However, the law applying to the French police force, after the 2017 terror attacks, specifically allows use of firearms against drivers who flee traffic stops, even if the officer(s) are not under immediate danger.
Now, if the police has to, as the situation develops quickly, start weighing possible consequences of letting or not letting a fleeing car go because of the driver’s possible ethnic background, age, etc., they WILL certainly play it safe and not do anything, if the consequences of a wrong decision for the officer and/or their family end up being economically catastrophic.
Thanks for pointing out that law. I did not know about, although now that you mention it, it does ring a distant bell. I think we agree but are talking from slightly different perspectives.
I guess what I am trying to say is that, drawing general conclusions from a single case should not be used as a basis for generalizations or concern. It is more important to look at how the police community reacts to this incident and draw conclusions from that. If they express the type of fear that you proposed, there should be a further discussion on how to avoid that in practice. This basically means a political/societal discussion and maybe some changes in the legislation.
Just out of curiosity; do you know if the French police have publicly stated that sort of concerns?
I find this important as it is crucial that anyone with authority and a license to use force to enforce laws, should be accountable of what they are doing. We can look at counries like the US or Russia to see how things can end up, if this is not supervised properly.
In this particular French case I would still return to the need to make a case-by-case review of what happened. If a car is fleeing, use of LETHAL force should always be the last option to take. It might be justified if a car was speeding or driving overtly recklessly. However, if you have car driving at a walking speed, you could for example shoot the tires and not the driver (i know it is not as easy as it sounds, but that seemed to have been case with this shooting).
Breach of authority must be surveiled and sanctioned. If this causes systematic problems, then those need to be fixed by changing the system.
Server update ate my reply, sorry. Here’s a summary from the top of my head. It is incoherent, my apologies.
From what I know, mixed messages about the law. A researcher from CRNS has said recently that the law is vague, but DPGN (General Directorate of the National Police) said years earlier that the law makes police more effective. The police has to my knowledge complained about lack of training.
I doubt legislative change will make a difference since police is only one side of the equation; the repeating customers of the police generally do not follow the law at all and also have a mindset of ignoring the police.
The questions which have to be firstly clarified in court/parliament/elsewhere are: 1. should police try to stop cars at all, and, if so, 2. should police allow stopped cars to flee.
I believe the answers are “yes” and “no”, because anything else is the same as ignoring reckless driving and basically a decriminalisation of ignoring the police and the law.
As for how to stop a car… There is no good way to do it in an ad hoc traffic check against an uncooperative, fleeing driver. Shooting the driver is the only way, and there is a really narrow window to do this.
Shooting tires won’t stop the car, it may make the car harder for the driver to control or accelerate. Depending on the car type (FWD, RWD, 4X4), the car may still be able to accelerate, with possibly less control, thus putting surroundings in more risk.
Nonlethal devices like gas or taser do not work if the driver window is closed, or if the car moves too fast.
Shooting at the engine may not have effect. Also, it can be difficult to hit the engine at all from the position and angle where verbal commands are likely given (front, near driver window). Furthermore, if the car accelerates quickly, there is a danger of hitting the passengers, bystanders or the driver while aiming at the engine.
In a planned traffic stop, one can have spike mats and obstacles etc. which can help stop a car. These are obviously not available if the car stop is done ad hoc by patrolling police, such as two motorcycle police in this case.
All in all, the police officers truly have a shit sandwich on their hands with these kind of cases, even if they follow the law to the letter.
PS. Not sure if you are aware of events in Baltimore in 2015 but it is interesting in this context. After the death of Freddie Gray, police started ignoring criminal activity to avoid going to jail for “wrong arrest”. The effects of this behaviour could be seen on the crime level of Baltimore.
I get your point and I think we agree on fundamentals.
I’d be careful about using US as a point of reference though, as their police seem to have very deep systemic problems. Not to say that other countries didn’t have those too, but the US really is in a league of their own.
Shit sandwich is a good allegory and of course there should be fair
and open investigation every time an officer is accused of misconduct. And in the end I find it more important that the police is held accountable rather than being let off the hook.
FYI I brought up USA and case Baltimore as people are people, and they function in the same way in USA and Europe. The police profession is similar in its mechanisms in both countries – law determines what is allowed to be done, law is words on abstract level and vague enough to push final per-situation decision authority to the field operatives. I expect the same behaviour of “look the other way” to occur in Europe, too, when given the same systemic setup, that is: heavy consequences from interpreting conflicting/vague requirements “wrong” in a split second decision, where the “wrong/right” is ultimately determined after the fact over several months with much more information.
Yes, I agree and I am sure they will investigate this case thoroughly. It will be interesting to follow it, there are so many levels it impacts (legal, political, national security, …).
I understand your point and I even agree with it.
However, the law applying to the French police force, after the 2017 terror attacks, specifically allows use of firearms against drivers who flee traffic stops, even if the officer(s) are not under immediate danger.
Now, if the police has to, as the situation develops quickly, start weighing possible consequences of letting or not letting a fleeing car go because of the driver’s possible ethnic background, age, etc., they WILL certainly play it safe and not do anything, if the consequences of a wrong decision for the officer and/or their family end up being economically catastrophic.
Thanks for pointing out that law. I did not know about, although now that you mention it, it does ring a distant bell. I think we agree but are talking from slightly different perspectives.
I guess what I am trying to say is that, drawing general conclusions from a single case should not be used as a basis for generalizations or concern. It is more important to look at how the police community reacts to this incident and draw conclusions from that. If they express the type of fear that you proposed, there should be a further discussion on how to avoid that in practice. This basically means a political/societal discussion and maybe some changes in the legislation.
Just out of curiosity; do you know if the French police have publicly stated that sort of concerns?
I find this important as it is crucial that anyone with authority and a license to use force to enforce laws, should be accountable of what they are doing. We can look at counries like the US or Russia to see how things can end up, if this is not supervised properly.
In this particular French case I would still return to the need to make a case-by-case review of what happened. If a car is fleeing, use of LETHAL force should always be the last option to take. It might be justified if a car was speeding or driving overtly recklessly. However, if you have car driving at a walking speed, you could for example shoot the tires and not the driver (i know it is not as easy as it sounds, but that seemed to have been case with this shooting).
Breach of authority must be surveiled and sanctioned. If this causes systematic problems, then those need to be fixed by changing the system.
Server update ate my reply, sorry. Here’s a summary from the top of my head. It is incoherent, my apologies.
From what I know, mixed messages about the law. A researcher from CRNS has said recently that the law is vague, but DPGN (General Directorate of the National Police) said years earlier that the law makes police more effective. The police has to my knowledge complained about lack of training.
I doubt legislative change will make a difference since police is only one side of the equation; the repeating customers of the police generally do not follow the law at all and also have a mindset of ignoring the police.
The questions which have to be firstly clarified in court/parliament/elsewhere are: 1. should police try to stop cars at all, and, if so, 2. should police allow stopped cars to flee.
I believe the answers are “yes” and “no”, because anything else is the same as ignoring reckless driving and basically a decriminalisation of ignoring the police and the law.
As for how to stop a car… There is no good way to do it in an ad hoc traffic check against an uncooperative, fleeing driver. Shooting the driver is the only way, and there is a really narrow window to do this.
Shooting tires won’t stop the car, it may make the car harder for the driver to control or accelerate. Depending on the car type (FWD, RWD, 4X4), the car may still be able to accelerate, with possibly less control, thus putting surroundings in more risk.
Nonlethal devices like gas or taser do not work if the driver window is closed, or if the car moves too fast.
Shooting at the engine may not have effect. Also, it can be difficult to hit the engine at all from the position and angle where verbal commands are likely given (front, near driver window). Furthermore, if the car accelerates quickly, there is a danger of hitting the passengers, bystanders or the driver while aiming at the engine.
In a planned traffic stop, one can have spike mats and obstacles etc. which can help stop a car. These are obviously not available if the car stop is done ad hoc by patrolling police, such as two motorcycle police in this case.
All in all, the police officers truly have a shit sandwich on their hands with these kind of cases, even if they follow the law to the letter.
PS. Not sure if you are aware of events in Baltimore in 2015 but it is interesting in this context. After the death of Freddie Gray, police started ignoring criminal activity to avoid going to jail for “wrong arrest”. The effects of this behaviour could be seen on the crime level of Baltimore.
I get your point and I think we agree on fundamentals.
I’d be careful about using US as a point of reference though, as their police seem to have very deep systemic problems. Not to say that other countries didn’t have those too, but the US really is in a league of their own.
Shit sandwich is a good allegory and of course there should be fair and open investigation every time an officer is accused of misconduct. And in the end I find it more important that the police is held accountable rather than being let off the hook.
FYI I brought up USA and case Baltimore as people are people, and they function in the same way in USA and Europe. The police profession is similar in its mechanisms in both countries – law determines what is allowed to be done, law is words on abstract level and vague enough to push final per-situation decision authority to the field operatives. I expect the same behaviour of “look the other way” to occur in Europe, too, when given the same systemic setup, that is: heavy consequences from interpreting conflicting/vague requirements “wrong” in a split second decision, where the “wrong/right” is ultimately determined after the fact over several months with much more information.
Yes, I agree and I am sure they will investigate this case thoroughly. It will be interesting to follow it, there are so many levels it impacts (legal, political, national security, …).