To understand this case and propose changes, we must first examine the current legal framework that led to such a conviction.
The current French legal framework
Article 122-5 of the Criminal Code, concerning self-defense, allows violence to be justified only if it is strictly necessary in the face of an unjustified attack.
Article 122-6, concerning the defense of property, sets highly restrictive conditions, including the existence of an act of destruction, damage or theft in the process of being committed.
Articles 222-7 and following concern intentional violence, including violence committed with a weapon.
The legal problem
In the case under discussion, the court probably considered that the robbers were already fleeing, that the attack had ended, that the response was no longer strictly necessary, and that firing several shots at fleeing individuals was disproportionate.
The difficulty is that this purely legal reasoning often fails to take into account the real psychological situation of the victim: fear, shock, adrenaline, confusion, the uncertainty of whether the attackers will return, and the impossibility of calmly calculating the exact second when danger has ended.
Necessary legislative reforms
1. Amend Article 122-5 of the Criminal Code
The current wording should be modernized to include the notion of a reasonably necessary defensive act. A possible reformulation would be:
“A person is not criminally liable when, faced with an unjustified attack against himself or another person, he performs a defensive act reasonably necessary to stop that attack or prevent its immediate repetition.”
The defense should be presumed reasonably necessary when the victim faces violent intrusion into a home, workplace or vehicle; an armed or apparently armed assault; or an attack by several assailants.
This presumption could only be overturned by proof that the defender manifestly abused the right of defense by continuing the action when the danger had totally and definitively ceased. The assessment of proportionality should take into account the legitimate emotional state of a victim under intense stress and the urgency of the situation.
2. Create a new presumption for shopkeepers and professionals
A new provision could protect people exercising a commercial, professional or craft activity when they face an armed robbery, violent intrusion or assault in their workplace. The law should recognize that a shopkeeper under attack is not a trained tactical unit. He acts in seconds, under fear, with imperfect information.
3. Rebalance criminal procedure
The burden of proof should not place the victim in the position of having to demonstrate perfect behavior in an imperfect situation. The law should require judges to assess the facts from the perspective of the person attacked at the moment of danger, not from the comfort of hindsight.
The principle to defend
A civilized society must not encourage private revenge. But it must also avoid a system in which aggressors create terror while victims are judged as if they had enjoyed the calm and time of a legal seminar.
The law must protect life, prevent abuse and preserve proportionality. But it must also recognize a simple truth: when the State is absent at the moment of aggression, the citizen who defends himself should not automatically become the suspect.