For Laurent-Franck Liénard, lawyer for three police officers who shot at the occupants of a car on Saturday June 4 in Paris, questioned on Wednesday June 8 on franceinfo, the exclusive testimony of the passenger collected by franceinfo “does not comply with the objective elements of the file”. For him, “there are certain points on which this woman is wrong”. For her part, Inès, the rear passenger of the car targeted by the police says to herself “angry” and believes that the police “could have done otherwise”.
franceinfo: Inès, the rear passenger of the vehicle assures that the vehicle was stationary when the police fired. What is your reaction to his testimony?
Laurent-Franck Lienard: Several reactions first. Obviously, he is a victim. This woman, like the young woman who was killed. And obviously, they are victims of this driver who took all the risks, who made his decision. And there, I agree with her perfectly, also on the emotion and on the fact that the death of this young woman is dramatic. Afterwards, of course, I do not agree with her version of the facts.
On what points precisely?
We will talk about it in front of an examining magistrate. I can tell you that what I heard in the testimony is not consistent with the objective evidence in the file. And so, there are certain points where this woman is wrong. Or else it presents a false version carried by the emotion certainly. We will discuss this in the course of the legal debate.
When she says, for example, that the car was stationary when the shooting took place, is she mistaken?
Yes, of course, but you know, media debate should not be substituted for legal debate. There is an investigation in progress. The really objective elements, the precise elements of this file emerge from the secrecy of the instruction.
Do the RATP and video surveillance bus videos confirm for you the version of your customers?
Of course, otherwise my clients would have been placed under procedural status. They would have been indicted and they would have been placed under judicial control. If they were released from police custody, it was because at the investigation stage, it appeared that their statements complied with all the objective elements and in particular with these videos. These videos in which we hear perfectly the injunctions and summonses.
Contrary to what this young woman suggests, who says she did not hear them?
Exactly. So there are a lot of elements that emerge from the investigation and that contradict what this young woman is saying. So I understand that this young woman is driven by emotion. I understand his anger. But now is not the time to discuss all that. The time to discuss all this is when we are in front of a judge.
You said that the three police officers, who are between 23 and 32 years old, fired on Saturday for the first time in their careers. Does that mean that you consider that the profession is not sufficiently prepared and trained enough for this kind of situation?
They shot for the first time in their career on public roads, obviously because they also shot at the shooting range. Obviously, they have their three annual shots, so three times a year. They fire 30 rounds, two magazines. On the other hand, it is certain that the shame of our country is the training of police officers. Would you allow yourself to be operated on by a surgeon who operates three times a year? No, obviously. So carrying a weapon is terribly dangerous. It is a very heavy responsibility. And the State does not set up the continuous training that it would need in order to assume this responsibility. And it launches on the public highway young people who are carriers of a lethal weapon and who are obviously not sufficiently trained in the use of this weapon. But now, that doesn’t take away from the legitimacy of my clients’ shots.