To understand this case and propose changes, one must first examine the current legal framework that led to this conviction.

The current French legal framework

Relevant articles of the Penal Code:

Article 122-5 (self-defence): allows violence to be justified if it is "strictly necessary" in the face of an "unjustified attack"

Article 122-6 (defence of property): very restrictive conditions, notably the necessity of an act of "destruction, degradation or theft" in the course of execution

Articles 222-7 et seq.: intentional violence with a weapon

The legal problem: In this case, the court probably considered that:

The robbers were already fleeing (attack ended)

The riposte was no longer "strictly necessary"

Firing 5 times at fleeing persons is disproportionate

Necessary legislative reforms

1. Amend article 122-5 of the Penal Code (self-defence)

Current wording (paragraph 1):

"A person is not criminally liable who, faced with an unjustified attack against themselves or others, performs, at the same time, an act commanded by the necessity of the self-defence of themselves or of others, unless there is disproportion between the means of defence employed and the gravity of the attack."

Proposed reformed wording:

"A person is not criminally liable who, faced with an unjustified attack against themselves or others, performs an act of defence reasonably necessary to halt that attack or to prevent its immediate repetition.

The defence is presumed reasonably necessary when:

The author faces a violent intrusion into their home, their place of work or their vehicle

The author is confronted with an armed aggression or an apparent armed one

The author undergoes an attack by several assailants

This presumption may be rebutted only by proof that the author manifestly abused their right of defence by continuing their action when the danger had totally and definitively ceased.

The assessment of proportionality must take into account the legitimate emotional state of the victim in a situation of intense stress and the context of urgency."

2. Create a new article 122-5-1 (presumption of self-defence for shopkeepers)

Proposal:

"When a person exercising a commercial or professional activity makes use of force to repel, by night or by day, an attempt at theft with violence, break-in or threat in their establishment, they benefit from a presumption of self-defence.

This presumption also applies during the flight of the perpetrators if this occurs in the immediate continuity of the aggression and if the victim could reasonably fear their return or the continuation of the danger.

The burden of proof of the manifestly disproportionate character of the riposte falls on the prosecution."

Create an article 122-5-2 (reinforced defence of the home)

"A person benefits from an irrebuttable presumption of self-defence who, faced with a violent intrusion into their home by night or by day:

1° Makes use of force to repel the intruder, including with a weapon

2° Injures or renders the intruder harmless by any means at their disposal

This presumption may be set aside only if:

The assessment is made from the point of view of the victim at the moment of the facts, taking into account the state of stress, the legitimate fear, and the darkness or confusion that may exist.

The mere flight of the intruder does not suffice to set aside the presumption if the victim could reasonably fear their immediate return or be unaware that they were unarmed or alone."

Distinction home/business

For businesses (like the jewellery shop), a slightly different formulation:

"Article 122-5-3 - Defence of professional premises

A shopkeeper, artisan or professional benefits from a rebuttable presumption of self-defence who, faced with a theft with violence, break-in or threat in their establishment, makes use of force to:

1° Repel the perpetrators

2° Prevent them from seizing the property

3° Render them harmless during their flight if this occurs in the immediate continuity of the aggression

This presumption may be set aside only by proof that the shopkeeper pursued the perpetrators beyond the immediate surroundings of their establishment or continued to make use of force when all danger had manifestly and totally ceased for several minutes."

3. Amend article 122-6 (defence of property)

Current wording:

"A person is not criminally liable who, to interrupt the execution of a crime or an offence against property, performs an act of defence, other than an intentional homicide, when this act is strictly necessary for the aim pursued, provided that the means employed are proportionate to the gravity of the offence."

Reformed proposal:

"A person is not criminally liable who, to interrupt the execution of a crime or an offence with violence against property, performs an act of defence reasonably necessary.

An act of defence performed in the face of a theft with violence, break-in or threat, committed in a place of dwelling or of professional activity, is presumed reasonably necessary."

4. Create an article 530-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (protection of victims)

Proposal:

"When a person makes use of force invoking self-defence in the face of an offence with violence, they may be placed in police custody or under judicial supervision only if objective and precise elements establish that they manifestly exceeded their right of defence.

In all cases, they benefit from a release on a simple undertaking to appear at judicial summonses, save for proven risks of flight or reoffending.

The judgment period may not exceed 18 months from the indictment, save for exceptional circumstances that are reasoned."

5. Amend article 122-7 (error on the situation of self-defence)

Current wording:

"A person is not criminally liable who, faced with a present or imminent danger that threatens themselves, others or property, performs an act necessary for the safeguard of the person or the property, unless there is disproportion between the means employed and the gravity of the threat."

Proposed addition:

"When a person, faced with an apparent threat with a fake weapon or an object presented as a weapon, makes use of force to defend themselves, they benefit from an absolutory excuse if their error was invincible given the circumstances."

Other necessary systemic reforms

6. Procedural deadlines

Create an article in the Code of Criminal Procedure imposing a maximum period of 24 months for the judgment of self-defence cases, with the possibility of a petition for automatic dismissal beyond that.

7. Compensation of victims

Amend article 706-3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure so that shopkeepers victims of a robbery who are prosecuted then acquitted or given a suspended sentence automatically benefit from compensation for the moral prejudice and the excessive duration of the procedure.

8. Reversal of the burden of proof

In cases of self-defence in the face of an armed robbery, it is for the public prosecutor to prove with certainty that the riposte was manifestly disproportionate, and not for the victim to prove that it was proportionate.

International comparisons

These reforms draw inspiration from existing legislations:

United States: the "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand Your Ground" doctrine in several States

United Kingdom: Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, which protects more the use of "reasonable" force

Germany: § 32 StGB on self-defence with more favourable criteria

These changes aim to rebalance the system in favour of the victims of aggressions while maintaining safeguards against manifest abuses. The objective is that shopkeepers like Mr. Lori no longer live 14 years of judicial hell for having defended themselves in the face of a real threat.

Complementary measures of deterrence

To reinforce the deterrent effect without authorising disproportion:

1. Aggravated penalties for burglary

Minimum of 5 years firm for burglary of an occupied dwelling

10 years minimum if use of a weapon (real or fake)

Ineligibility for sentence adjustments for repeat offenders

2. Automatic compensation

The State advances the entirety of the reparations

Forced recovery from the burglar's assets

3. Registration and surveillance

Automatic electronic bracelet for any repeat-offender burglar

Ban on circulating at night

4. Publication of convictions

Public display of the penalties for burglary

Clear message: "burglars risk a great deal"

Why not go as far as "total disproportion"?

Because that would create a society where:

An owner could kill an adolescent who steals apples

Salespeople could shoot down a shoplifter

The death penalty would be re-established de facto, without trial, by private individuals

Errors (delivery person, neighbour) would be fatal

The objective must be: to protect victims effectively without tipping into total private justice.

The reforms I propose above would mean that Mr. Lori would never have been convicted while maintaining a minimum of safeguards against manifest abuses.

✅ Reinforced protection of victims (shopkeepers, residents) ✅ Favourable presumptions that reverse the burden of proof ✅ Taking into account stress and urgency in the assessment of the facts ✅ Framed procedural deadlines (end of the 14 years of waiting) ✅ Reasonable safeguards against manifest abuses ✅ Reinforced deterrence on the aggressors' side (minimum penalties, surveillance)

The strong points of this synthesis:

Articles 122-5-1, 122-5-2, 122-5-3: cover all the cases (home, business, property)

Irrebuttable presumption for the home = maximum protection

Immediate continuity recognised for the flight of the robbers

Article 530-2 CCP: avoids abusive police custody

Maximum period of 18-24 months: end of the interminable procedures

What would change concretely for Mr. Lori:

No 36-hour police custody (immediate protection)

Presumption of self-defence (business + apparent weapon)

Burden of proof on the prosecution (not on him)

Judgment in less than 2 years maximum

Compensation in the event of acquittal or suspended sentence

With this framework, Mr. Lori would very probably never have been convicted, and certainly not after 14 years of waiting.