know the facts - after all, if it was "point-blank range" from an officer standing in front of the car (and the bonnet presumably), we're talking a couple of metres at least. The ado was apparently 17, so unlicenced and uninsured.
I'm not making excuses for anyone...

You should watch the video, you will see that the officer was by the drivers door, not in front of the car.

[niemeyjt]

You should watch the video, you will see that the officer was by the drivers door, not in front of the car.

It looks like the shot went through the windscreen, not the driver's door - although the footage is low quality.

The officer also looks like he was pointing a gun through the windscreen.

But what was that gun - it looked like some semi-automatic machine gun - I thought Police just had side arms.

Doubtless more to come out in the wash.

[Blaze]

It looks like the shot went through the windscreen, not the driver's door - although the footage is low quality.
The officer also looks like he was pointing a gun through the windscreen.

I don't agree, it looked as if the shot was through the driver's window which was probably open (like the sun roof). It would not have been possible to shoot through the windscreen standing beside the driver's door, particularly as it was fired a nano second before the car drove off.

[exile]

Just a view.

If the driver was 17 and about to set off in the car, it would not have been with the blessing of the officer, since as already pointed out, the driver would be illegal. It is then incumbent on the officer to try and prevent the driver leaving. His options are very limited and essentially come down to threatening to use or actually using his gun. He has chosen to take the latter (and for all I know may have already tried the former). With the driver sat in the car, the target area is very limited - basically the head or upper torso. As such damage is likely to be severe.