On October 8, the municipal council unanimously adopted a motion against the law recognizing a presumption of self-defense for law enforcement officers in the exercise of their duties. This law, already passed by the National Assembly, will soon be examined by the Senate.
This demand, championed by police unions like Alliance Police nationale and included in Jean-Marie Le Pen's program for the 2007 presidential election, was voted by a majority of deputies on July 7. It states that "when they use their weapons, national police officers and national gendarmerie military personnel are presumed to have acted in one of the cases authorized by this article in accordance with the conditions of absolute necessity and strict proportionality."
According to a cited source, 49 people died following an intervention by law enforcement (national police, gendarmerie, and municipal police) in 2025.
Elmahdi Hemma, municipal councilor delegated to student life, denounced this law as "one of the most rancid" that "would establish a regime of impunity." He emphasized that it would be up to the victims of police shootings to prove that these shootings were not legal, fearing an increase in shootings.
This text follows the one from 2017, proposed by the then Minister of the Interior, Bernard Cazeneuve. This law authorized gendarmes and police officers to use their weapons when "drivers do not comply with the order to stop" and "occupants are likely to perpetrate, in their flight, attacks on their life or physical integrity or that of others." The number of shootings, particularly fatal ones, at individuals in vehicles has strongly increased since then, a rise directly linked to the law according to political scientist Sebastian Roché. Mayor Aly Diouara recalled that among these victims, "often, very often, Black and Arab individuals," highlighting the racist aspect associated with this security drift.
Aline Daillère, a doctor and researcher in political science, described this measure as "an inscription in the denial of police violence." She explained that legally, it would represent a major reversal of the burden of proof, making it more difficult to obtain justice and establishing inequality before the law. She also specified that the law would apply to law enforcement weapons such as LBDs and tear gas grenades, and that it would mean police officers would be presumed to be acting lawfully, even in cases like those observed during the high school student movement where young people were seriously injured.
