Should France presume police and gendarmes acted lawfully when using firearms?

France’s National Assembly approved a rebuttable presumption that police and gendarmes who fire their weapons acted within the law. The government calls it procedural protection; rights bodies warn about investigations and accountability.

Read the original text

French National Police officers in Paris. This contextual photograph does not depict the disputed legislation or any use of force.

Case period:December 3, 2024

Published by The Dispute Index editorial teamPublished September 22, 2026Updated September 22, 2026

Éric Pauget Laurent Nuñez

France Law Enforcement

Overview

A bill filed by French lawmaker Éric Pauget and rewritten by the government would create a rebuttable presumption that national police officers and gendarmes who use firearms acted within an authorized statutory circumstance and complied with requirements of absolute necessity and strict proportionality. The National Assembly adopted the text on July 7, 2026, and sent it to the Senate. Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez and police-union supporters say the measure would protect officers without ending judicial review; the Defender of Rights, a UN special rapporteur and human-rights groups argue that it could weaken investigations, victims’ remedies and accountability for lethal force.

Read the full background

This case classifies responses to the proposed statutory presumption in the version of the bill adopted by the National Assembly and transmitted to the Senate—not the September protest itself and not a finding about any particular police shooting.

Under Article L. 435-1 of the Internal Security Code (opens in a new tab), national police officers and gendarmes may use firearms only in specified circumstances, in cases of absolute necessity and in a strictly proportionate manner. Éric Pauget’s original Bill 691 (opens in a new tab), filed on December 3, 2024, proposed a Penal Code presumption of self-defense for national and municipal police and gendarmes when they used weapons under the statutory rules.

A government amendment adopted on January 22, 2026 (opens in a new tab) replaced that proposal with a presumption under the Internal Security Code. In the Assembly-approved text now before the Senate (opens in a new tab), national police and gendarmes who use firearms would be presumed to have acted within one of Article L. 435-1’s authorized cases and in compliance with absolute necessity and strict proportionality. The text says any contrary evidence may rebut the presumption at any time. It does not cover municipal police. The bill also separately rewrites the rule permitting firearm use to prevent the imminent repetition of a murder or attempted murder and removes the existing uniform-or-visible-insignia condition for that circumstance.

During the July 7 Assembly debate (opens in a new tab), Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez described the presumption as rebuttable, said firearm use would continue to lead to a judicial investigation and said prosecutors could still detain an officer for questioning if the statutory conditions appeared not to be met. Alliance Police Nationale has advocated a broader presumption covering police conduct beyond firearm use. The National Assembly adopted the bill 313–199, with five abstentions (opens in a new tab), and transmitted it to the Senate for first reading.

The Defender of Rights (opens in a new tab) warned that the presumption could alter how investigations and judicial oversight operate in practice, weaken effective remedies and suggest to officers that firearm authority had expanded even though necessity and proportionality would remain. UN Special Rapporteur Morris Tidball-Binz (opens in a new tab) argued that the state’s duty to investigate potentially unlawful deaths should not be displaced by requiring victims or their families to rebut a presumption before the facts are independently established. Amnesty International France (opens in a new tab) calls the measure a threat to accountability and access to justice.

An Assembly petition opposing the proposal (opens in a new tab) closed with 732,086 signatures; the Law Committee later classified and closed it. Demonstrations were held in Paris and other French cities on September 20. Those developments demonstrate public opposition, but they do not by themselves establish how courts or investigators would apply the presumption. As of September 22, 2026, the proposal remains pending in the Senate and is not enacted law.

People in this case

Éric PaugetDirectly involved
Laurent NuñezDirectly involved
Stéphane PeuCommented
Stella DupontCommented

Follow this case

Timeline

12 timeline entries on this page. Dates: December 3, 2024 to September 20, 2026

December 2024
1. December 3, 2024
  Éric Pauget files Bill 691
  Source release
  Pauget and co-sponsors filed a bill proposing a Penal Code presumption of self-defense for national police, municipal police and gendarmes using weapons under statutory conditions.
  [01]National Assembly Bill 691: Presumption of self-defense for law-enforcement officers
  Original bill filed by Éric Pauget and co-sponsors. It proposed a Penal Code presumption of self-defense for national police, municipal police and gendarmes, subject to rebuttal if an investigation established manifest disproportionality or lack of absolute necessity.
  National Assembly Bill 691: Presumption of self-defense for law-enforcement officersArticle unique and statement of reasons
January 2026
1. January 14, 2026
  Law Committee deletes the bill's sole article
  The National Assembly's Law Committee adopts amendments deleting the sole article of Bill 691, then rejects the bill as modified. The proposal later returns for consideration in the full Assembly.
  [02]French Law Committee debate and report on Bill 691
  The report records speakers' own arguments and the committee's deletion of the sole article. The Assembly later passed an amended text.
  French Law Committee debate and report on Bill 691Committee meeting of January 14, 2026, with the debate and article vote.
  [03]National Assembly legislative history of the firearm-presumption bill
  The official history distinguishes passage by the National Assembly from consideration in the Senate.
  National Assembly legislative history of the firearm-presumption billCommittee report, Assembly adoption and transmission to the Senate.
2. January 22, 2026
  Assembly adopts Government Amendment 39
  The National Assembly adopted the government’s rewrite, replacing the proposed self-defense presumption with a presumption that firearm use by national police and gendarmes complied with the authorized cases, absolute necessity and strict proportionality in the Internal Security Code.
  [04]Government Amendment 39 to National Assembly Bill 691
  Source excerpt
  Cette présomption peut, à tout moment, être renversée par tout élément de preuve contraire.
  Government amendment that replaced the original Penal Code self-defense presumption with a presumption under the Internal Security Code that firearm use by national police and gendarmes was lawful under Article L. 435-1. It also rewrote the provision governing intervention to prevent a repeat murder or attempted murder.
  Government Amendment 39 to National Assembly Bill 691Amendment text and explanatory statement; adopted January 22, 2026
June 2026
1. June 26, 2026
  Opposition petition opens on the National Assembly platform
  Reaction
  Issam El Khalfaoui launched a petition opposing the proposed presumption. It later closed with 732,086 signatures.
  [05]Petition against a presumption of self-defense for law-enforcement officers
  National Assembly petition initiated by Issam El Khalfaoui opposing the proposal. The petition closed with 732,086 signatures, exceeding the Assembly platform's 500,000-signature threshold for possible committee consideration.
  Petition against a presumption of self-defense for law-enforcement officersPetition i-6334; signature total displayed before closure
July 2026
1. July 7, 2026
  National Assembly passes the bill
  The National Assembly approved Bill 691 by 313 votes to 199, with five abstentions, and transmitted the adopted text to the Senate.
  [06]National Assembly public ballot 7987 on Bill 691
  Source excerpt
  Pour l'adoption : 313. Contre : 199. Abstention : 5.
  Official roll-call result for the National Assembly's final vote on Bill 691. The Assembly adopted the bill by 313 votes to 199, with five abstentions.
  National Assembly public ballot 7987 on Bill 691Overall result and member-by-member vote
  [07]Senate Bill 866: Presumption of legitimate use of firearms by law-enforcement officers
  Source excerpt
  Cette présomption peut, à tout moment, être renversée par tout élément de preuve contraire.
  Official text adopted by the National Assembly and transmitted to the Senate. It would presume that national police officers and gendarmes who fire their weapons acted within an authorized statutory case and complied with absolute necessity and strict proportionality; the presumption may be rebutted at any time by contrary evidence.
  Senate Bill 866: Presumption of legitimate use of firearms by law-enforcement officersArticle unique, II, proposed Article L. 435-1 III
2. July 7, 2026
  Assembly-passed firearm-presumption bill reaches the Senate
  The text adopted by the National Assembly is registered in the Senate as proposal 866 and referred to its Law Committee. This is a step in parliamentary consideration, rather than final enactment.
  [03]National Assembly legislative history of the firearm-presumption bill
  The official history distinguishes passage by the National Assembly from consideration in the Senate.
  National Assembly legislative history of the firearm-presumption billCommittee report, Assembly adoption and transmission to the Senate.
3. July 10, 2026
  Fiorini questions the presumption's effect on investigations and equality
  Source release
  Writing in Le Club des Juristes, Benjamin Fiorini warns that presumed justification could weaken early inquiries and leave victims carrying more of the investigative burden. He also questions a presumption based on an officer's status. He notes that absolute necessity and strict proportionality would remain required.
  [08]Fiorini examines legal and investigative risks of the police presumption
  Fiorini argues that the proposal could weaken investigations and raises an equality question because the presumption follows official status rather than the circumstances of danger.
  Fiorini examines legal and investigative risks of the police presumptionFull question-and-answer analysis, especially the four risks in the final section
4. July 10, 2026
  Legal scholars disagree about the claimed reversal of the burden of proof
  Source release
  Les Surligneurs interviews criminal-law scholars about the proposed presumption. Benoit Auroy says it changes the starting point for assessing justification; Jean-Baptiste Thierry and Catherine Tzutzuiano dispute describing it as a legal reversal of proof. They nevertheless warn that the measure could affect investigations or encourage mistaken beliefs that officers face fewer restrictions.
  [09]French criminal-law scholars debate whether the police presumption shifts the burden of proof
  Turcev interviews scholars who disagree about the burden of proof but warn about the proposal's practical message and investigative effects.
  French criminal-law scholars debate whether the police presumption shifts the burden of proofFull interview article, republished by DE FACTO; burden-of-proof discussion and Un message politique section
5. July 15, 2026
  Pauget presents Assembly passage as a victory for public safety
  Reaction
  In a post on his website, Pauget celebrates passage of the amended bill and argues that the presumption would better protect police and gendarmes. The text still requires further parliamentary consideration.
  [10]Eric Pauget celebrates Assembly passage of his firearm-presumption bill
  Pauget calls the measure a victory for security. His description does not establish that the bill had become law.
  Eric Pauget celebrates Assembly passage of his firearm-presumption billPost dated July 15, 2026.
  [03]National Assembly legislative history of the firearm-presumption bill
  The official history distinguishes passage by the National Assembly from consideration in the Senate.
  National Assembly legislative history of the firearm-presumption billCommittee report, Assembly adoption and transmission to the Senate.
6. July 21, 2026
  Law Committee closes the opposition petition
  The National Assembly Law Committee considered petition i-6334 and classified it, closing the petition process despite the signature total exceeding 500,000.
  [11]National Assembly Law Committee decision to close petition i-6334
  Official notice that the National Assembly Law Committee classified and closed the petition opposing the bill after considering it on July 21, 2026.
  National Assembly Law Committee decision to close petition i-6334Committee decision and explanation
  [05]Petition against a presumption of self-defense for law-enforcement officers
  National Assembly petition initiated by Issam El Khalfaoui opposing the proposal. The petition closed with 732,086 signatures, exceeding the Assembly platform's 500,000-signature threshold for possible committee consideration.
  Petition against a presumption of self-defense for law-enforcement officersPetition i-6334; signature total displayed before closure
7. July 21, 2026
  Nuñez defends the amended firearms bill in the Assembly
  Reaction
  Answering Legavre's question about the opposition petition, Nuñez said the amended bill creates a rebuttable presumption concerning legally authorized firearm use. He said investigations would continue and rejected the claim that the proposal creates a license to kill.
  [12]National Assembly: Nuñez answers a question on the firearms presumption
  Official sitting transcript, July 21, 2026. Nuñez defends the amended bill and rejects the 'permis de tuer' characterization.
  National Assembly: Nuñez answers a question on the firearms presumptionSection 'Présomption de légitime défense pour les forces de l'ordre': Jérôme Legavre question and Laurent Nuñez response.
September 2026
1. September 20, 2026
  Protests oppose the pending bill in French cities
  Reaction
  Demonstrators marched in Paris and other French cities against the proposed presumption. Reporting cited police estimates of 4,500 participants in Lyon and 3,700 in Toulouse.
  [13]Thousands march in France against bill granting police presumption of legitimate self-defense
  Report on demonstrations held in Paris and other French cities on September 20, 2026, against the pending bill. It reports organizer participation, police estimates of 4,500 people in Lyon and 3,700 in Toulouse, and comments from participants and political figures.
  Thousands march in France against bill granting police presumption of legitimate self-defenseFull report; turnout paragraphs and remarks by Mathilde Panot

Claims

Claims separate what was said from what is contested. Follow each source for the original wording and context.

What's disputed

Disputed claim

Laurent NuñezJuly 7, 2026

The bill creates a simple, rebuttable presumption and does not prevent judicial investigations or prosecutors from treating an officer as a suspect when the statutory firearm-use conditions appear not to have been met.

Sources (1)

National Assembly debate on Bill 691, July 7, 2026Laurent Nuñez interventions at transcript lines corresponding to paragraphs 1138–1165 and 1495–1515

Disputed claim

Défenseur des droitsJune 26, 2026

The proposed presumption could change how investigations and judicial oversight operate in practice, shift evidentiary burdens against victims and weaken effective remedies.

Sources (1)

Defender of Rights opinion on the proposed presumption for law-enforcement officers · Défenseur des droitsSections “Un risque d'affaiblissement du contrôle judiciaire” and “Un signal dangereux”

Disputed claim

Morris Tidball-BinzJuly 7, 2026

A presumption favoring lawful firearm use could weaken the active search for evidence and increase the risk that potentially arbitrary deprivations of life go without accountability.

Sources (1)

France: Proposed presumption of lawful police shootings could fuel impunity, warns UN expertStatements attributed to Morris Tidball-Binz

Disputed claim

Alliance Police NationaleJanuary 23, 2026

Police officers should benefit from a broader presumption of legitimacy, including when making arrests without firing a weapon, with the individual bearing the burden of producing contrary proof.

Sources (1)

Alliance Police Nationale statement on a presumption of self-defense · Alliance Police NationaleComplete statement, paragraphs beginning “Pendant que certains” and “Un policier”

Disputed claim

Amnesty International FranceJuly 6, 2026

The proposed presumption would weaken the state’s accountability for potentially lethal force and impede victims’ access to justice.

Sources (1)

Amnesty France statement opposing the proposed firearm-use presumption · Amnesty International FranceOpening summary and section on accountability for lethal force

Response record

Responses

Choose one response filter, or select All responses to see the full record.

28 responses. First 6 shown initially. Newest first.

Laurent NuñezFrance's interior minister, answering the National AssemblyDirectly involvedJuly 21, 2026
Before this statement
Responding to Jérôme Legavre's question about the opposition petition, Nuñez described the government's support for the amended parliamentary bill.
"What we are creating is a simple presumption, which can be overturned very quickly, as the text provides. So stop saying everywhere that we have created a license to kill! (Translated from French. Original: Ce que nous créons est une simple présomption, qui peut être renversée très rapidement, ce que le texte prévoit. Arrêtez donc de dire partout que nous aurions créé un permis de tuer !)"
Defended or excused
Case context: Should France presume police and gendarmes acted lawfully when using firearms?
Full statement and sources
Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez defended the amended firearms bill in answer to a question from Jérôme Legavre in the National Assembly. He said the presumption applies to the five cases in which existing law already permits police and gendarmes to use firearms, can be rebutted quickly, and leaves room for investigations. He rejected opponents' description of the bill as a license to kill.
After the statement
He went on to say that investigations could still be conducted because the presumption can be rebutted, and that in most or all of the cases the questioner raised, courts had found the police action proportionate.
National Assembly: Nuñez answers a question on the firearms presumptionSection 'Présomption de légitime défense pour les forces de l'ordre': Jérôme Legavre question and Laurent Nuñez response.
Why this label?
During questions to the government, Nuñez argues the bill creates "une simple présomption, qui peut être renversée très rapidement" and not a "permis de tuer". The case's reference point is the proposed presumption that police and gendarmes acted lawfully when using firearms. By describing the measure as a simple, rebuttable presumption and telling opponents to stop saying it is a license to kill, he defends the bill on its terms. Challenged the characterization is the closest competing label; it loses because his answer defends the substance, adding that the government supports the text and that investigations remain possible.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement
Ligue des droits de l'HommeFrench human-rights association, in a statement on its official websiteJuly 10, 2026
Before this statement
The page is dated July 10, 2026 and was updated afterwards. Its timeline lists the National Assembly's first-reading vote on July 7, 2026 and says a Senate vote is still to come.
"Yet establishing a presumption that shootings are lawful would amount to accepting from the outset that the use of the weapon was lawful, and therefore to slowing down, or even preventing, investigations, with the possible consequence that unjustified uses escape any sanction. As a result, victims would be deprived of any hope that the truth would come out, and all the current failings would be legitimized. (Translated from French. Original: Or l’instauration d’une présomption de légalité des tirs reviendrait à admettre d’emblée la conformité de l’usage de l’arme et donc de freiner, voire d’empêcher, la réalisation d’investigations, avec pour conséquence possible que des utilisations injustifiées échappent à toute sanction. Dès lors, les victimes seraient privées de toute espérance quant à la manifestation de la vérité et tous les dysfonctionnements actuels seraient légitimés.)"
Condemned
Case context: Should France presume police and gendarmes acted lawfully when using firearms?
Full statement and sources
The Ligue des droits de l'Homme (LDH) argued that presuming police shootings lawful would amount to accepting at the outset that the weapon was used lawfully, which would slow or block investigations, could let unjustified uses of the weapon go unpunished, and would deprive victims of any hope that the truth would come out.
After the statement
The page also states LDH's demands that the bill be refused and that Article L.435-1 of the Internal Security Code, the 2017 provision on police use of firearms, be repealed.
Mobilisons-nous contre la proposition de loi sur la présomption de légitime défense pour les forces de l’ordreBody text, in the two consecutive paragraphs on investigations and victims that come before the list of LDH demands
Why this label?
The LDH says a presumption that police shots were lawful would slow or block investigations, could let unjustified uses of the weapon go unpunished and would leave victims without hope of the truth coming out. On the same page it demands that the bill be refused. That is an express criticism of the measure, so we labeled it Condemned.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement
Stéphane PeuMember of France's National Assembly, Seine-Saint-Denis second constituencyJuly 7, 2026
Before this statement
France's National Assembly debated a presumption that police and gendarmes acted lawfully when using firearms under the proposed statutory conditions.
"an inequality before the law (Translated from French. Original: une inégalité devant la loi)"
Condemned
Case context: Should France presume police and gendarmes acted lawfully when using firearms?
Full statement and sources
Stéphane Peu opposed the presumption, arguing that unequal treatment would damage public trust in the police.
After the statement
Peu argued that unequal treatment under the law would erode trust in the police.
French National Assembly speeches opposing the firearm-use presumptionClosing vote explanation, paragraphs 5771-5875; Closing vote explanation, paragraphs 5883-5983; Closing vote explanation, paragraphs 5991-6072; Closing vote explanation, paragraphs 6087-6197; Speech, paragraphs 4998-5033; Speech, paragraphs 5041-5090
Why this label?
Stéphane Peu argues against France's firearm-use presumption. Peu argued that unequal treatment under the law would erode trust in the police.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement
Stella DupontMember of France's National Assembly, Maine-et-Loire second constituencyJuly 7, 2026
Before this statement
France's National Assembly debated a presumption that police and gendarmes acted lawfully when using firearms under the proposed statutory conditions.
"a red line (Translated from French. Original: une ligne rouge)"
Condemned
Case context: Should France presume police and gendarmes acted lawfully when using firearms?
Full statement and sources
Stella Dupont opposed a presumption based on an officer's status, contrasting it with existing necessity and proportionality requirements.
After the statement
Dupont contrasted the proposed status-based presumption with necessity and proportionality requirements.
French National Assembly speeches opposing the firearm-use presumptionClosing vote explanation, paragraphs 5771-5875; Closing vote explanation, paragraphs 5883-5983; Closing vote explanation, paragraphs 5991-6072; Closing vote explanation, paragraphs 6087-6197; Speech, paragraphs 4998-5033; Speech, paragraphs 5041-5090
Why this label?
Stella Dupont argues against France's firearm-use presumption. Dupont contrasted the proposed status-based presumption with necessity and proportionality requirements.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement
Elsa FaucillonMember of France's National Assembly, Hauts-de-Seine first constituencyJuly 7, 2026
Before this statement
France's National Assembly debated a presumption that police and gendarmes acted lawfully when using firearms under the proposed statutory conditions.
"a factory of impunity (Translated from French. Original: une fabrique d’impunité)"
Condemned
Case context: Should France presume police and gendarmes acted lawfully when using firearms?
Full statement and sources
Elsa Faucillon opposed the bill, arguing that it would weaken judicial oversight and victims' access to justice.
After the statement
Faucillon argued that the bill would limit accountability and access to justice for victims.
French National Assembly speeches opposing the firearm-use presumptionClosing vote explanation, paragraphs 5771-5875; Closing vote explanation, paragraphs 5883-5983; Closing vote explanation, paragraphs 5991-6072; Closing vote explanation, paragraphs 6087-6197; Speech, paragraphs 4998-5033; Speech, paragraphs 5041-5090
Why this label?
Elsa Faucillon argues against France's firearm-use presumption. Faucillon argued that the bill would limit accountability and access to justice for victims.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement
Jean-François CoulommeMember of France's National Assembly, Savoie fourth constituencyJuly 7, 2026
Before this statement
France's National Assembly debated a presumption that police and gendarmes acted lawfully when using firearms under the proposed statutory conditions.
"nous refusons"
Condemned
Case context: Should France presume police and gendarmes acted lawfully when using firearms?
Full statement and sources
Jean-François Coulomme opposed the bill, arguing that it would weaken scrutiny of lethal police force.
After the statement
Coulomme urged rejection of the bill because of its effect on scrutiny of lethal force.
French National Assembly speeches opposing the firearm-use presumptionClosing vote explanation, paragraphs 5771-5875; Closing vote explanation, paragraphs 5883-5983; Closing vote explanation, paragraphs 5991-6072; Closing vote explanation, paragraphs 6087-6197; Speech, paragraphs 4998-5033; Speech, paragraphs 5041-5090
Why this label?
Jean-François Coulomme argues against France's firearm-use presumption. Coulomme urged rejection of the bill because of its effect on scrutiny of lethal force.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement

View all 28 responsesShow fewer responses

Pouria AmirshahiMember of France's National Assembly, Paris fifth constituencyJuly 7, 2026
Before this statement
France's National Assembly debated a presumption that police and gendarmes acted lawfully when using firearms under the proposed statutory conditions.
"a deliberate lie (Translated from French. Original: un mensonge volontaire)"
Condemned
Case context: Should France presume police and gendarmes acted lawfully when using firearms?
Full statement and sources
Pouria Amirshahi opposed the presumption, endorsing a bereaved father's warning that it would undermine investigations.
After the statement
Amirshahi added his own condemnation after reading a bereaved father's letter opposing the presumption.
French National Assembly speeches opposing the firearm-use presumptionClosing vote explanation, paragraphs 5771-5875; Closing vote explanation, paragraphs 5883-5983; Closing vote explanation, paragraphs 5991-6072; Closing vote explanation, paragraphs 6087-6197; Speech, paragraphs 4998-5033; Speech, paragraphs 5041-5090
Why this label?
Pouria Amirshahi argues against France's firearm-use presumption. Amirshahi added his own condemnation after reading a bereaved father's letter opposing the presumption.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement
Sacha HouliéMember of France's National Assembly, Vienne second constituencyJuly 7, 2026
Before this statement
France's National Assembly debated a presumption that police and gendarmes acted lawfully when using firearms under the proposed statutory conditions.
"serious and irreparable (Translated from French. Original: graves et irrémédiables)"
Condemned
Case context: Should France presume police and gendarmes acted lawfully when using firearms?
Full statement and sources
Sacha Houlié opposed the bill, arguing that it would erode legal safeguards and create serious operational risks.
After the statement
Houlié argued that the change would remove protections and create operational risks.
French National Assembly speeches opposing the firearm-use presumptionClosing vote explanation, paragraphs 5771-5875; Closing vote explanation, paragraphs 5883-5983; Closing vote explanation, paragraphs 5991-6072; Closing vote explanation, paragraphs 6087-6197; Speech, paragraphs 4998-5033; Speech, paragraphs 5041-5090
Why this label?
Sacha Houlié argues against France's firearm-use presumption. Houlié argued that the change would remove protections and create operational risks.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement
Nicolas TryznaMember of the National Assembly, Droite Républicaine groupJuly 7, 2026
Before this statement
During questions to the government, Tryzna cited assaults and other pressures on law-enforcement officers before welcoming the government’s decision to return the proposal to the agenda.
"It proposes a simple, rebuttable presumption, far from the lies repeated for days. It is our responsibility to guarantee them a legal framework that is both clear and protective, ... without placing them in permanent insecurity when they act in the course of their mission. (Translated from French. Original: Elle propose une présomption simple, renversable, loin des mensonges répétés depuis des jours. Il est de notre responsabilité de leur garantir un cadre juridique à la fois clair et protecteur, ... sans les placer dans une insécurité permanente lorsqu’elles agissent dans l’exercice de leur mission.)"
Defended or excused
Case context: Should France presume police and gendarmes acted lawfully when using firearms?
Full statement and sources
Tryzna welcomed the bill’s return, characterized its presumption as rebuttable and said lawmakers should provide police and gendarmes a clear, protective legal framework.
After the statement
He framed the proposal as a statement of public trust in police and gendarmes and asked what further measures the government would take to support them.
Nicolas Tryzna question on the presumption of legitimate firearm use, July 7, 2026Nicolas Tryzna intervention, transcript paragraphs 1103–1119
Why this label?
He explicitly welcomed and defended the proposal as rebuttable legal protection for law-enforcement officers. That is direct support for the conduct at issue.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement
Manuel BompardMember of the National Assembly, La France insoumise–Nouveau Front Populaire groupJuly 7, 2026
Before this statement
Bompard opened his question by arguing that the rule of law depends on state control of those entrusted with lethal force.
"It will no longer be up to the person who fired to prove that they acted in self-defense, but up to the victim to prove that the shot did not comply with the law. France would then become a country where a death by police gunfire would not trigger any automatic investigation. (Translated from French. Original: Ce ne sera plus à l’auteur du tir d’apporter la preuve qu’il a agi en état de légitime défense, mais à la victime de prouver que ce tir n’était pas conforme à la loi. La France deviendrait dès lors un pays où une mort par tir policier ne donnerait lieu à aucune enquête automatique.)"
Condemned
Case context: Should France presume police and gendarmes acted lawfully when using firearms?
Full statement and sources
Bompard opposed the proposal, arguing that it would shift the evidentiary burden to victims and prevent an automatic investigation after a death caused by police gunfire.
After the statement
He said immediate evidence gathering would be lost, described the result as total impunity and asked the government to withdraw the proposal.
Manuel Bompard question on Bill 691, July 7, 2026Question au Gouvernement no. 1753
Why this label?
He argued that the proposal would suppress oversight and produce impunity, then called for its withdrawal. That is explicit condemnation of the conduct at issue.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement
Sabrina SebaihiMember and secretary of the National Assembly, Écologiste et Social groupJuly 7, 2026
Before this statement
Opening a question to the interior minister, Sebaihi quoted Robert Badinter and said the Assembly was about to reintroduce a death penalty carried out without trial, in the street.
"This bill protects neither police officers, who carry out their mission with professionalism and whose daily work I salute ... nor our fellow citizens whom they are supposed to protect. It creates a presumption of self-defense that reverses the burden of proof, the foundation of our judicial system. (Translated from French. Original: Cette proposition de loi ne protège ni les policiers, qui accomplissent leur mission avec professionnalisme et dont je salue le travail au quotidien ... ni nos concitoyens qu'ils sont censés protéger. Elle crée une présomption de légitime défense qui inverse la charge de la preuve, fondement de notre système judiciaire.)"
Condemned
Case context: Should France presume police and gendarmes acted lawfully when using firearms?
Full statement and sources
Sebaihi opposed the proposal, saying it reverses the burden of proof and protects neither professional police officers nor the people they serve.
After the statement
She cited opposition from the Defender of Rights, the human-rights advisory commission and many magistrates' organizations, listed deaths during police interventions and said the law would reinforce impunity. In a follow-up, she said young people were afraid, promoted a petition against the measure and asked the minister to withdraw it.
Sabrina Sebaihi question on Bill 691, July 7, 2026Question au Gouvernement no. 1764
Why this label?
She expressly described the proposal as dangerous, said it would reinforce impunity and called for its withdrawal. That is explicit condemnation of the conduct at issue.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement
Morris Tidball-BinzUnited Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executionsJuly 7, 2026
Before this statement
The UN release described the amended bill as presuming that police officers and gendarmes who fire weapons acted lawfully, necessarily and proportionately unless evidence showed otherwise.
"Every potentially unlawful death involving law enforcement officials must be investigated through a prompt, thorough, effective, independent, impartial and transparent investigation. The duty to investigate every potentially unlawful killing rests with the State. It cannot be displaced, in law or in practice, by requiring victims or their families to rebut a legal presumption that the use of potentially lethal force was lawful before the facts have been independently established."
Condemned
Responding to: A presumption favoring lawful firearm use could weaken the active search for evidence and increase the risk that potentially arbitrary deprivations of life go without accountability.
Full statement and sources
Tidball-Binz urged France to reject the bill and argued that the state’s investigative duty must not be displaced by requiring victims or families to rebut a presumption before the facts are independently established.
After the statement
Tidball-Binz warned that influencing the initiation and conduct of investigations could weaken evidence gathering, hinder fact-finding and increase the risk that arbitrary deprivations of life go without accountability.
France: Proposed presumption of lawful police shootings could fuel impunity, warns UN expertStatements attributed to Morris Tidball-Binz
Why this label?
Relative to the proposed statutory presumption, Tidball-Binz expressly urges rejection and argues that it threatens independent investigation and accountability. This is direct condemnation of the policy.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement
Laurent NuñezFrench minister of the interiorDirectly involvedJuly 7, 2026
Before this statement
Assembly member Sabrina Sebaihi argued that the bill would invert the burden of proof, strengthen impunity and endanger young people. Nuñez responded during questions to the government before the chamber resumed detailed consideration of the bill.
"This bill provides only for a simple presumption (it is written in black and white), which can be lifted at any time. I heard it said earlier that one would have to wait for the judgment. That is not the case: any prosecutor will be able to place a police officer or gendarme in custody if he considers that the weapon was not used within the framework provided by Article 435-1 of the Internal Security Code. (Translated from French. Original: Cette proposition de loi ne prévoit qu’une présomption simple – c’est écrit noir sur blanc –, qui peut être levée à tout moment. J’ai entendu dire tout à l’heure qu’il faudrait attendre le jugement. Ce n’est pas le cas : n’importe quel procureur pourra placer en garde à vue un policier ou un gendarme s’il considère que l’usage de l’arme n’a pas été fait dans le cadre prévu par l’article 435-1 du code de la sécurité intérieure.)"
Defended or excused
Responding to: The bill creates a simple, rebuttable presumption and does not prevent judicial investigations or prosecutors from treating an officer as a suspect when the statutory firearm-use conditions appear not to have been met.
Full statement and sources
Nuñez supported the bill and argued that its rebuttable presumption would not prevent prosecutors from investigating or detaining an officer when the firearm-use conditions appeared not to be met.
After the statement
Nuñez continued that police and gendarmes are heavily monitored, must justify force and generally receive a review of whether an intervention was proportionate. He later rejected critics’ use of cases in which officers had been cleared.
National Assembly debate on Bill 691, July 7, 2026Laurent Nuñez interventions at transcript lines corresponding to paragraphs 1138–1165 and 1495–1515
Why this label?
On the proposed statutory presumption favoring lawful firearm use, Nuñez expressly supports the bill and argues that the measure is limited and compatible with prosecutorial oversight. That is a defense of the policy, not merely a challenge to an opponent’s terminology.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement
Amnesty International FranceFrench section of an international human-rights organizationJuly 6, 2026
Before this statement
The statement explained that Government Amendment 39 would create a presumption of lawful firearm use under the Internal Security Code rather than the original bill’s Penal Code presumption of self-defense.
"Amnesty International calls for the rejection of this text, which would weaken the State's obligation to account for itself when one of its agents uses lethal force, thereby worsening an already permissive legal framework and encouraging impunity. (Translated from French. Original: Amnesty International appelle à rejeter ce texte qui affaiblirait l’obligation de l’État de rendre des comptes lorsque l’un de ses agents fait usage de la force meurtrière, aggravant ainsi un cadre juridique déjà permissif et favorisant l’impunité.)"
Condemned
Responding to: The proposed presumption would weaken the state’s accountability for potentially lethal force and impede victims’ access to justice.
Full statement and sources
Amnesty International France called for rejection of the proposal, arguing that it would weaken state accountability for lethal force and favor impunity.
After the statement
Amnesty argued that the proposal could impair victims’ access to justice, alter investigative practice and send a political signal that firearm use by officers is presumed acceptable.
Amnesty France statement opposing the proposed firearm-use presumption · Amnesty International FranceOpening summary and section on accountability for lethal force
Why this label?
Relative to the proposed statutory presumption, Amnesty France explicitly calls for the bill’s rejection and argues that it would weaken accountability. This is direct condemnation rather than minimization or a characterization-only challenge.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement
Commission nationale consultative des droits de l’hommeFrance’s national human-rights institutionJune 29, 2026
Before this statement
The CNCDH president sent lawmakers a letter before the Assembly’s July 7 consideration of the proposal.
"The president of the CNCDH [...] calls for this bill to be rejected and points out that it takes a further step in what amounts to a loosening of the rules on the use of weapons by law enforcement, likely to worsen this trend. (Translated from French. Original: Le président de la CNCDH [...] appelle au rejet de cette proposition de loi et rappelle qu’elle franchit un pas supplémentaire sur ce qui s’apparente à un relâchement de l’encadrement de l’usage des armes par les forces de l’ordre, susceptible d’aggraver cette tendance.)"
Condemned
Case context: Should France presume police and gendarmes acted lawfully when using firearms?
Full statement and sources
The CNCDH called for lawmakers to reject the proposal, warning that it would further loosen constraints on law-enforcement firearm use and weaken an already insufficient accountability system.
After the statement
The CNCDH said the reform would increase the burden on victims’ families and further weaken compliance with impartial-investigation standards.
CNCDH letter on the proposed presumption for police firearm use · Commission nationale consultative des droits de l’hommeCNCDH summary and linked presidential letter
Why this label?
The institution explicitly urged rejection and described the measure as a dangerous weakening of firearm oversight. That is direct condemnation of the conduct at issue.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement
Défenseur des droitsIndependent French constitutional authority, in an opinion issued under Defender of Rights Claire HédonJune 26, 2026
Before this statement
The opinion reviewed the original proposal for a presumption of self-defense and the legal framework requiring absolute necessity and strict proportionality for firearm use.
"For the Defender of Rights, such a presumption is likely to undermine the guarantees attached to the fundamental right to life, access to a judge, the establishment of the truth and the effectiveness of remedies. For this reason, she warns lawmakers about the risks this draft text carries. (Translated from French. Original: Pour la Défenseure des droits, une telle présomption est de nature à porter atteinte aux garanties attachées au droit fondamental à la vie, à l’accès au juge, à la manifestation de la vérité et à l’effectivité des voies de recours. Pour cette raison, elle alerte les parlementaires sur les risques que comporte ce projet de texte.)"
Condemned
Responding to: The proposed presumption could change how investigations and judicial oversight operate in practice, shift evidentiary burdens against victims and weaken effective remedies.
Full statement and sources
The Defender of Rights opposed the proposal, warning that it could harm protections for the right to life, access to a judge, fact-finding and effective remedies.
After the statement
It argued that the presumption could change investigations and judicial review in practice, confuse officers about the scope of their authority and erode trust between law enforcement and the public.
Defender of Rights opinion on the proposed presumption for law-enforcement officers · Défenseur des droitsSections “Un risque d'affaiblissement du contrôle judiciaire” and “Un signal dangereux”
Why this label?
Relative to the proposed statutory presumption, the institution expressly warns Parliament against the bill and identifies harms to fundamental rights and remedies. This is substantive condemnation, not merely a characterization dispute.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement
Alliance Police NationaleFrench police trade unionJanuary 23, 2026
Before this statement
The National Assembly had adopted Government Amendment 39 the previous day, replacing the original self-defense provision with a presumption tied to lawful firearm use under the Internal Security Code.
"While some play with semantics, Alliance Police Nationale stands firm: only one subject is acceptable, the presumption of self-defense for all police officers. A police officer who stops an individual, whether or not he uses his weapon, is acting legitimately. It is up to the individual to prove otherwise, not up to our colleagues to justify themselves constantly. (Translated from French. Original: Pendant que certains jouent sur la sémantique, Alliance Police Nationale persiste et signe : un seul sujet est recevable la présomption de légitime défense pour tous les policiers. Un policier, qu’il fasse usage de son arme ou non, qui interpelle un individu agit légitimement. À l’individu d’apporter la preuve contraire, pas à nos collègues de se justifier en permanence.)"
Defended or excused
Responding to: Police officers should benefit from a broader presumption of legitimacy, including when making arrests without firing a weapon, with the individual bearing the burden of producing contrary proof.
Full statement and sources
Alliance Police Nationale supported a presumption for officers and argued for a broader rule applying to arrests even when an officer did not fire a weapon.
After the statement
The statement urged political and union critics to stop incriminating officers and framed respect and protection for police as necessary to public security.
Alliance Police Nationale statement on a presumption of self-defense · Alliance Police NationaleComplete statement, paragraphs beginning “Pendant que certains” and “Un policier”
Why this label?
Relative to the proposed statutory presumption favoring lawful firearm use, Alliance explicitly supports the policy direction and asks that it extend further. Its advocacy is a substantive defense of the presumption, even though the organization preferred a broader version than the government amendment.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement
Laurent NuñezMinister of the InteriorDirectly involvedJanuary 22, 2026
Before this statement
Nuñez describes increasing violence against officers and proposes a government amendment to replace the original wording.
"Une présomption, cela se renverse par tout moyen, à tout moment, par toute personne."
Defended or excused
Case context: Should France presume police and gendarmes acted lawfully when using firearms?
Full statement and sources
Nuñez says the presumption could be overturned at any time and would leave investigations and custody available. He makes government support conditional on replacing the initial self-defense proposal with a presumption of lawful firearm use.
After the statement
He says prosecutors would retain their powers and argues that officers should initially be presumed to have acted within the law.
French Assembly debate on the police firearm presumption, January 22Item 3, government presentation and general debate: Nuñez, Amirshahi, Faucillon and Coulomme
Why this label?
The case concerns the proposed presumption of lawful firearm use. Nuñez supports the amended version and defends its compatibility with judicial control.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement
Pouria AmirshahiFrench National Assembly deputy, Ecologist and Social groupJanuary 22, 2026
Before this statement
Amirshahi says democracy includes institutions that protect citizens against abuses of authority.
"Ce texte, qui excuse voire justifie par avance l’intervention létale d’un fonctionnaire de police, est une proposition de sabotage en règle de notre État de droit et de ses principes."
Condemned
Case context: Should France presume police and gendarmes acted lawfully when using firearms?
Full statement and sources
Amirshahi calls the police firearm presumption a sabotage of the rule of law. He says it would legalize impunity and argues that democracy requires protection against abuses of authority.
After the statement
He says the text would legalize police impunity and describes it as inspired by the far right.
French Assembly debate on the police firearm presumption, January 22Item 3, government presentation and general debate: Nuñez, Amirshahi, Faucillon and Coulomme
Why this label?
The case concerns a statutory presumption protecting police firearm use. Amirshahi opposes it as an erosion of accountability and public trust.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement
Elsa FaucillonFrench National Assembly deputy, Democratic and Republican Left groupJanuary 22, 2026
Before this statement
Faucillon describes distrust following fatal police encounters and warns against reducing the duty to account for firearm use.
"Ce texte est en fait une promesse d’impunité policière, inversion radicale de la promesse républicaine."
Condemned
Case context: Should France presume police and gendarmes acted lawfully when using firearms?
Full statement and sources
Faucillon urges lawmakers to reject the proposal, arguing that automatic legal protection would weaken accountability and deepen distrust in police.
After the statement
She urges governing-party lawmakers to reject the measure, describing it as a longstanding far-right demand.
French Assembly debate on the police firearm presumption, January 22Item 3, government presentation and general debate: Nuñez, Amirshahi, Faucillon and Coulomme
Why this label?
The case concerns the proposed presumption for police firearm use. Faucillon explicitly rejects automatic protection as a promise of impunity.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement
Jean-François CoulommeFrench National Assembly deputy, La France Insoumise groupJanuary 22, 2026
Before this statement
Coulomme cites existing self-defense law and the statutory rules governing police firearms.
"C’est une rupture grave avec le principe d’égalité devant la loi."
Condemned
Case context: Should France presume police and gendarmes acted lawfully when using firearms?
Full statement and sources
Coulomme opposes the proposal, arguing that existing law already protects authorized firearm use. He says the new presumption would create legal uncertainty and unequal treatment rather than meet an operational need.
After the statement
He says the proposal meets no real operational need and calls it political posturing inspired by the far right.
French Assembly debate on the police firearm presumption, January 22Item 3, government presentation and general debate: Nuñez, Amirshahi, Faucillon and Coulomme
Why this label?
The case concerns the proposed presumption for police firearm use. Coulomme opposes it as unnecessary and contrary to equality before the law.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement
Ian BoucardRapporteur for Bill 691 and member of the National AssemblyJanuary 22, 2026
Before this statement
Boucard was presenting the bill to the National Assembly and explaining how its proposed evidentiary presumption would operate.
"It is a simple presumption, which means two essential things: first, that it is not a blank check, since the presumption applies only when the use of the weapon falls within an already strict legal framework, based on absolute necessity and strict proportionality in the use of force; ... second, that this presumption can be overturned, since the text explicitly provides that it falls if the investigation establishes an illegitimate use. (Translated from French. Original: Il s’agit d’une présomption simple, ce qui signifie deux choses essentielles : premièrement, qu’il ne s’agit pas d’un blanc-seing, la présomption ne jouant que lorsque l’usage de l’arme s’inscrit dans un cadre légal déjà strict, fondé sur l’absolue nécessité et la stricte proportionnalité de l’usage de la force ; ... deuxièmement, que cette présomption peut être renversée, le texte prévoyant explicitement qu’elle tombe si l’enquête établit une utilisation illégitime.)"
Defended or excused
Case context: Should France presume police and gendarmes acted lawfully when using firearms?
Our account of this statement has been corrected. 1 correction
Full statement and sources
Boucard defended the proposal as a simple presumption that applies only when firearm use falls within an already strict legal framework of absolute necessity and strict proportionality, and that falls if an investigation establishes illegitimate use.
After the statement
He then said he had worked with Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez on a rewrite after committee review, which the government tabled as an amendment establishing a presumption of legitimate weapon use by internal security forces without changing the conditions for using a weapon.
Ian Boucard presentation of Bill 691, January 22, 2026Presentation of Bill 691, Ian Boucard intervention
Why this label?
As rapporteur, he directly endorsed the proposal and argued that its safeguards prevent it from becoming a blank check. That is direct support for the conduct at issue.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement
Éric PaugetSponsor of Bill 691 and member of the National AssemblyDirectly involvedJanuary 22, 2026
Before this statement
During the National Assembly’s general debate on his proposal, Pauget described violence and legal uncertainty faced by police and gendarmes.
"The aim, through the law, is to create a legal shield securing the framework for the use of weapons by those facing a threat. But presumption is not impunity. (Translated from French. Original: Il s’agit, par la loi, de créer un bouclier juridique sécurisant le cadre d’usage des armes de ceux faisant face à une menace. Mais la présomption n’est pas l’impunité.)"
Defended or excused
Case context: Should France presume police and gendarmes acted lawfully when using firearms?
Full statement and sources
Pauget defended the proposed presumption as a legal shield for officers who use firearms in threatening situations, while rejecting the characterization that it would grant impunity.
After the statement
He continued by distinguishing the proposed presumption from impunity and arguing that officers still operate within statutory limits.
Éric Pauget remarks on Bill 691, January 22, 2026Discussion générale, Éric Pauget intervention
Why this label?
He authored the proposal and expressly argued for the presumption as a protective legal measure. That is direct support for the conduct at issue.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement
Syndicat de la magistratureFrench magistrates’ trade unionJanuary 21, 2026
Before this statement
The union issued the statement one day before the first scheduled Assembly debate on the proposal and addressed both the original text and the government amendment.
"If adopted, this text would seriously undermine the right to life protected by Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. [...] With this law, France would violate this obligation that falls on it. (Translated from French. Original: S’il est adopté, ce texte porterait une grave atteinte au droit à la vie protégé par l’article 2 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme. [...] Par cette loi, la France violerait cette obligation qui lui incombe.)"
Condemned
Case context: Should France presume police and gendarmes acted lawfully when using firearms?
Full statement and sources
The Syndicat de la magistrature opposed the proposal, arguing that it would violate the right to life, impair effective investigations and weaken equal treatment and judicial oversight.
After the statement
It argued that the presumption would impede early evidence collection, create unequal legal treatment and reduce judicial control of lethal force.
Syndicat de la magistrature statement on presumption of legitimate firearm use · Syndicat de la magistratureComplete statement, paragraphs 3–15
Why this label?
The union said the proposal would violate human-rights obligations and foster impunity. That is explicit condemnation of the conduct at issue.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement
Ian BoucardIan Boucard, National Assembly member and bill rapporteur, speaking to the Law CommitteeJanuary 14, 2026
Before this statement
Boucard compares the proposal with existing rebuttable presumptions of self-defense and says it addresses the constraints of urgent police interventions.
"Cette proposition de loi a finalement un objectif clair : sécuriser l’action de ceux qui nous protègent."
Defended or excused
Case context: Should France presume police and gendarmes acted lawfully when using firearms?
Full statement and sources
Boucard supports the proposed presumption as protection for police and gendarmes acting within the law. He says it would preserve judicial oversight and could be rebutted.
After the statement
He argues that fear of legal proceedings can inhibit officers and invites the committee to examine the proposal in that spirit.
French Law Committee debate and report on Bill 691Committee meeting of January 14, 2026, with the debate and article vote.
Why this label?
Boucard defends the proposed presumption as a way to protect officers' lawful actions.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement
Jean-François CoulommeJean-Francois Coulomme, National Assembly member, speaking to the Law CommitteeJanuary 14, 2026
Before this statement
Coulomme speaks in support of an amendment deleting the bill's sole article.
"Le risque de ce texte, c’est de basculer dans la négation de l’État de droit."
Condemned
Case context: Should France presume police and gendarmes acted lawfully when using firearms?
Full statement and sources
Coulomme opposes the proposed presumption and calls for deletion of the provision. He argues that police should remain subject to the ordinary rules governing self-defense.
After the statement
He says policing should serve everyone and warns against placing officers above the rules that apply to other citizens.
French Law Committee debate and report on Bill 691Committee meeting of January 14, 2026, with the debate and article vote.
Why this label?
Coulomme explicitly criticizes the proposal and seeks to remove it.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement
Pouria AmirshahiPouria Amirshahi, National Assembly member, speaking to the Law CommitteeJanuary 14, 2026
Before this statement
Amirshahi criticizes the political origin of the proposal before turning to its claimed protection for police.
"Derrière un prétendu renforcement de la protection des forces de l’ordre et de leur capacité d’action, vous nous proposez en réalité le sabotage de l’État de droit."
Condemned
Case context: Should France presume police and gendarmes acted lawfully when using firearms?
Full statement and sources
Amirshahi rejects the proposed presumption. He argues that reversing the burden of proof would weaken accountability for officers who exercise public force.
After the statement
He argues that the proposal would shift the burden to prosecutors and give officers more permissive treatment than other citizens.
French Law Committee debate and report on Bill 691Committee meeting of January 14, 2026, with the debate and article vote.
Why this label?
Amirshahi expressly denounces the proposed change rather than merely disputing its name.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement
Elsa FaucillonElsa Faucillon, National Assembly member, speaking to the Law CommitteeJanuary 14, 2026
Before this statement
Faucillon argues that the proposed presumption would reverse the burden of proof and harm families seeking accountability after police shootings.
"Pour ces raisons, nous voterons contre cette proposition de loi liberticide et particulièrement inquiétante pour l’État de droit."
Condemned
Case context: Should France presume police and gendarmes acted lawfully when using firearms?
Full statement and sources
Faucillon opposes the bill, arguing that the presumption would hinder prosecutions after police shootings and weaken accountability. She instead calls for stricter limits on the use of weapons.
After the statement
The statement ends her committee intervention.
French Law Committee debate and report on Bill 691Committee meeting of January 14, 2026, with the debate and article vote.
Why this label?
Faucillon announces opposition to the proposal and criticizes its effects on legal accountability.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement