France is debating again the state’s monopoly on the use of force — and the question of how far its legal safeguards may extend. The bill passed in first reading by the National Assembly, which would in certain circumstances introduce an automatic presumption of the lawfulness of firearm use by the police and gendarmerie, touches a sensitive constitutional nerve in the Republic: the relationship between state authority and rule-of-law oversight.
The political confrontation is being waged with unusual intensity. Opponents speak of a “permis de tuer”, a “blank check to kill.” The wording is intentionally provocative and does not fully do justice to the legal nuances of the draft law. Nonetheless it points to a legitimate concern: it is not the expansion of shooting powers that lies at the heart of the criticism, but the shift in the burden of proof and the associated change in the rule-of-law balance.
More Than a Technical Change to the Law
Supporters of the reform argue that police officers today are effectively subject to a general suspicion after every use of a firearm. Investigations often take months or years and place a heavy burden on officers, even though a large proportion of interventions are later found to have been lawful. A statutory presumption of lawfulness is therefore intended primarily to create legal certainty and to support the forces on the ground.
This reasoning is understandable. Police officers make split-second decisions about life and death. They act under enormous psychological pressure and bear responsibility for the safety of others. A democratic state must not leave those who enforce its laws defenseless.
But this is precisely where the real problem begins. The rule of law does not rest on the special trust granted to its organs, but on the possibility of independent review of their actions. Precisely because the state holds the monopoly on legitimate force, its use must be subject to very strict controls.
A statutory presumption in favor of the lawfulness of state violence changes this principle. It may be rebuttable; nevertheless it shifts the starting point of every investigation.
Lessons from the 2017 Reform
The current debate cannot be understood without looking back to 2017. At that time the conditions for the use of firearms were unified and partly expanded. In particular, a larger scope for action emerged regarding vehicles whose drivers evade checks.
Since then there has been dispute over whether the number of fatal police shootings resulting from flight attempts has increased and whether the law change is truly responsible. Scholars, police unions and the interior ministry have partly divergent assessments. What is undisputed, however, is that the reform significantly raised societal sensitivity to the use of firearms.
For precisely this reason many criminal law experts view any further relaxation with skepticism. Not because they distrust the police, but because they fear that legal signals can influence policing practices. Law creates expectations — not only among judges, but also among those who apply it.
Why the Opposition Extends Well Beyond the Left
It is noteworthy that the protest does not come exclusively from the ranks of the left opposition. Human rights organizations, former judges, defense attorneys and renowned jurists also warn against a special status for state security forces.
Their objections are mostly legal in nature. They see the principle of equality at stake, according to which the same criminal-law standards should in principle apply to all citizens. Granting a particular professional group a statutory presumption of innocence inevitably creates an exception to the general law.
This raises a fundamental question: should the state place more trust in its officers than in the independent courts that examine each case? The French Code of Criminal Procedure already contains extensive safeguards for suspects — including for police officers. Investigations do not amount to a preliminary conviction. They serve precisely to determine objectively whether conduct was lawful or unlawful.
Security and Liberty Are Not Opposites
The political temptation is understandable. France has for years placed heavy demands on its security forces. Terrorism, organized crime, drug gangs and increasing violence against police officers generate considerable pressure to act. Those who face armed criminals every day rightly demand a clear legal framework.
But security does not arise solely from greater scope for action. Equally decisive is the public’s trust in the neutrality of state action. That trust grows not from less oversight, but from transparent procedures and an independent judiciary.
Democratic states are distinguished from authoritarian systems by the fact that their security organs are always subject to judicial review. This oversight protects not only citizens but ultimately the police themselves. A lawfully acting officer benefits far more from a credible investigative process than from a statutory presumption that creates the impression of special privileges.
France therefore faces a decision that goes far beyond the current security situation. It is not only about protecting the police or the rights of potential victims. It is about how a republic legitimizes its monopoly on force. In a liberal rule of law state, state authority must never rest on presumptions, but must repeatedly renew its legitimacy through independent oversight. That is precisely where its true strength lies.