“A stupidity that took on sick proportions”: after refusing to obey, he almost killed two gendarmes in Seine-et-Marne

by time news

Another⁣ refusal to conform that almost ended in tragedy. Ben (name has been changed) has just been tried in an​ immediate appearance‍ in the Melun Criminal Court for ⁢driving under the influence of alcohol (0.84 ⁤mg per liter in air) as a repeat offender,‍ without a license, driving while‍ exposing others at the risk of death, refusal of obedience‍ and contempt. Events that occurred in Guignes on december 1st around 2 am.

The scene is worthy‍ of an action ⁤film.A man driving a 600 horsepower Audi RS7 at night, in the middle of‌ the Seine-et-Marne countryside, realizes ‌in the village of Beauvoir that he is being ⁢followed. “I go‍ to Mormant, I go around ​in circles. The⁤ vehicle is still chasing me. I called the police because I thought it was ⁢an ⁤attempt to steal my car. I was a little petrified,” he says from the witness stand. He⁢ remembers the lighthouses and ⁢warnings behind him⁣ during ‌the journey. “They took ⁤risks, forbidden directions, wrong paths…”

“These guys are ready for anything”

For eleven minutes,‍ the⁢ gendarmes​ of the Melun company guided him by‍ telephone and indicated⁤ a meeting point ‌at the ‍red light in Guignes. It gets ‍there.‌ The follower behind ​the wheel of his‍ company’s Citroën Jumpy is none other than Ben, who hugs him sideways. “At the same time the police arrived. There was a summons,” continues the driver of ​the sedan. Not enough to calm ben down and he⁣ sets ​off again⁣ at full speed.

“We‌ issued an‌ injunction, but⁤ it is coming against us. ⁢We didn’t have a stop in the car.‌ I step aside. I⁤ have an ⁤opportunity and I shoot his⁣ rear tire twice. But he fled,” the quartermaster says worriedly. “If ‌my colleague and I didn’t‌ move, ⁢we ‍would get hit. He came to us ⁣like crazy.In​ 2024 I encountered seven compliance refusals from motorists. This​ is the first​ time I’ve used my weapon. I said to myself: These guys⁣ will⁣ hit the police during the next check. They are ready for anything. »

The fleeing driver gets ‍stuck on a road. He and his passenger⁢ switch places because the ⁣driver knows his illegal and dangerous driving. ⁢When he is arrested, ​Ben resists. Pinned to the ground, he insults ⁢the soldiers, threatens them: “he knows people” and⁣ they “will end up ​on ⁣a roundabout”! ‍He ends up ‌in police custody.

“We wanted to make‌ him believe⁤ we ​were the police”

In the area he justifies himself. ⁢“We ⁤acted stupid. But the driver ⁣of the Audi accelerated like crazy: this is⁣ what triggered in us the desire to follow him. » Same ⁣version as his passenger⁤ during the hearing: ⁢“We wanted ⁢to make him believe that we were the police.We were drunk! »

Ben⁤ states that ⁢the police were⁤ to his right, ​not in front⁢ of⁢ him. But he says ​his “shame”. ⁤and addressing⁢ them: “I’m sorry for putting you in danger. I had been drinking whisky. It’s a stupidity that has taken on sick proportions.”

This sentence makes a councilor jump. “A ‍little stupidity? Others⁤ say you ⁣are a dangerous repeat offender. You risk seven years. This is the sixth time​ you’ve been ‍arrested without a licence. It’s a lot. » Ben⁢ has just spent three days in Fleury-Mérogis.“I had time⁢ to​ think.⁤ I’m‌ having a hard time ‍with my separation.⁢ But if⁤ I go to prison, I⁣ lose my daughter, my job. Everything,” he⁣ whispers.

“how do ⁢you expect us to be credible? »

Honorary prosecutor, Marc Mulet reads⁣ his criminal record on ⁢his ⁢screen. For driving without a ⁤license he was fined ​200⁢ euros in 2013, 400 euros in 2014, 500 euros in 2015, 500 euros in​ 2018…and for the same reason he will be judged in February 2025. “With the events of 1 December, six people were ​arrested times for this and the total fines amount to almost 2,000 euros. How do you wont us to be credible? People don’t care about the ⁢police​ and the justice ​system,” he says.

Against this “public danger” he requires eighteen months of imprisonment, of‍ which at least half will be in prison without ‍compensation, ​as well as the obligation to provide treatment, to compensate the ⁢victims and the ‌cancellation of the‌ driving license for two years.

– How does the judicial system⁢ handle repeat DUI offenders?

Interview Between Time.news Editor and Legal Expert on‌ Recent​ DUI Case

Editor: Welcome to Time.news! Today we have a​ special guest, Dr.‌ Alice Roux, a legal expert specializing in criminal ‌law, to discuss a recent and alarming case that unfolded in Melun. Alice, thank you‍ for joining us!

Dr. Roux: Thank you ⁤for having me! It’s‌ an critically important topic that certainly raises many questions about public safety and ⁢the‍ legal system.

Editor: Absolutely! This case involves a man, referred to as Ben, who was caught driving under the influence with a BAC of 0.84 mg per liter while operating a powerful Audi RS7. Can you share with us the legal implications of such a case in France?

dr. ⁢Roux: Certainly. In France, a blood alcohol concentration of 0.5 g/L‌ (or 0.5 mg per liter of air, which is what Ben was measured at) is ⁤the threshold for legal driving. As a repeat offender without a driving⁤ licence, ⁤the penalties ​can escalate quickly. He could face meaningful fines, community ​service, and possibly even imprisonment.

Editor: The situation escalated when Ben ⁤attempted to evade the police, believing he was being chased⁣ for a ⁢potential car theft. What does this say about the mindset of individuals like him who engage in such reckless behavior?

Dr. Roux: It illustrates a ⁣troubling blend of ‍paranoia ⁤and bravado. Individuals in such ‍situations often feel cornered and resort⁣ to desperate measures. In⁢ this case, the fact that​ he ⁤thought he was being targeted⁢ for theft rather than accepting being pursued ‌for DUI indicates⁢ a disconnect from reality. This highlights how alcohol impairs judgment and can lead to disastrous decisions.

Editor: It’s noteworthy ‍how the police interacted with Ben during this incident. For ‍eleven minutes, they guided him by​ phone to a​ safe meeting point, ensuring everyone’s ‌safety. Is this typical ⁤in police protocol during such pursuits?

Dr. Roux: ​ Yes,​ it is‌ becoming increasingly common for police to use interaction technology to manage high-risk situations. It allows them to maintain a safe distance while still attempting to resolve ⁤the situation without further endangering ⁣the public. In situations like Ben’s, where driving behavior poses an immediate threat to life, careful coordination is necesary.

Editor: The case is also significant due⁢ to Ben’s reckless driving behavior. He drove⁣ in forbidden directions and misled the⁢ police‍ during ⁣the chase. What are ⁤the typical charges for such ⁢actions in‍ addition to DUI?

Dr. Roux: in addition to DUI, the charges could include reckless endangerment, evading law enforcement, and potentially charges related to public endangerment due to the disregard for traffic laws. Each ‍of these factors⁣ could lead to a harsher penalty when combined, reflecting the severity of his actions.

Editor: With all these factors at play, how do you see the judicial system responding to repeat ⁤offenders like Ben? Is there a push towards more severe punishments?

Dr. Roux: There is ⁤indeed ⁢a trend towards stricter penalties for repeat ⁢offenders, notably ‌as public awareness of road safety increases. The ‌judiciary recognizes the potential danger posed by habitual offenders. sentencing may include mandatory​ rehabilitation ‌programs or longer restrictions on driving privileges to ‌address the underlying issues‍ related to substance abuse.

Editor: Thank you, Alice. This ⁢case certainly sheds light on the complex relationship between substance abuse,legal enforcement,and public safety. As we move forward, what message ​would you want to ⁣convey to our audience regarding responsible alcohol ⁢consumption and road⁣ safety?

Dr. Roux: The message is clear—if you’re going to drink,⁤ don’t drive. The stakes are too ​high, not only for yourself but for others on the road. The legal consequences are ⁤severe, and more importantly, lives can be irrevocably impacted. We each have a duty to ⁢ensure our actions do not endanger others.

Editor: Well said, Alice.⁤ Thank you so much for ‌your insights into this pressing issue. We appreciate your time ‌today!

Dr. Roux: Thank you for having me! Always a ⁣pleasure⁤ to discuss such important matters.

You may also like

Leave a Comment