Unrest in L'Île de France

OK, I'll start this out by pointing out something I like about European cities: the slums are in the suburbs! So, Centre City Paris is peaceful while the 'burbs are blowing up. Anyway,

I'm sure most Americans are missing this, but a 17 year old was shot in Nanterre, which is in the Hauts-de-Seine, or the Western Suburbs of Paris. It's actually Departement 92, not 93. Still, I'll put up this song.

Time to get serious here since it's relates to police shooting someone during a traffic stop, something which happens in the US. But one difference is that there might be a firearm present in the states--less of a possibility in France, but not totally unknown. On the other hand, cops shooting someone is a whole lot less common in France. I'm not totally sure how different the concept of "legitimate defence" is in France. Toss in the law was relaxed in 2017. It's also against the law to comply with a police officer.

This is the French law on the use of firearms by the "guardians of the peace": According to article L. 435-1 of the French Internal Security Code, police officers and gendarmes may only use firearms in five very distinct and clearly described situations:

• When their lives or physical integrity are threatened or when armed persons threaten their lives, their physical integrity or that of others.
• When, after two loud summonses, they cannot otherwise defend the premises they occupy or the persons entrusted to their care (a privilege reserved exclusively for the gendarmes prior to 2017).
• When, immediately after two loud summonses, they cannot compel persons to stop, other than by the use of weapons, if they are trying to escape from their custody or their investigations and if, in their flight, they are likely to cause injury to themselves or to others.
• When they are unable to immobilise, other than by the use of weapons, vehicles, boats or other means of transport, the drivers of which do not comply with the order to stop and the occupants of which are likely, in their flight, to cause injury to themselves or to others.
• For the sole purpose of preventing the recurrence, in the near future, of one or more murders or attempted murders that have just been committed, when they have real and objective reasons for considering that such a recurrence is likely in the light of the information available to them at the time they use their weapons.

In addition to the question of legitimate self-defence under one of the above criteria, there are also the issues of resisting arrest and fleeing from the police--which is criterion #3 above. Also, the police office in question was saying he feared for his companion's life, but that is under question based upon the video of the arrest.

The interesting bit is that the victim had been the subject of as many as five police checks since 2021 - what are known as refus d'obtempérer - refusals to co-operate. So, he sort of knew the drill, but decided to run anyway despite his reputation of being well liked and a good kid. I'm going to add that the 2005 riots were started when when two teenagers were electrocuted as they fled police after a game of football and ran into an electricity substation in the Paris suburb of Clichy-sous-Bois.

 Yes, you can see the bullet in the magazine.

So, you don't need to have a cop kill you to start a riot--just do something stupid. That seems to be the case here as well since the cop had a gun drawn. I would add that the 2017 law made the cops a bit more trigger happy according to some people.

On the other hand, having been through a few police roadblocks in Ireland, you should take a hint if the cops are carrying weapons, especially obviously cocked machineguns where you can see the bullet, that trying to avoid the roadblock might be a bad idea. 

Even if you are white in a safe place like Ireland.

Not sure why I am thinking about firearms proof marks

 British and European firearms have been subjected to something called proof testing to ensure they won't blow up on the user from the end of the 15th century. From the Firearms History, Technology and Development blog:

The first type of testing we will study is the Proof Test. The idea behind such a test is to verify the strength of the barrel, breech and firing system of a firearm by deliberately firing an over-pressured cartridge. After this, the firearm is examined to make sure it is still intact and if so, the metal (usually the barrel) is stamped with one or more "proof marks" of the testing agency. The proof marks create indented impressions on the metal surface, so they cannot be accidentally removed. Such a test certifies that the firearm is free from manufacturing defects and will not explode under normal usage conditions. In many countries, proof tests are compulsory; and it is not possible to sell a firearm unless it has been proof-tested by an official testing agency approved by the government.

Some manufacturers in the town of St. Etienne in France started conducting proof tests around the 15th century, when firearms manufacturing started in that area. However, France didn't enact a law to make the test mandatory until the 1900s and hence, it was left to each French manufacturer to decide what the test standards should be or even whether to perform a test or not. In other areas, such as London and Birmingham in England and Liege in Belgium, even before testing became compulsory, most manufacturers used to do private tests in their own factories or in a trade testing house.

Compulsory testing laws were passed in most countries mainly due to the backing of the gunmaker guilds of those countries. By enacting such laws, the guilds sought to prevent the manufacture of firearms and stifle competition from non-guild members, even though they claimed that such laws were designed to protect members of the public. The first such compulsory law was passed due to the lobbying efforts of the London Gunmakers Company (a guild composed of firearm manufacturers around London). The initial bylaws passed by the London Gunmakers Company charter of 1637 marked the first introduction of proof tests in England, but didn't specify an official standard of testing.

https://firearmshistory.blogspot.com/2011/01/testing-firearms-proof-test.html

Proof tests were instrumental in protecting the end-user from weapon failures and compulsory enforcement of these laws helped reduce firearm-related accidents around the world. This is why they are still mandatory in many countries.

 

I remember discussing this matter with my Torts teacher in law school and he mentioned something about product liability, which has been something I filed away in my brain. I associated these tests primarily with British firearms, but they seem to be much more common. The point is that firearms have an inherent lethality which adds to their attractiveness. They cause serious injury or death when used properly.

On the other hand, it is their lethality and dangerous nature which leads to their being regulated in pretty much all civilised nations. And having been regulated for a very long time.

Are Liberals & Conservatives REALLY That Different?

 

This points out that both want to protect. The conservative wants to protect the group and is sensitive to threat. The Liberal also wants to protect, but comes from a different point of view.

Take the issue of firearms. The right winger sees firearms as something which can be used as protection. The liberal sees the harm that comes from them. There is far too much based upon emotion and not enough relating to what the actual cost is to society.

A longer version of the above interview:

Why I am on the "outs" with most of the "Gun Violence Prevention Organisations"

Actually, I should say most "legacy" advocacy groups since the issue is less whether I agree with their position on the issue and more that I disagree with their becoming partisan (and it's more than just GVP groups that are guilty of doing this). The partisan aspect not only has caused the groups to support and reinforce a system which is toxic: it has caused these groups to stray from addressing the issues they SHOULD be addressing. That makes these groups totally ineffective and counterproductive.

I'm finally getting to this since I have been receiving a lot of "Trump  is bad" campaigns instead of something relating to the issues in question. First off, I never suffered from Trump Derangement Syndrome the way a lot of people on the left have. Trump isn't the problem: he's very much a symptom of a terminal illness which is US politics.

And one which most of the groups trying to get people to act viscerally have contributed to way more than they should.

"Gun Violence Prevention" isn't on the top of my list. On the other hand, a lot of groups on which it should be a priority are ignoring it, or just making the situation worse. I would agree that people shouldn't have "assault rifles" under most circumstances, but that changes a lot when people are in Cloud Cuckoo Land about the nature of the "peaceful protests" and saying "defund the police".

Patricia and Mark McCloskey should not be laughed at or prosecuted, but should have been given compassion. Especially since I think they represent a good portion of urbanites who are feeling under siege. You don't have an apartment building a few blocks away from where you live burn and not feel a twinge of concern. Saying "defund the police" is total insanity.

The problem is that society is  polarised and the advocacy groups aren't helping things if they join the fray. They should be trying to figure out how to make progress, not make the situation worse. We should be talking to each other, not entrenching ourselves in untenable positions. I'm supporting the non-partisan, not the partisan.

Postscript to How bad was early firearms Technology?

English musketeers didn't use swords, instead they used their weapons as clubs!

How bad was early firearms Technology?

Quick, what do you think of when you hear the word musketeer?

A musketeer, from the French mousquetaire, was a type of soldier equipped with a musket. Musketeers were an important part of early modern armies, particularly in Europe and the west, as they normally made the majority of their infantry. The musketeer was a precursor to the rifleman. Muskets were replaced by rifles in most western armies during the mid-1850s.

But most people think of Alexandre Dumas' The Three Musketeers and loads of swordplay. That's because The musket, though the prime weapon of the French Musketeers, was a cumbersome firearm to load and fire, as were other firearms of the time. That meant that a good rapier was a necessary second weapon that no musketeer was likely ever without. That meant the musketeers were also a skilled swordsmen.

The French National Army museum describes musketeers as:

In 1622, Louis XIII, at that time at war against the Protestants, detached the 50 soldiers armed with carbines from the companies of his guard’s light­horse cavalry to form an independent unit. These soldiers were armed with a musket, a heavy weapon that could only be used on foot, but they were still cavalry who moved around on horseback. Called Musketeers of the Guard, a military branch of the Maison du Roi, they wore the famous blue tabard decorated with the cross and Fleur­de­lys, the symbol showing that they belonged to the King’s Household. The character of the musketeer mounted foot­soldiers made very varied missions a possibility: escorting the royal retinue, policing operations and maintaining order but, above all, they were in the first line of the royal troops when it meant relieving a town under siege. In 1693, Louis XIV ceased to go to war and, from then on, the companies only took part in special cases. This period marked the end of the musketeers’ golden age, when they served in the last campaigns of Louis XIV but were rarely seen on the battlefield during his successor’s reign. During the eighteenth century, their mission mainly consisted in a guard and prestige service to the king. They were exposed to enemy fire one last time during the War of the Austrian Succession (1740–48). In 1775, the two companies were disbanded for budgetary reasons. Formed again briefly under the Restoration, they were definitely disbanded in 1815.

Calling the French soldiers "musketeers" is a bit of a misnomer since they were more cavalry than infantry, but pole weapons were still being used in combat well into the 18th Century. The Jacobite forces used claymores when storming the British in the '45 rebellion. Likewise, French and Indian troops used tomahawks and other hand held weapons with great success during frontier battles of the Conquest. Don't forget that bayonet is kin to the pole weapons where the firearm became a pole weapon.

English musketeers didn't use swords, instead they used their weapons as clubs!

See also:

• Why were the Three Musketeers called musketeers when they spent all their time using swords?
• Musee de l'Armee Invalides: Mousquetaire!
• Alexandre Dumas (author): Why were the three musketeers called musketeers if they didn't shoot muskets?
• Rene Chartrand, French Musketeer 1622-1775,  Osprey Warrior #168 ISBN 978-78096-861-2