This is a subject that crystallizes tensions, and this a few days before the first round of legislative elections. Saturday, June 4, in Paris, police opened fire on a car that refused to comply, seriously injuring the driver and killing the passenger. While an investigation was opened by the General Inspectorate of the National Police (IGPN), for “violence with a weapon by a person holding public authority” and “violence resulting in death without intention to give it by a person holding of public authority”, union and political reactions have since multiplied, including the rowdy one from Jean-Luc Mélenchon who believes that “the police kill”. Jacques de Maillard, professor of political science at Sciences Po Saint-Germain-en-Laye and author of Fonts compared believes that an “associative nebula” has succeeded in placing the question of police violence at the center of public debate. Maintenance.
L’Express: When the investigation had just been opened, the police unions Alliance and Unit SGP directly shared their support for their colleagues implicated. How do you explain their positioning?
Jacques deMaillard: Among the unions, there is a very strong logic of automatic and immediate defense of the corporation, although there are nuances between their positions. Alliance is the clearest expression of this logic of “defense of the troops”, of mobilization. Remember that the police face serious difficulties. But the problem with this approach is that it is done to the detriment of a more general reflection on the place of the police officer in society, and the conditions of use of his force.
Conversely, political actors are often in a very ambivalent logic. Sometimes, when there are shocking images, as in the Michel Zecler affair, there can be speaking out, even at the highest level. But as a general rule, politicians are very careful when it comes to positioning themselves. They are generally in a position of support for the police, without really having any perspective on the realities of their work, which they know very little about.
Jean-Luc Mélenchon, he fueled the controversy. “The police kill and the factional group Alliance justifies the shootings and the death for ‘refusal to comply’. Shame is when?”, he wrote on Twitter on June 6, prompting outrage from his opponents. How to explain this speech?
There have already been critical speeches on the police which have been carried by politicians. In 2012, then presidential candidate, François Hollande had for example presented a project on facies controls … quickly abandoned once in office. But I have never seen a leading politician criticize the institution so virulently. This is explained by the political character embodied by Mélenchon, who has always had this desire to have a singular voice, as well as by the type of positions that social networks favor.
“I have never seen a leading politician criticize the institution so virulently”
But it should not be forgotten either that Mélenchon is in the countryside, and that he knows that he can stand out on this subject to politically mobilize certain segments of the population concerned about violence and discrimination. This is not the first time that La France insoumise has taken a strong position on police violence. It should be noted that his allies, without repeating his words, also raise the question of the legitimate and proportionate use of force by the police.
Why does this violence crystallize the tensions in the public debate?
If they occupy much more space in the public debate than thirty years ago, this does not mean that the police have become more violent. The evolution actually concerns the visibility of this violence, and the recompositions of society, which is more fragmented and more critical. There is in particular a nebulous association which has taken up this question, not in a strict political register, but in a much broader political register on the issues of the police, discrimination and human rights.
These are, for example, organizations for the defense of public freedoms, such as the Human Rights League or Amnesty, or structures such as the Adama Committee and Open Society. These are increasingly questioning the word of authority held by police organizations, and this movement is influenced by transnational logics. The death of George Floyd in the United States, for example, had a considerable echo in several countries, including France. All these elements mean that we talk about it more, and that this question becomes a real issue on the political agenda.
According to the latest IGPN report, since 2017 the number of shootings at moving vehicles has increased compared to previous years. What do you think are the causes?
In fact, there were 152 shots fired at moving vehicles in 2020, compared to 120 in general between 2010 and 2016. In 2017, a change in legislation made the use of firearms by police officers more flexible: now, if moving vehicles represent a danger, the police can shoot. The probable hypothesis is that this new law, which is actually an alignment of the rules with those of the gendarmes, has contributed to the increase in the number of shootings.
But what we also see over time by reading the IGPN reports, which moreover do not allow us to conclude whether or not the shootings are legitimate, is that there is an overall increase in deaths (32 in 2020), shots from defense ball launchers or electric pulse guns. Insofar as we cannot objectively establish an increase in delinquency, the institution must reflect on its use of firearms and the training of police officers. This question also resonates with that of the use of tear gas, questioning the proportionate and legitimate use of force.
What exactly does the law say about refusing to comply?
Before 2017, police officers, like any citizen, were subject to the principle of self-defence, established by the Penal Code. With the new law, while the principles of “absolute necessity” and “strict proportionality” linked to self-defense remain in force, the police are authorized to shoot in the event of refusal to comply if they cannot stop the car otherwise, and if, in his flight, the driver is “likely to perpetrate (…) attacks on their life or on their physical integrity or those of others”.
Concretely, if I go to a “Stop” sign and you try to stop me, you have no right to shoot me. In fact, the issue will be whether the driver represented a danger.