“What happened is totally abnormal.” On Thursday, the public prosecutor of the Lyon criminal court asked for a ten-month suspended prison sentence for two BAC police officers prosecuted for having beaten up a 23-year-old young man, at the end of a demonstration against the pension reform in December 2019. Relatively lenient requisitions compared to the severity of the magistrate’s remarks.
“An arrest is not synonymous with bludgeoning,” retorts the lawyer, standing behind his desk. This December 10, Arthur Naciri had no reason to be arrested, he recalls to falter the pawns advanced by the defense. “He is neither a delinquent nor a criminal. He was not a thug, he was not a protester, argues the prosecutor. He wanders alone, he heads for the exit. »
“Immeasurable damage, a crushed mouth”
On the video images projected to the audience, the young man, who had joined the procession “by chance”, walks peacefully, bag on his back and hands in his pockets. He passes next to a cordon of police located near the kiosk at Place Bellecour. On the right, activists of the CGT. On the left, the police. The names of birds fuse between the two groups which gauge each other. The boy’s fault? To have probably applauded a valve launched by the trade unionists.
On the screen, the scene is fast. Too many to distinguish the faces of the police. Arthur Naciri is suddenly grabbed violently from behind by one of the agents, fiercely pulled by the hood. He waves his arms, seeming not to understand what is happening to him. A brush bends it. He falls to his knees, we hold him. Five seconds. We see the first shots raining without clearly distinguishing since other policemen are massing to camouflage the scene filmed by passers-by. Twelve seconds later, the young man gets up totally haggard, his mouth dripping with blood. “I have no more teeth, I have no more teeth,” he repeats, stunned and staggering. Result: part of the jaw fractured with tonfa blows and nine broken teeth. “Immeasurable damage, a crushed mouth”, underlines the prosecutor fixing the two defendants.
“I was only looking to ward off a disruptor”
“You feel that this applause was inappropriate. But do you know what they were intended for? To the slogan of the CGT? To the police ? Were they ironic? Who are you to judge that, sir? “, Continues the magistrate to the attention of the first policeman, the one who is designated as “the trigger”. Glasses on the nose, hair cut flush with the skull, impeccable suit, the person concerned raises his head proudly. He only did his job, he defends himself. “I was only looking to get rid of a disturber who came to interfere with a crisis situation. A hostile group was about to fall on us. When I see him clowning around, I decide to push him and push him away, ”he justifies. In the distance, the black blocks approach. Tear gas has already been unpinned by other police units posted upstream.
“But you, you were in a place of respite”, supports the prosecutor unconvinced by the arguments presented. “Did you ask him to step aside and go his own way?” “No,” assumes the official. Action rather than injunction. “How did it interfere with your visibility? The CGT truck, perhaps, but not Mr. Naciri, underlines the prosecutor again. You have opted for an inconsiderate and incomprehensible technique. This had the effect of triggering everything, of misleading your colleagues who believed in an arrest and who, out of solidarity, came to lend you a hand. »
The second incriminated sidekick did not go easy on it. Five truncheons in the legs in five seconds. Punches to the face? It’s not him, he didn’t see anything. And he, he “strikes from top to bottom, never from bottom to top”. “But we see you behind the tree, you are not doing the gestures that you describe”, underlines this time the president of the court. “These are not my gestures, he refutes despite the evidence of the images shown. These are not my shots. ” Which then ? A black sheep which has never been designated, assure the two defendants together.
The Black Sheep Thesis
“I am convinced that there is someone in our ranks who does not deserve either his professional card or my greetings,” replies the first policeman. And to insist with zeal: “Believe me, if I knew who it was, I would have arrested him myself and I would have presented him to you”. Not enough to soften the civil parties determined to bring out the truth. Patiently, they analyzed every second of the films, enlarging the photos taken from the scenes as much as possible to dissect the action; movement after movement. None of the faces are visible at the moment. But the clothes, yes.
“Aren’t those gray pants yours by any chance?” “No”, denies the interested party. “And this time, we see your face very clearly, still with these same pants. Look, it’s probably wet with the victim’s blood. The white marks on your truncheon are pieces of Arthur Naciri’s teeth, ”demonstrates Thomas Fourrey, the civil party lawyer, scrolling through the photos. The man does not disassemble. He sees none of this.
As for the IGPN investigation concluding that the two police officers were responsible? “The investigators were wrong,” they reply as their lawyer tries to confuse one last time, even going so far as to suggest that the victim could have fractured his teeth by falling on the sidewalk.
“Gentlemen, you were on duty to ensure the protection of demonstrators and passers-by. Your responsibility to each is equivalent. This December 10 is a sad day for the police function and for society, ”sermons the public prosecutor one last time. Judgment will be delivered on November 24.