Beiruty wrote:http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2 ... eeway.html
Eight Los Angeles police officers fired more than 90 rounds at an unarmed 19-year-old man who had led them on a high speed freeway pursuit and called 911 to threaten them with a gun, authorities said.
What if the kid is mentally unstable on meds, or off meds?
Justice for Abdul!
Hi Beiruty.... I have a couple of reactions.... For one thing, it is the L.A. Times reporting on this. I used to be an L.A. Times subscriber for years until I just could't stand their reporting biases any longer.
Anyway, the following things jumped out of this story at me when I read the article you linked:
No gun was found at the scene, but police released statements Arian made to a 911 dispatcher in which he claims he has a weapon and makes it clear that he's not afraid to use it.
"I have a gun," Arian said.
"I've been arrested before for possession of destructive devices; I'm not afraid of the cops."
He also said: "If they pull their guns, I'm going to have to pull my gun out on them."
According to a news release, the dispatcher pleaded with Arian to surrender peacefully, saying, "I don't want you to hurt yourself."
Arian responded with expletives and a threat: "... these police, they're going to get hurt."
Clearly, in hindsight, Arian was disturbed. However, in defense of the police, they have no way of knowing whether he is merely drunk, or mentally disturbed and off his medications, or heaven forbid, an actual terrorist who actually has a bomb in his vehicle and actually is armed. All of his words to the 911 dispatcher indicated that he was:
- armed
- had a previous arrest record for possession of destructive devices (presumabely explosives)
- that he was not afraid of the cops
- that if they drew their guns he was going to draw his and hurt them
Add to this that he was driving in an erratic manner—posing a threat to other motorists. The police
HAD to try and stop him from driving any further. They
HAD to do the responsible thing and assume that his threats were real unless proven otherwise. Given the low-light conditions, it is not that hard to understand that when Arian first fled, then turned to face the cops while raising his hands and assuming a Weaver shooting stance, the cops obvioiusly thought they were about to be shot at, and they shot first. Remember, there is no such thing as a fair gunfight, and
he deceived
them into thinking they were about to be in one. What would you have done in their situation?
Do you honestly believe that it is a cop's duty to let the other guy get the first shot off before they are allowed to return fire? These men have families too. This case is tragic and stupid, but the responsibility for it lies entirely at Abdul's feet, whether or not he was insane and off his meds. In the heat of the pursuit, the police had no way of knowing if that was the case or not. All they knew was that they were in pursuit of a dangerous driver, and that driver had made threats against the police to the 911 operator. What else exactly were they supposed to do? Call off the pursuit and let him go, continuing to endanger other drivers on the highway? That would not be right either.
Here's where I have a problem with the statement "Justice
for __insert name__." We should not want justice
FOR anybody. Justice,
REAL justice, is impartial. She is neither for or against. She just is. What people usually mean when they say they want justice
for someone is that they want the official account to exhonerate the person whom they favor, and to condemn the person whom they dislike. There was a whole LOT of calling for "justice
for Treyvon Martin" in the news recently, and very little of calling for "Justice for George Zimmerman." Here is the thing.....
JUSTICE does not necessarily mean a favorable outcome for the object of our hopes. If, during the trial of George Zimmerman, the FACTS reveal him to be innocent of the charges and he is acquitted, JUSTICE will have been done—whether or not Treyvon's supporters are willing to accept it. No, the ONLY kind of justice they are willing to accept is that version which supports their most cherished notions. They will not ever accept
impartial justice. If
blind and impartial justice is served in the Sanford Florida courtroom, it may indeed point to Zimmeran's guilt. It may just as likely point to Treyvon's criminality if Zimmerman is acquitted. We will see......
IF the judge in the case prevents his courtroom from being used as a political stage, the way Judge Ito did during the O.J. Simpson case, when the trial became not so much about the guilt of innocence of an accused murderer, but rather about one group of people, motivated by race, who could not accept that a cherished "hero" was guilty, and consequently insisted that his accusers and prosecution were motivated by race. Blind justice played no part in that trial.
Arian Abdul, whether he was motivated by drugs, alcohol, insanity, or just plain evil,
put himself into the situation which led ultimately to his death. The cops didn't put him there.
HE did. Let's play "what if" and play this movie forward a bit. What if he actually had a gun in his hands? What if cops, thinking it was wrong to protect themselves, did not shoot him before he could shoot them? What if he shot one of them? Would that be enough "justice
for" Abdul to suit you?
We don't know enough about this case to say.....although the reporting seems to make it obvious. But the so-called "reporting" in the Martin/Zimmerman case was notoriously unreliable, and it was definitely NOT about justice......blind or biased. It was ALL about trying to challenge "stand your ground" laws by a certain segment of the country's black population which is convinced that if a white person defends themselves against a black attacker, that's racism. They make no such noise when the victim is black, regardless of the color of his attacker. What I can tell you about the L.A. Times is that they are not a reliable source of facts. Occasionally they get something right, but most of the time they don't. They have an agenda.
So please be careful when you call out for Justice
for someone. That is not impartial justice—unless you're also willing to accept the flip-side of that coin, which is guilt and punishment for the guy you're supporting if you're rooting for the wrong guy.
Me? I don't want truth and justice to
serve anybody; I want truth and justice to
be served by
everybody. Don't you think that would be more just?
.