A mother of two has been left paraplegic after being shot by Iranian police over an alleged violation of the country’s strict hijab rules, a source with knowledge of the case has told the BBC.
“She is paralysed from the waist down, and doctors have said it will take months to determine whether she will be permanently paraplegic or not.”
Arezoo Badri, 31, was driving home with her sister in the northern city of Noor on 22 July when police attempted to pull her over to confiscate her car.
The driver did not comply with the order to stop, prompting the officers to shoot, the police commander in Noor told Iran’s state-run news agency, without naming Ms Badri.
The incident comes after Iranian police announced a clampdown on women defying the nation’s compulsory dress code.
Ehhhh.
Iran: Woman left paraplegic after being shot by police over hijab
Okay, that sounds pretty unequivocal.
Arezoo Badri, 31, was driving home with her sister in the northern city of Noor on 22 July when police attempted to pull her over to confiscate her car.
The driver did not comply with the order to stop, prompting the officers to shoot, the police commander in Noor told Iran’s state-run news agency, without naming Ms Badri.
It is unclear whether Ms Badri was wearing a headscarf when she was stopped by police, but her car had a confiscation notice against it - suggesting multiple alleged violations of the hijab law.
So it’s possible, albeit not known, that she had previously violated the hijab law. And that’s why they were pulling her over.
But that’s not why they shot at her. She got shot because she didn’t stop the vehicle.
Like, you could say “shot for refusing to stop”, and I’d agree with that. Maybe someone would find that unreasonable as a matter of police procedure. I don’t know what the legal standards are for use-of-force in Iran. In the US, I’m reasonably sure that that’d violate law enforcement protocol in most states. A police officer can’t use deadly force just for not following an order; there are situations where it is possible to do so.
kagis
Yeah:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule
Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force “may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others.”[2]
A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead…however…Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.
— Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]
If a suspect drives a car at an officer, the car is considered to be a deadly weapon, and it’s okay for police to use deadly force then.
But my guess is that just a refusal to stop, without some additional circumstances, wouldn’t result in authorization to use deadly force anywhere in the present-day US.
I can imagine someone saying that they think that Iran’s use-of-deadly-force law should be more-restrictive.
But I don’t think that this is reasonable to reduce this to “shot by police over hijab”.
Women have been beaten to death by police before for violating hijab law, I don’t blame her for not stopping.
Yeah if she had already been warned, there’s good reason she might have feared for her life if she stopped.
I think the idea is the misleading title is classic of western propaganda to incite hate and iranphobia. They do the same for all middle Eastern countries. You might not see it, but it is clear as day for people who live there.
Did the same with Libya, Iraq, Sudan before the split and leaders dying but nothing after. It is these small inaccuracies in the title that keep building up.
It’s true that in the situation and country, this is equivalent to someone fleeing a traffic stop when they remember they have warrants. Authority figure gonna do what they’re enlisted to do, because it’s their perogative and their “duty” (and I mean duty in the sense of being bound to their personal theology)
But yet, would either of those situations would cause said authority to use deadly force? Of course not.
Iran is a back asswards country. The US is shit in its own ways as well, I won’t refute, it’s a mess. But Iran has to literally be babysat by larger economic powers around the clock to keep them from cooking up doomsday doodads.
Getting this bent out of shape over women wanted to drive, get a proper education, vote, or fucking not wearing a piece of cloth, just furthers the sentiment that somewhere along the male Iranian genealogy some chromosomes got lost.
(Side note, I don’t reread these so I apologize if anything sounds purposefully directed at specific groups. I harbor no hate towards the Iranian peoples, all hate is meant to be interpreted to whatever zealots churn up all this religious hoo-hah)
