MP Roger Vicot wants to “specify the rule to avoid subjective interpretation”

Should we rewrite the law on the use of weapons by law enforcement? A parliamentary information commission was set up to answer the question after the death of Nahel in Nanterre, following a police shooting. After six months of work with Renaissance MP Thomas Rudigoz, Socialist MP Roger Vicot submits his report on Wednesday May 30.

A total of 23 recommendations are made. The socialist deputy Roger Vicot “proposes to modify and clarify” the rule which governs the case where the police may be required to fire in the event of refusal to comply in order to avoid“subjective interpretation”. Today, there are between 28,000 and 30,000 refusals to comply per year, or one every 17 minutes in France. The rule on the use of a weapon by law enforcement was relaxed by the law of February 2017, known as the Cazeneuve law. It determines the five cases in which the police may be required to fire, particularly in the event of refusal to comply. The relaxation of the legal framework had been described as “license to kill” by La France insoumise.

“Overall, the majority of refusals to comply are refusals to comply that I would describe as a little stupid”in particular for lack of insurance or a technical inspection not carried out. “It’s the person who goes too far and makes a slightly stupid decision”, explained the MP. Roger Vicot proposes to modify the text of the fourth paragraph of the law which authorizes the police to fire in the event of refusal to comply: “Under the current law, the police officer must be required to make the decision to fire if he considers that the offendert is likely to continue fleeing and endanger the lives of others.”he explains. “I propose to modify and clarify to avoid this assessment, my belief is very subjective”, he said. MEPs suggest the following wording: the offender “will clearly and imminently pose a danger.”

Roger Vicot believes that “the margin of appreciation of the police would thus be reduced. They would be legally protected since we are no longer dealing with the notion of ‘the offender is likely to’, which is still relatively vague. We are dealing with extremely precise, ‘immediately’ and ‘obviously’ I sincerely think that it can change things.”he assures.