France to Erupt?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
"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."

This dates back to Nov 3, 2005. i.e. one week after the deaths. And the prosecutor said that it is necessary that an official investigation starts, animated by a "juge d'instruction" (those are the ones responsible for leading difficult investigations - the prosecutors take note that the affair is too complex, and launch that procedure).
Since then, the "juge d'instruction" has shed into light that no burglary had taken place (unlike what is said in article I linked to), nor any degradation.

Also, the article I linked to speaks of an internal investigation by the police (the IGS is a corps of policemen who investigate police abuses), that concludes that no chase had taken place. This investigation started immediately after the deaths. It has most credence because it confirms what the survivor said, as he was interrogated at the hospital one day after being electrocuted.
A few days after the beginning of the IGS investigation, on Oct 31, 2005, another similar service (the IGPN) initiated an investigation as well. In their investigation, they saw that a chase took place indeed. There is more credence to the latter thesis, because once the survivor came back to shape, he rejected the testimony he gave to the cops. This testimony was taken in conditions that are officially deemed unethical.

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

Couldn't find it by googling. You might have more luck than me. The judge is Olivier Géron, he is leading an "information judiciaire". The victims are called Bouna Traoré and Zyed Benna.

Source of my claims about the official investigation.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by cronos_qc
How many policemen were chasing these guys?

11

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

This dates back to Nov 3, 2005. i.e. one week after the deaths. And the prosecutor said that it is necessary that an official investigation starts, animated by a "juge d'instruction" (those are the ones responsible for leading difficult investigations - the prosecutors take note that the affair is too complex, and launch that procedure).
Since then, the "juge d'instruction" has shed into light that no burglary had taken place (unlike what is said in article I linked to), nor any degradation.

Also, the article I linked to speaks of an internal investigation by the police (the IGS is a corps of policemen who investigate police abuses), that concludes that no chase had taken place. This investigation started immediately after the deaths. It has most credence because it confirms what the survivor said, as he was interrogated at the hospital one day after being electrocuted.
A few days after the beginning of the IGS investigation, on Oct 31, 2005, another similar service (the IGPN) initiated an investigation as well. In their investigation, they saw that a chase took place indeed. There is more credence to the latter thesis, because once the survivor came back to shape, he rejected the testimony he gave to the cops. This testimony was taken in conditions that are officially deemed unethical.


Couldn't find it by googling. You might have more luck than me. The judge is Olivier Géron, he is leading an "information judiciaire". The victims are called Bouna Traoré and Zyed Benna.

Source of my claims about the official investigation.

Humanite. Je ne suis par surprise. (correct idiom?) googling around for French press sources, i must ask, is Le Figaro the only decent "conservative" paper in France?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
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?

IMO, he didn't make up the story all by himself. he was probably helped by the local police officers, who wanted to avoid getting in trouble too. But I have quite a few reasons to believe that Sarkozy deliberately put the blame on the victims, and deliberately repeated the police version despite nothing being sure. A cautious politician would have said "we'll investigate and shed the light on this matter", but that's not what Sarkozy did.

Sarkozy knows full well his police has become more brutal since he took over the ministry. His services say so: the amount of police abuses had consistenly risen for years. He puts an increasing pressure every year on his policemen so that they break this trend. Thus, he knows that police brutality is a likely occurence. Yet, he refuse to be any cautious.

At the same time, he holds speeches on TV where he says he'll rid France of the "scum" ("racailles", as the members of the gangsta culture call themselves). For comparison, imagine Bush saying publically that he'll get rid of ******s (a self-depicting word used by the alienated US blacks), and you'll have a picture on how it was appreciated.
In a speech in one ghetto after a crime, he said he'd "clean it with the Kärcher" (high-pressure water cleaning machine).
In short, it was a context where Sarkozy willingly targetted the ghetto young for his political gain. And he was right to do so: many ghetto young are actual delinquants, and though their delinquance is generally petty, they're much more visible and annoying to the general population than organised crime.

So, this was a time where Sarkozy was more than willing to milk the ghetto-scare for political gain. But you might ask if he is a deliberate liar. And the answer is yes:

During the riots, Sarkozy also lied like there was no tomorrow: 1. He pretended for some time that the riots were manipulated by organized crime, that didn't want the police to claim their territory. As it happened, the ghettoes known for their organized crime were the quitest, precisely because the maffias didn't want the police to come on their territory, and prevented petty delinquants from wreaking havoc. Something any ghetto-dweller knows, but we now have an investigation that shows it.
2. He also said the riots were manipulated by the Islamists. In the end, absolutely nothing has been found on their involvement, despite searching.
3. He said he'd throw 120 foreign rioters out of the country. Almost all foreigners that took part to the riots actually couldn't be expelled, as per to the law he had himself promoted two years before (so it's not like he didn't know about it). In the end, 10 got expelled.

So, what is the picture in autumn 2005? Sarkozy had been villifying the ghetto young for some weeks now, in very public speeches. He used the deaths in Clichy as fuel in his mediatic crusade. He lied on other matters, so that all the blame could always be put on the ghetto-dwellers.

To me, Sarkozy had political aims (getting more voter sympathy by villifying the ghetto-dwellers, who are hated almost universally in France), and had no qualms for the truth to that effect. He isn't the first nor the last politician to do so.

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.

We shall see. The "juge d'instruction" is investigating about "non-assistance à personne en danger" (in France, you get punished for not helping someone whose life is in danger). 5 policemen will be heard on 20 November. We shall see at the end of that trial the extent of the police's responsibilities. There's another investigation about the chase itself, at Pontoise's court.

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

If we were in a normal police-citizen relationship, the police would have checked if a burglary had indeed occured, before thinking about arresting the teens. The first question, IMO, is why innocent teens run away when they see the police coming. And why they're sure (and rightly so) that they'll be taken in custody if caught.

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

Well, I'm a communist. AND I can't stand Sarkozy, whom I deem dangerous for the very fabric of French society (I'm generally open-minded enough to respect the pols I oppose, as I think they defend their vision of the public good - I don't do that for Sarkozy, because I think he can only be a catastrophe for the country, and I have plenty of reasons to do so).

However, despite my obvious bias, everything that I said here is factual. Sarkozy had been pushing for constant punishment against the "racailles" ever since he took over. He made it possible to imprison 13-year-olds, he equipped the police with rubber-bullet guns for ordinary use, and he is now equipping the police with tasers. He consistently pushed for worse punishment for delinquants.
He is also a media hound, and will take any opportunity to go to the media for publicity. Even his supporters will tell you so much. He has made himself clear about next year's presidential election since 2003, for crying out loud.


As far as I'm aware, I made one mistake in one of my posts (that I discovered upon reading articles to reply to you): Arrian, the first carfires started in Clichy the night right after the two deaths, not after the quiet protests and Sarkozy's statements on TV. They dramatically worsened after that though.


In short, yes I'm biased. But I think my position, though biased, is the correct one. Because I fail to see any valid element that goes against my point. Your only argument in favour of Sarkozy seems to be the benefit of the doubt, something he doesn't deserve: he is a seasoned politician, which should be enough of an argument by itself; but if that wasn't enough, he is also a proven liar (I gave some examples in this post) and a proven manipulator.
As such, you'll excuse me if I don't give him the benefit of the doubt, when he hastily affirms something on national TV, villifying two dead people before any investigation took place, in a fashion that matches his strategy of fighting words he had been having for weeks.

Maybe Davout or LdiCesare can give a differing opinion (they aren't commies, and I don't think they hate Sarkozy as much as I do). But I really don't see how anyone could construe a valid counter-argumentation wrt these two dead.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Humanite. Je ne suis par surprise. (correct idiom?)

That's correct if you're a woman A man is "pas surpris".

As to l'Humanité, it is indeed obviously biased. However, it is also the first French newspaper to have reported about torture in Iraq (before any major American newspaper), and it was true nonetheless. I don't recall having read investigative articles in l'Humanité that turned out to be outright fabrications.

googling around for French press sources, i must ask, is Le Figaro the only decent "conservative" paper in France?

It's the only one among the daily press. However, popular press (Le Parisien/Aujourd'hui, 20 minutes, as well as TV news from TF1 and its news network LCI) tend to be relatively sympathetic to right-wing theses on domestic safety, and TF1-LCI are very sympathetic to Sarkozy on all matters.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oerdin
If the poor Arabs are so oppressed and can't find jobs then may I suggest they get off their lazy asses and create their own jobs?

Bull****. They can't get jobs because the French are practically communist.

[Dinner]

Spiffor, it is very clear that if thugs are attacking police then they are not sufficently afraid of the consequences. People need to know that if you attack a police officer you will be shot and if you survive then you will spend the rest of your life in prison. That's how you end this type of madness.

[Barnabas]

I hope that if muslims youth decides to go on a rampage of destruction, they burn whatever building Le Monde Diplomatique is in.

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
I hope that if muslims youth decides to go on a rampage of destruction, they burn whatever building Le Monde Diplomatique is in.

le monde diplomatique

[CrONoS]

that's a stupid move to move out the policemen from the suburbs of France. I don't even understand the rationale behind this.

If the news are right, in Montreal, I see there was many political move to create more decentralized police office... And I think that's the only way to go!

[CrONoS]

And man, why I can't imagine a bus burning(set by a bunch of bandits) in Canada, UK, USA?

I`m reading Le Monde, each morning, and it seems your country seems to take this issue rather ..... calmly or easily.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by cronos_qc
that's a stupid move to move out the policemen from the suburbs of France. I don't even understand the rationale behind this.

The rationale was that they were obviously useless, because they didn't arrest enough people. Here's Sarkozy's criticism against the proximity police.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by cronos_qc
And man, why I can't imagine a bus burning(set by a bunch of bandits) in Canada, UK, USA?

I`m reading Le Monde, each morning, and it seems your country seems to take this issue rather ..... calmly or easily.

To each is own.
We have burning buses (actually, we take even more calmly the burning cars, about a hundred of them every day of the year, and our newspapers don't talk about it at all).
The US has 3 times more murders per inhabitant..
The UK has happy slappings.

Personally, as long the violent acts are geared toward hardware, I think it's not too bad. It sure does buy some time that neither the serious riots, not the civil war, have started yet. A time that we stop squandering however.

[Barnabas]

Whats a happy slap?

[Arrian]

he is a seasoned politician, which should be enough of an argument by itself; but if that wasn't enough, he is also a proven liar (I gave some examples in this post) and a proven manipulator.

You repeat yourself, sir.

-Arrian