Following the assault on a policeman’s son in Belfort, the public prosecutor announced the opening of a judicial investigation. The public prosecutor deplores the circulation of “inaccurate information”.
The public prosecutor of Belfort announced on December 28 the opening of a judicial investigation aimed at “confirming the circumstances of the outbreak of the brawl” involving a son of a policeman on Christmas Day in Belfort, deploring the circulation of “Inaccurate information”. The son of a police officer, a 20-year-old young man who filed a complaint, posted a photo of his festive meal on a social network on December 25. One of his contacts, aged 18, would have asked him if he was celebrating Christmas, then the conversation would have degenerated into insults, said the prosecutor, Eric Plantier, in a statement.
An appointment was then set, to which the complainant, determined to “solve the problem”, had attended accompanied by two or three people. He had found his interlocutor, himself accompanied by three people including two brothers. The complainant and the two brothers were then involved in the brawl, according to the prosecutor.
The religious motive is “by no means established”
It is “by no means established that a person of Muslim faith would have been expressly accused of celebrating the Christian holiday of Christmas”, he specified. “The verbal outburst and then the appointment set seem more to be a question ofego, the complainant considering that his contact, younger than him, had disrespected him, and not a desire to impose religious convictions on others, ”added the magistrate.
After four days of investigation and the hearing of several people involved who all spontaneously presented themselves to the investigators, the public prosecutor also deplored the “fragmentary or inaccurate information likely to cause a disturbance to public order” which circulated on this case. “It cannot be affirmed that the quality of the son of a police officer is at the origin of the violence or would have been a determining element”, he specified. “It is also accepted that the complainant deliberately came to the meeting to resolve his problems like a man. It is therefore not permissible to say that he has fallen into an ambush, ”he stressed.
Judicial information should make it possible to identify the second and possible third accompanying person for the complainant, as well as the third accompanying person for his interlocutor. It must also identify the author of the racist remarks made in the conversation on the social network, comments that the account holder denies having made himself.
This judicial information will also fix a possible temporary interruption of work (ITT) for the complainant, the quantum 4 days of ITT previously mentioned by AFP not being “confirmed”, according to the prosecutor.