• In a viral tweet, Bruno Attal, deputy secretary general of the France Police union, wanted to denounce overly restrictive laws which would prevent the police from rescuing a person in danger, here in this case the rape of a child.

  • For master Eolas, pseudonym on Twitter of a lawyer at the Paris bar, the situation described falls within the framework of self-defense: a police officer can intervene in this situation and even has the duty to do so according to the Penal Code.

  • "To say that we can't do anything is extremism," says Géraldine Bosvy-Hony, lawyer and security trainer.

    A police officer has several means to retaliate in this case.

Nearly a week after the indictment for "voluntary homicide" of the police officer who opened fire on a car, killing two of its occupants and injuring a third, on the Pont-Neuf, in Paris, the debate remains electric .

Union rallies of police officers took place on Monday throughout France, and, on social networks, the controversy continues.

In a very shared tweet, Bruno Attal, deputy secretary general of the France Police union, which won 3% of the vote in the professional elections, was indignant.

Describing a fictitious scene where a “girl” would be raped on a train by three people, “three scum”, he says, the trade unionist intends to denounce laws that are too restrictive: “Can I take out my weapon?

#NOPE.

Can I land the first blows?

#NOPE.

I have 2 choices left.

Intervening and risking my life, or #TournerLaTete is the society we no longer want.

#PontNeuf #legititimedefense”

FAKE OFF

The claim sparked many comments including that of a lawyer at the Paris bar, known by the pseudonym Master Eolas on Twitter.

He recalled that the Penal Code, on the contrary, authorized a police officer to intervene and that he even had the duty to do so in this case of self-defense.

“Article 122-5 of the Penal Code allows you to intervene, but article 223-6 obliges you to do so, he explains in response, considering “urgent to train police unionists in criminal law” .

Thus, according to this article, "is not criminally responsible the person who, in the face of an unjustified attack on himself or others, performs, at the same time, an act commanded by the need for self-defense of himself or others”.

The only exception is the case where “there is a disproportion between the means of defense employed and the seriousness of the attack”.

Article 223-6 also indicates that failing to intervene to prevent a crime or misdemeanor is punishable by five years' imprisonment and a fine of 75,000 euros.

"It's extremism"

"To say that we can't do anything is extremism," said Géraldine Bosvy-Hony, lawyer and security trainer for territorial agents, including municipal police.

She also points out that this situation falls within the scope of self-defence, because there is an attack on physical integrity.

She explains that a policeman can retaliate: "It has to be proportionate: shoot a bullet in the back, not really, but we could intervene with an electric pulse gun, with a telescopic baton, with an aerosol generator, she details.

Nothing would prevent in a train to pull the alarm signal, to do something, otherwise one can be reproached for non-assistance to person in danger.

He could with his firearm shoot elsewhere than at people to freeze the situation in the absence of these intermediate means.

»

Five possible situations for using your firearm

It is article 435-1 of the internal security code, modified by the law of 2017, which regulates the use of a firearm.

This is possible in five situations in case of absolute necessity and in a strictly proportionate way.

Without warning, this fits into the framework of self-defense when there is an attack on the life or physical integrity of people, and in what has been called the murderous journey.

This is to prevent murders from being repeated, a provision designed to respond to terrorist acts in particular.

With warnings or a stop order, the use of a firearm is possible to defend premises occupied by law enforcement or persons entrusted to them, to prevent an individual in his flight from perpetrating attacks to the life or physical integrity of persons.

And to immobilize a fleeing means of transport whose occupants are likely to be dangerous.

Necessity and proportionality

“The most complicated conditions are necessity and proportionality, underlines Géraldine Bosvy-Hony.

Was it necessary to use the weapon?

Was the use of this weapon proportionate to the situation?

And that is extremely factual, it depends on the context.

What will also come into play are the consequences of the use of the weapon.

In this case at Pont-Neuf, there were two deaths, it is exceptional.

»

Returning to the indictment for intentional homicide at Pont-Neuf, the lawyer considers that this is the "normal course of the criminal procedure", she underlines that the professions of the police are "more exposed than others” because they have “a responsibility”: they are given a weapon that can kill.

"If you are not able to withstand this pressure, you have to change jobs, that's what I say when I train municipal police officers," she concludes.

Justice

Dead on the Pont-Neuf in Paris: “The murderers are not us…” The police in the street for the presumption of self-defense

Why self-defense was not retained in the Pont-Neuf drama

  • Company

  • Paris

  • Police

  • Self-defense

  • fake-off

  • Justice

  • Ile-de-France