Bompard says the bill shifts the burden to victims
Manuel BompardMember of the National Assembly, La France insoumise–Nouveau Front Populaire group
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.
“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.)”
Original text
Where this statement fits
Should France presume police and gendarmes acted lawfully when using firearms?
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.
Source and context
Original text
About this source
Official National Assembly publication of Bompard’s July 7 question. He argued that the proposal would shift the evidentiary burden to victims, impede immediate evidence gathering and create impunity.
Before the quotation
Bompard opened his question by arguing that the rule of law depends on state control of those entrusted with lethal force.
After the quotation
He said immediate evidence gathering would be lost, described the result as total impunity and asked the government to withdraw the proposal.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
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.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseNuñez rejects the claim that the firearms bill creates a license to kill
“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 !)”Read statement
LDH says the police firearm presumption would obstruct investigations of shootings
Ligue des droits de l'Homme
“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.)”Read statement
Stéphane Peu opposes France's firearm-use presumption
“an inequality before the law (Translated from French. Original: une inégalité devant la loi)”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Bompard says the bill shifts the burden to victims
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/1382-bompard-opposed-the-proposal-arguing-that-it-would
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Bompard says the bill shifts the burden to victims". First published: 2026-09-22. Last updated: 2026-10-07. https://disputeindex.com/events/1382-bompard-opposed-the-proposal-arguing-that-it-would