[iodbh]

By all accounts of those events, the people being assaulted by the riot police in this case went inside the restaurant to seek shelter from the tear gas. Restaurant employees were giving them water. Are you deliberately spreading lies or are you just just misrepresenting your wild guess as sound information ?

[stef25]

> "to seek shelter from the tear gas"

Of course they would say that.

You can clearly see the restaurant wasn't open by the way the sliding doors were being pushed open (0:06), and a "fermé" sign on the door (meaning "closed") at 0:16. No employees visible anywhere.

To get away from the gas, why not run down the road the camera man was chased down by the cop? No gas there, no resistance from police and much easier than breaking & entering a restaurant.

In fact if you look on a map, the location of that BK is on a roundabout with no less than 10 roads branching off it.

But yes, those are my guesses based on the information available and I may be wrong.

[iodbh]

There have been multiple account of what happened as several journalists were present.

Here is one of the many articles that have been published, I am linking this testimony by two journalists since liberation is a reputable publication, but you'll find more articles and more witness interviews if you look around.

https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/2018/12/05/la-video-des-...

Everybody present has told that the riot police just waltzed inside and starting beating people up, then let people leave but only going through a tunnel of cops beating them up some more. There are also more videos from different angles.

Assumptions are dangerous, and so are these stormtroopers.

[stef25]

I'm not going to argue with journalists from la Liberation and have no doubt their testimonials are true.

It's still not clear why they would enter a BK (full of tear gas, according to the journalist) while at least some of the surrounding roads were free.

If they really were beating innocent bystanders then they should be punished to the full extent of the law, while at the same time I understand the violent reaction of the police after having been pelted with rocks for hours just for wearing a uniform.

I've been in these kind of protests before, you can tell well in advance that things are going to get ugly. When you have police being attacked from all sides and you intend no harm, you know it's time to gtfo because you will get caught up in the violence.

[iodbh]

This is not some troublemakers breaking things for fun anymore : this is full on state repression, and the violence is not there to stop crimes in progress but to dissuade people from voicing their rejection of the government.

There were highschool protests today. Just look at the videos from this feed, and even with great sympathy for the police, even keeping in mind that context can be missing, I believe you'll see that we are beyond maintaining the civil peace :

https://twitter.com/Obs_Violences

I would argue that the protesters' violence (and i'm not denying there is) is a response to the state's own violence. I was still living in Paris about 2 years, when the protests were peaceful gatherings and the cops were unleashed without provocation, just to prevent people from being together. Repression and disdain form the people have grown the peaceful protests into violent protests, and now the protests are growing into an insurrection.

That's not blind rage, or an appetite for destruction : that is a democracy self-correcting when its government has consistently been too far over the line. That is standing up to the bully.

[stef25]

Let me guess, burn-down-the-state anarchist protesting about how oppressed they are in W-Europe? Anyone hiding behind @riseup is just insufferable.

There's plenty of violence from the other side https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jx8CjZv8-HA

[PavlovsCat]

> Anyone hiding behind @riseup is just insufferable.

It's actually you who is hiding behing the fact that there is a riseup email address, as if that allows you to ignore anything, and just "guess".

> There's plenty of violence from the other side

Yeah, collective punishment goes great with police brutality. Anything else?

[PavlovsCat]

> It's still not clear why they would enter a BK (full of tear gas, according to the journalist) while at least some of the surrounding roads were free.

It's also not clear why you're excusing police brutality, but you're still doing it.

> I've been in these kind of protests before, you can tell well in advance that things are going to get ugly.

That's all true, but doesn't excuse the police brutality.

> When you have police being attacked from all sides and you intend no harm, you know it's time to gtfo because you will get caught up in the violence.

Oh, so they didn't means you can deduce they "meant to cause harm", and that in turn excuses the harm we see?

No.

[stef25]

> It's also not clear why you're excusing police brutality, but you're still doing it.

The comment you are replying to clearly says that unjustified police brutality should be punished at the full extent of the law.

Violence toward police, bystanders and property is never criticised. Burn down Paris! But as soon as they raise their batons everyone starts crying. If you're going to fight the state at least do it like a man.

If you're convinced France is a totalitarian state your ability to reason is probably quite limited.

[PavlovsCat]

> The comment you are replying to clearly says that unjustified police brutality should be punished at the full extent of the law.

Yeah, and you still leave it open whether it might be "justified", it goes on to say "When you have police being attacked from all sides and you intend no harm". Which prompted the following question you seem to avoided:

> Oh, so they didn't means you can deduce they "meant to cause harm", and that in turn excuses the harm we see?

So you think "unjustified police brutality" should be punished, (by the full extent of the law no less, how very generous and princpliped!), but you still leave this on the table:

> People getting their ass beat for trying to set fire to a McDonalds while protesting the high cost of living deserve no tears, I'm sorry.

> If you're convinced France is a totalitarian state your ability to reason is probably quite limited.

That's a total non-sequitur. Right now, you're not even up to speed on the meaning of your own comments heh, no need to insult me to distract from that. I'm not talking to France as a nation, I'm talking to you. If you think you can just handwave a bit and play sophistry games and call me stupid you're mistaken.