France to Erupt?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by LDiCesare

Accusing the judges is easy, considering they only apply the laws voted by Sarkozy and consorts. For instance the last brilliant thing he thought of was to change prepared group attacks against the police into crimes rather than contraventions. The result is 5 more possible years of jail. Problem is they can no longer be judged immediately, and if judged in the 'assises' court, there'll be popular jury instead of profesional judges, and the figures show that these popular juries tend to be softer than professional judges. Please blame our politicians, not our judges.
Mind you, the police are saying things are worse since 3 years ago, which is when Sarko (again) decided to get rid of proximity police and turn policemen who talked to people into policemen who only arrest/harass people, therefore increasing the resentment.

I will defer to you on the specifics. What is clear is criminals are not sufficently punished enough to deter crime so you end up with whole areas becoming lawless "no go" zones where the police won't even venture into.

[LDiCesare]

About police and centralisation:
We have 3 kinds of police that I know of in France:
Gendarmerie nationale, police nationale and police municipale.
The former two are national, as their name implies. Gendarmerie however is anything but centralised, as it's a lot of small brigades (most around 10 people) everywhere in the territory, usually in charge of rural areas (the number of villages and towns varying a lot with the region). It's actually a military force, and depends on the minister of defense.
Police nationale is what's being talked of in the article and a lot of time. It's under the command of the minister of the interior.
Last we have police municipale which are the town police. Every town can have one if they want to. This is totally decentralised, but they have less powers than gendarmerie or police nationale. I don't know whether the towns with lots of 'insecurity' make use of these or how much.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Arrian
Back from the weekend... did anything actually happen?

The civil war hasn't started yet.

There's a disgusting event (as a bus burned, a passenger was stuck in there and was horribly burned. The passenger was brought to the hospital, and she's still struggling between life and death.

Event though this event is horrific, it's not much on the grand scale of things. The "eruption" hasn't happened yet.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Oerdin
What is clear is criminals are not sufficently punished enough to deter crime so you end up with whole areas becoming lawless "no go" zones where the police won't even venture into.

Not quite.

What is about true:
We do have some "no go" zones where the police doesn't normally venture, except occasionally with overwhelming force. We have plenty of areas where the police intervenes on call, and doesn't do preventive patrols.

What is absolutely NOT clear is the reason why these "no-go zones" have developed. Under Sarkozy, we're having the most repressive police since the early 70's (at least), and yet these "no go zones" continue to develop. Also, last year's riots have already occured when the police was focused on pure repression.


The possible reasons for the "no-go zones" are plenty. They're far from clear. Your reasons are a possible explanation.
Another possible explanation is hat we removed "proximity police", i.e policemen who were well-integrated in the area, who knew the people and the situations, in order to replace them with corps that aren't based in the area, and that go there only with immediate repression in mind (CRS and BAC).

Another possible explanation is that we let develop zones where we concentrate all the people on the wrong end of the unequality stick. When you have plenty of people who think they have no future, and when nothing is done so that they can get different friends than other no-future types, you have a recipe for catastrophe IMO.

Another possible exlpanation is computer games, GTA and all that crap. I don't believe in it anymore than I believe in yours explanation, but it is equally possible.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Seems kind of stupid. What rationale was given for the action?

I don't know the official rationale, but here's my guess:


Last year, when the two guys died, Sarkozy immediately went on TV to explain that the cops came for a burglary (not an alleged one), that the boys fled upon seeing the cops, and that they chose to hide in the electric building. Sarkozy added one of the boys was already known for "violent theft" by the police.

In short, on TV, Sarkozy publically said the boys were guilty, the police had done nothing wrong, and that these deaths are the boys' responsibility.

The investigation later proved that those were all lies. The boys belonged to a larger group (10 people) that came home from a football game. They stopped in front of a construction site, and a neighbour called the police, fearing a burglary, indeed. But no burglary had taken place, not even an attempt, according to the investigation. The 10 guys were innocent.

Now, why would an innocent boy flee from the police? Or a better question would be: why would ten different innocent guys flee from the police? Apparently, they were expecting harassment, since the police that came were the BAC, the most brutal, most arrogant and most hated corps. There were 11 policemen involved there.

The 10 guys were chased, again, according to the official investigation. They hid in a cemetary, but ended up being surrounded. Three of them, including the two dead, decided to risk their life by hiding in the electrical building, instead of getting caught. None of the two dead was actually known for "violent theft" by the police: one of them had been under watch by some policemen before, at the father's bidding, for a stupidity that has nothing in common.


So, what does it mean? In their neighbourhood, last year, it was immediately obvious that those guys had done nothing wrong. There were 7 witnesses (the other one who hid in the electrical building took much time to recover). There was the experience of police harassment. There was the knowledge of these guys being harmless.

The neighbourhood's inhabitants wanted to protest with dignity. They held a silent protest with white T-shirts, and no calls for violence. But they saw Sarkozy depicting these obvious victims as being evildoers, on national TV, in front of all of France. They also saw him completely whitewash the police, despite police harassment being the real culprit of these deaths. Such offense didn't fly well.

For years, mayors and other local officials try to reconcile the ghetto-dwellers with a Republic they increasingly see as an enemy. The mayor "making a memorial" of this electrical building (I strongly doubt anything permanent will be established) is a way to do this. It's a way to say "the Republic acknowledges that Zyed and Bouna were victims who deserve to be mourned". It's a way to rehabilitate them.

BTW, notice that the mayor is from Sarkozy's party, as are some other mayors who attended (including a very authoritarian one). Several local politicians from the whole area came by, from all parties. Maybe this proves that it was a really pragmatic, almost inevitable thing to do.


Edit: the way I worded it, it looked like the mayor wasn't in Sarkozy's party anymore. He still is.

[Arrian]

That certainly gives a clearer picture of the incident, Spiff, thanks.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

"The 10 guys were chased, again, according to the official investigation."

From what I can gather, there is some dispute about whom the police were actually chasing.


"Apparently, they were expecting harassment"

were they expecting the police to beat them?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
"The 10 guys were chased, again, according to the official investigation."

From what I can gather, there is some dispute about whom the police were actually chasing.

Haven't heard of it. However, I wonder where such a controversy can come from. IMO, there is a controversy about whom the police was charging only if one of the following is true: 1. They were chasing a different group of people (actual delinquants) entirely, or 2. they were aiming for a known delinquant withing the group.

Yet, here's what happened: the police first rounded up a few youngsters in a park, and then surrounded the cemetary (which is next to the electrical building). They rounded up all the youngsters involved, except the two dead and the survivor, for obvious reasons. All the youngsters were released later without charges (no, not by a lax judge, but by the police).

If the police had been chasing a group of actual criminals, one could wonder why they picked these youngsters on a systematic basis in two different places, and surrounded the later. If the police had been looking for a dangerous guy within the group, one has to wonder why all of them were released without charge...

In short, considering that a chase took place, that the group for which the police was called was entirely rounded up (except for two dead and a wounded), and that none of those people was a particular target for the police, I fail to see how a controversy about the "whom" can develop*

"Apparently, they were expecting harassment"
were they expecting the police to beat them?

I don't know.
I knew someone who got randomly beaten once (and unsurprisingly, he hates the police as a result), but I don't know how widespread random beatings are, and how feared they are.



*Well, I have my idea. One of Sarkozy's main edges in the public opinion is his reputation to be telling the truth. This story could manage to paint him as a liar who deliberately incited violence for his political gain. He could well try to turn this clear-cut investigation into a puzzling debate, so that his sympathizers don't question his truthfulness.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Haven't heard of it. However, I wonder where such a controversy can come from. IMO, there is a controversy about whom the police was charging only if one of the following is true: 1. They were chasing a different group of people (actual delinquants) entirely, or 2. they were aiming for a known delinquant withing the group.

Yet, here's what happened: the police first rounded up a few youngsters in a park, and then surrounded the cemetary (which is next to the electrical building). They rounded up all the youngsters involved, except the two dead and the survivor, for obvious reasons. All the youngsters were released later without charges (no, not by a lax judge, but by the police).

If the police had been chasing a group of actual criminals, one could wonder why they picked these youngsters on a systematic basis in two different places, and surrounded the later. If the police had been looking for a dangerous guy within the group, one has to wonder why all of them were released without charge...

In short, considering that a chase took place, that the group for which the police was called was entirely rounded up (except for two dead and a wounded), and that none of those people was a particular target for the police, I fail to see how a controversy about the "whom" can develop*



I don't know.
I knew someone who got randomly beaten once (and unsurprisingly, he hates the police as a result), but I don't know how widespread random beatings are, and how feared they are.



*Well, I have my idea. One of Sarkozy's main edges in the public opinion is his reputation to be telling the truth. This story could manage to paint him as a liar who deliberately incited violence for his political gain. He could well try to turn this clear-cut investigation into a puzzling debate, so that his sympathizers don't question his truthfulness.

wiki says the following

"There is controversy over whether the teens were actually chased. The local prosecutor, François Molins, has said that although they believed so, the police were actually after other suspects attempting to avoid an identity check [14]. Molins and Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy maintain that the dead teenagers had not been "physically pursued" by the police."


BTW, is the report of the official investigation online? (en anglais, si possible?)

[CrONoS]

How many policemen were chasing these guys?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I don't know the official rationale, but here's my guess:


Last year, when the two guys died, Sarkozy immediately went on TV to explain that the cops came for a burglary (not an alleged one), that the boys fled upon seeing the cops, and that they chose to hide in the electric building. Sarkozy added one of the boys was already known for "violent theft" by the police.

In short, on TV, Sarkozy publically said the boys were guilty, the police had done nothing wrong, and that these deaths are the boys' responsibility.

The investigation later proved that those were all lies.

En anglais, "lies" implies knowledge that what one said was a falsehood. Did the investigation delve into Sarkozys state of mind? Is it not likely that he asked the local cops or their superiors what the explanation was, and assumed they were telling the truth? Do you have reason to believe he made the story up himself?


And yes, at some level, even if they feared harassment (not clear what that means in practice,beatings?) its hardly the fault of the police they chose a dangerous place to run to.

and yes, sometimes the police cant tell who is innocent and who isnt, and when someone runs from an arrest, they must pursue.

While I dont share Oerdins assumptions, I get the impression we're not getting a balanced pictue from you.

[Arrian]

It seems to me that perception matters more than the reality, and many in France perceive the police to be a certain way... much like many in our urban centers perceive the police to be a certain way...

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
It seems to me that perception matters more than the reality, and many in France perceive the police to be a certain way... much like many in our urban centers perceive the police to be a certain way...

-Arrian

Yes, well, thats true. But if the problem is perception that may require a different set of answers than if the police are really racist and brutal - one may require civilian review boards, even a commitment towards integrating the police force, the other may be more a matter of outreach and PR. It also matters in that the argument is being made, or at least implied, that M. Sarkozy is largely at fault, is a dishonest scoundrel who is defending a brutal force and trying to climb to power by blaming poor, innocent victims of police brutality. Given that he is running for Pres of France, and that his candidacy is bitterly contested, that would seem to be an important matter.

[lord of the mark]

Suburban gangs defy French police
By Henri Astier
BBC News, Paris


Immigrant suburbs sometimes look like war zones

Police responsible for law enforcement in France's tense immigrant-majority housing estates liken their job to a military mission.

"What we have is urban warfare," according to Patrick Trotignon, a 30-year veteran working for the police union Synergie.

Gaelle James, an officer who works in Montreuil, a poor suburb just east of Paris, agrees.

"We are confronted by ever more criminals who are getting ever more violent," she says.

"They are now out to kill cops."

This may sound like hyperbole - but a year after a wave of rioting spread through France's ghettos, a number of attacks in recent weeks seem to confirm this grim assessment.

On 13 October, for instance, police responding to an emergency call in Epinay-sur-Seine, north of Paris, drove into a trap - two cars blocked their vehicle, which was set upon by dozens of youths wielding iron bars and knives.

The officers fought their way out without firing their guns, but one ended up in hospital with a broken jaw.


Ms James says this kind of attack is becoming worryingly frequent - washing machines have even been dropped from tower blocks on official vehicles.

"Doctors and other emergency services no longer venture into some estates," she notes.


The increasingly organised nature of violence is highlighted in a recent report by the interior ministry's intelligence service.

A future wave of suburban disturbances, it warns darkly, could target "the last remaining institutional representatives in a number of areas - the police".

Filming attacks

According to Mr Trotignon, the attacks are the work of teams structured along military lines.

"Operations are planned by senior commanders, with underlings making emergency calls and the foot soldiers carrying out the assaults," he says.


What's the point of taking risks to catch criminals when they can just walk out of court?

"And the icing on the cake is filming the whole thing with your mobile phone."

The violence in French suburbs has devastating consequences on police morale. "Those posted there can't leave fast enough," Mr Trotignon says.

The impoverished area of Seine-Saint-Denis north-east of Paris - where the 2005 riots began - is "haemorrhaging" officers, he adds, as those with enough seniority get transferred to the provinces.

This high turnover means that those tasked with France's most dangerous districts tend to be young - as the prefect, the top official in Seine-Saint-Denis, noted in a leaked note to the interior ministry.

The prefect and many in the police blame this situation on soft judges reluctant to jail the young offenders.

After last year's disturbances, the prefect wrote, only one minor in Seine-Saint-Denis was imprisoned out of 85 prosecuted.

"What's the point of taking risks to catch criminals when they can just walk out of court?" Ms James complains.

'Wildlife park'

According to Mr Trotignon, the head of the Seine-Saint-Denis tribunal is nicknamed "Father Christmas" by delinquents.

But few in the suburbs feel they are getting fair - let alone preferential - treatment from the authorities.

Contempt for police, in particular, is almost universal among young men. Here is a sample of quotes from youths recently interviewed in housing estates near Paris:


"We don't want a police station here. Some cops are racist."

"Riots are caused by police. They think we are all delinquents."

"The cops don't respect us. They come in and smash doors. They systematically suspect blacks and Arabs."

"Some cops are aggressive and use racial slurs when they check you."
Older residents, of course, express different views. They deeply resent the rampant lawlessness and want more, not fewer, police.


Youths from the French suburbs say they think all the ingredients for chaos remain

"Cars are vandalised and youths fight all the time, but when we call the cops they never come," complains a North African man living in Clichy-sous-Bois, a dismal ghetto north-east of Paris.

Nadir Dendoune, a 34-year-old journalist living in l'Ile-Saint-Denis, says what is needed above all is better policing.

"When I was young, the cops were patrolling on mopeds and talked to us," he recalls.

"Now they don't know us. They just patrol the area locked in their cars and look around as if they were in a wildlife park."

Beatings

In 2002 Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy decided to abandon community policing based on prevention in favour of a strict law-and-order approach.

Beat officers were replaced by shock "anti-crime brigades" who police the suburbs mostly from outside. Many local officials and youth workers in the suburbs feel this was a dreadful mistake.

2005 UNREST IN FIGURES

9193 cars burnt
2,921 arrests
21 nights of riots
Source: French police

"In this area community-based policing played a very positive role. Officers did real work in the estates," says Clichy's deputy mayor, Olivier Klein.

"Now they go in only for tough security missions, but this does not make people more secure."

Laurence Ribeaucourt, a social worker in the Clichy area, says the riots reveal a growing divide between police and people.

"For the past three years things have been getting steadily worse," she says. "Youths tell me they have been beaten up in custody and harassed by police."

Whether France's housing estates need soft "prevention" or tough repression is a matter of debate.

What is beyond dispute, however, is that the law is no longer enforced in many of France's deprived suburbs.


Relations between large sections of the population and the police have broken down.

Both sides are afraid of each other and as long as the climate of fear prevails, the urban warfare will continue"


Some of the reaction from the youths appears a little overdone, to me. The cops use racial slurs, OMG!. I mean cmon, police arent normally recruited from the Sorbonne, I presume - in the US it took years of racial sensitivity training, and even then I dont think police forces really changed till the forces themselves were heavily black. I mean you take a working class white guy, and put him in a situation where most of the criminals hes interacting with ARE from minorities, and naturally whatever latent racism he has is gonna come out. I get the vague impression that the racism of French police today pales compared to the situation that triggered the US riots in the 1960s, and that a lot of this is resentment is maybe fed by a style in music that comes directly out of the US ghettos - IE even if French cops were not at all brutal, its hip to be faced with racist cops, and to hate them, based on rap music that comes out of a US experience. Im not saying no french police are racist or brutal, but that the situation may be aggravated by things outside of the control of the police (and im talking cultural things, not just the economic situation)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
What LDiCesare said

But also something he didn't say: we aren't forced to have ghettoes in France. With some political will, we could have social housing spread over the urban territory, without concentrating all poverty in one place. This would be of considerable help for our society's cohesiveness.

in the US the fashion has been to give up on public housing altogether, and to provide vouchers instead (section 8) to be used in private apartment complexes. Its actually proved about the least painful to spread the poor, but is it too "neoliberal" for France?