3 ms·
He was theoretically free during the questionning, and free to not comply with the demand — theoretically. The OP writes that he was threatened to be held in c
by emmfr 13y ago
He was theoretically free during the questionning, and free to not comply with the demand — theoretically.
The OP writes that he was threatened to be held in custody (French: "garde à vue"). This is a common trick of the French police: when people are held in custody, they have the right to an attorney and to keep silent, which the police don't like. So the police question "free" people and threaten them to hold them in custody if they don't cooperate obediently. Most people (especially good citizens) are scared of being held in custody, so the trick works quite well: people answer every single question and have no attorney, despite their right (and interest) to do otherwise.
In the present case, the charges (had any been pressed — he was there as a free person) would have been akin to terrorism, which means that the custody would have been under anti-terrorism rules: a very unpleasant experience that can last up to 96 hours. So the pressure was very high, despite his being "free".
- JohnLBevan 13y agoGiven the French propensity to strike it would have been interesting to see the public's reaction had he been held on anti-terrorism laws when it's clear to all he's an innocent person and there seems little evidence of any imminent threat to justify excessive means.
- astrobe_ 13y agoHe did the right thing at minimal cost, considered how the story backfires on the "intelligence" agency. In a way I hope that the careers of the people involved in this incident are on the line now. The DCRI has a reputation to hold.