Burglars and muggers are all around us. How far does the law in France allow us to defend ourselves and our property. Phil Heinlein reports

You wake up. There’s a noise on the landing outside your bedroom. You grab your hunting rifle (always kept conveniently under the bed) and rush out. A dark figure is hurtling down the stairs. You shout - in English or in French, you later don’t remember - and then fire. The intruder doubles up in your hallway, bleeding profusely. Feeling rather satisfied with yourself, you call the police. When they come they send your uninvited guest to the hospital - and take you down to the police station. You could be there quite a while and eventually end up in court.

“Room for interpretation”
French law is quite precise about what can be recognised as légitime défense - that is, an acceptable use of violence to protect oneself and, in some cases, one’s property. The violence employed must be a direct response to actual or threatened attack - shooting a departing burglar in the back is not on. It must be clear that the attack which is being defended against is unjust and unprovoked, and the means of defence must be proportionate to the actual or threatened violence - so beating to death an unarmed mugger is also out. Of course, these principles do leave quite a lot of room for interpretation. Judges will obviously use common sense in assessing how a victim will have perceived a threat of violence. Incidentally, does our right of self-defence - which we certainly have - extend to defending our property? A mugger who demands our pocketbook or purse is defined as implicitly threatening violence and a violent response is acceptable; the courts have been less clear about burglars - presumably, if you put your head under the bed clothes there’s no threat and that’s what (the law might seem to suggest) a prudent householder should do. A steady stream of victims of burglary process through the French courts charged with doing excessive violence to (or actually killing) “inoffensive” intruders.

“Safest ... one’s own bare hands”
Given a wish to have a means of defence at one’s disposal, which can be recommended? A popular choice is a tear-gas spray - available in many gun-shops. This is an effective weapon and does no permanent harm but the problem is that it is forbidden to carry such sprays. An old friend of mine in the Var carries an airgun in case he meets “travellers” on his land. These weapons can be effective frighteners - but can also maim and even kill and need very careful handling. And remember to use an airgun you need a licence, renewable every five years.

Perhaps the safest means of retaliation is one’s own bare hands or feet or head. At least it’s easier to plead you didn’t know how much harm you were doing. Of course, tackling a perhaps drug-crazed street thug with a knife in his hand is not everyone’s forte. When I’m out walking in town, especially at night, if I see any doubful-looking character approaching I cross to the other side of the street. Discretion, as they say ...

From Reporter 115 - June/July 2006

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

Show/Hide comment form