Citizens of Marseille, France are fed up with crime, ask Batman to protect the city

er1

The citizens of Marseille, France had enough, and they want Batman to protect their city. With an increase in gang violence and politicians not doing anything about it, they are really frustrated and fed up. So, they have taken the issue to the next level and started a mock competition looking for the Caped Crusader to help them fight crimes.

Even though it is meant to be a joke, but the fact that thousands of people signed up for competition and ‘liked’ the Facebook page related to the matter just shows how desperate people are. The petition states that adding more police force is just like putting a band-aid on a non-healing wound.

Metro UK reports:

‘It’s always the same – when it suits them, politicians are suddenly concerned. Then half of them go back to Paris, the other half forget,’ Jean-Baptiste Jaussaud, spokesman for the Batman group, told French media.

‘They promise us more police, even suggest sending in the army… Next they’ll be talking about calling in Batman!’

Hopefully, the city mayor will get the message and will do something about the crime. Either that or criminals will eventually take over the city and I’m sure no one wants that.

[via Metro UK]

Share this post

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

13 comments

  1. JMJ

    [@kevbo] “Intelligent debate” is not possible with one who comes to the dais with the axiom that any group of human beings can be presumptively included in that group (i.e., criminal) deserving of enhanced police scrutiny and police action simply because of their race or ethnicity.

    This stop-and-frisk law operated under the same mindset that existed in Nazi Germany. Because most German Jews LOOKED like their murderous oppressors, they were forced to wear a yellow star to identify themselves as part of a group… a group determined solely by religion.

    Blacks and Latinos are born with their “yellow star”. In New York 2013, they were suffering on the starting end of the same spectrum of abuse and enhanced police attention that, we know, can lead to a Final Solution. And THE FACT is: the actual, real numbers prove that, despite your mislabeling these young men as forming a “criminal class”, those of them who were stopped-and-frisked were MUCH LESS LIKELY to be arrested or detained than were their White counterparts. In other words, THEY WERE MORE LAW ABIDING than their non-targeted White counterparts.

    Stare decisis played no significant part in this Judge’s reaching her conclusions about this law’s un-Constitutionality.

    I have no intent or inclination to engage in “intelligent debate” with one who axiomatically assigns Black and/or Latino men living in New York to a “criminal class” simply because of who they are.

    Was I “vague” in my visceral, historically-informed reaction to your stated “opinions”? Then let me be absolutely clear: To such an “intelligent debate”, absent my conscience and the law, rather than robes and a gavel, I would indeed bring a Ka-bar and .45 Longslide. Clear enough?

  2. kevbo

    It is a sad state of affairs when name calling, innuendo, and vague threats replace intelligent debate.

    Why you take offense to my reference to ‘groups’ of human beings defies my imagination. This whole issue revolves around groups of human beings. A group of lawyers at the ACLU initiated this ‘class action’ lawsuit on behalf of a second group of human beings against a third group of human beings. Now, while I agree with your implied sentiment that grouping human beings is a bad idea in the first place, I should not be denigrated when I refer to those group.

    You state “My considered… descriptions of you precisely describe ONE person, you…I assumed NOTHING when making my statements.”, yet in your first response at you called me a dangerous, ignorant, immoral, frightened, uninformed, impotent, fool and characterized my opinion as spewing bile. In your second post at me, you continue in your eloquence by calling me a liar and a bigot. All that from my 15 word statement, and without making any assumptions. Either you are the most perceptive person on the planet, or I am a complete stranger to my family, friends, and aquaintances.

    Lastly, the only real point your sorry excuse for an argument has given me to refute: the US court system is based on the rule of law by precedent. This judge delivered her ‘opinion’ based on her ‘interpretation’ of judgements which preceded her ruling. Those are the cases I refer to.

    Good evening to you.

  3. JMJ

    [@kevbo] Your comments “spewed” in that they are not only false and uninformed — that is easily remediated, but in that they refer to whole GROUPS of human beings. My considered, thought-twice-about descriptions of you are not “spewing”. They precisely describe ONE person, you, based on what he publicly said and not on his membership in any particular racial, ethnic, religious, etc., group.

    I assumed NOTHING in making my statements. I simply read your words. And, Yes: because they lack depth or even an iota of intellectual challenge, I could “instantly” reach my conclusions based on demonstrated FACTS; i.e., your bigoted comments. You may add that to your list.

    Here’s another: You are intentionally misstating facts. A person who makes an unintentional misstatement is in error; a person who intentionally makes a misstatement is a liar. To whit:

    You claim to have spent “many hours of reading and following the “CASES…” That is a lie. There was only ONE case. Add “liar” to your list of my SPECIFIC descriptions of ONLY you based on what you SAID and not on who you ARE.

    You finally are right in one thing: I and you ARE separated by the veil of the Internet. Take great comfort in the fact that we are.

  4. kevbo

    [@JMJ] I stated my opinion. An opinion that is based on many hours of reading and following the cases involved in this decision.

    You accuse me of pre-judging a person, yet instantly make the assumption that I am ignorant and misinformed because I disagree with you.

    You accuse me on the internet of hiding behind the internet’s veil.

    The only spewing I see under this post are the words ‘fool’, ‘ignorant’, ‘immoral’, ‘dangerous’, ‘bile’, ‘frightened’, ‘uninformed’, ‘impotent’, and ‘gestapo-like’.

    All of which were written by you.

  5. JMJ

    [@kevbo] ” A class? Your “thinking” is precisely the type that this Federal Judge rebuked. Your offering an opinion without having availed yourself of the facts proves that, “It is better to remain silent and let people think you a fool rather than opening your mouth and dispelling all doubt.”

    Prejudging a person simply because he or she is member of a particular racial, ethnic or religious group is absurd and immoral. When governmental authorities and others with power do it, then it also becomes dangerous. It was found as a fact by a court of competent jurisdiction, that, when people with badges and guns act with such ignorance, then the prejudged members of such groups are victimized. Fortunately, it is highly probable that you haven’t the power to act on your prejudices beyond spewing ignorant bile from behind the veil of the Internet.

    Read the Judge’s ruling and her recitation of the FACTS. Though I doubt it, you may be able to take them in and make a reasoned, fact-based comment rather than the frightened, uninformed, impotent mutterings we’ve suffered so far.

  6. JMJ

    [@Darcy] Whoa! How very, very wrong you are! The facts are, that, despite the racist targeting of Black and Latino young men, the actual numbers of Black or Latino criminals detected by this outrageous, gestapo-like tactic were vanishing small compared to the numbers of White criminals. I REPEAT: More White criminals were caught with the so-called “stop and frisk” campaign than were Black or Hispanics despite the fact that the latter group was stopped-and-frisked NINE TIMES more often!

    @coyote – I heartily agree with EVERYTHING you said, except your second sentence, “The first step to ending racism is to remove all thought of race or culture.”

    Please consider this view: We do not need to be color-blind or culture-blind in order to have the just system you describe and our Constitution “guarantees”. Rather, I think, we need individually and personally to embrace all races and cultures as equally deserving of respect and fairness. Personally, I love the outrageous mix of races, peoples and cultures (and the f-o-o-d-s that come with them) where I live. That cannot be legislated. It has to inculcated from birth.

    I was once in a courtroom where an Irish woman, who had witnessed a street crime while on vacation in New York and had been brought back from Ireland to testify, was being examined by a prosecutor. He was absolutely at a loss as to how to get this woman to include “black” in her description of the accused. She described, height, weight, build, etc., but had to be led by the prosecutor, like a horse to the tainted water of race consciousness, before the accused’s race became relevant to her.

  7. Coyote

    [@Darcy] The very fact they rely on race in the first place makes it racist. The first step to ending racism is to remove all thought of race or culture. A person is responsible for themselves and themselves only. When prosecuting it should be on the merits of the case and their actions that led to the arrest. And am I the only one that remebers justice is to be blind, we should enforce this and have all courts take place in double blind interviews. The personal ideas and preferences of judges have been many a poor black man.

  8. Darcy

    A New York judge just recently ended an effective anti-crime program because it “targeted Blacks and Hispanics.” The crime statistics that it reduced were those against Blacks and Hispanics as well. Makes me wonder if the police policy was racist or the court decision to end it is racist