There is an interesting lawsuit in France by six survivors of the January attack by Islamic extremist Amedy Coulibaly at the Hyper Casher Jewish supermarket in Paris. The six people were mortified after learning that French media broadcasted their hiding location in a refrigerator while Coulibaly was looking for hostages and threatening to kill them all.
As a matter of journalistic ethics (and common sense) it was outrageous when media like the French 24-hour news channel BFMTV broadcast the location of the six people, including a three-year-old child and a one-month-old baby. I cannot imagine the level of callous and moronic judgment needed to broadcast such a fact when the gunman could have been listening.
However, there remains the question of whether there is a viable claim when in fact that six were not discovered. This lawsuit is the result of French laws allowing charges for endangering the lives of others by deliberately ignoring security protocols. It carries a maximum penalty of a year in prison and 15,000-euro ($16,300) fine.
I cannot speak to the French law but in the United States, the plaintiffs would face serious challenges. First, they were not made aware of the betrayal of their location until after the event — undermining claims of emotional distress. Moreover, the emotional injuries from the encounter were due to the actions of a murderous fanatic, not the media.
In the end, I would be highly uncomfortable with a ruling against the media even though I find the actions of these journalists to reprehensible and thoughtless. Indeed, I would support the firing of those responsible for these broadcasts. Yet, the notion of liability for reporting public facts is a dangerous rollback on press freedom, particularly in France which has led Europe in attacks on both free speech and free press.
@bam bam
It is great to see someone here who likes French things! One day I am going to learn the language, sooo I can enjoy their literature and songs and understand why they do things the way they do, like often naming two of their sons, “George.” I mean like geeesh, couldn’t they name one of them Louis or Phillipe or something. I mean which of the Georges Bizet wrote the lyrics to Carmen, and which one wrote the music??? This is just unnecessarily frustrating!
But, speaking of things French, as luck would have it, just today I finally found the story by Balzac I have been trying to rediscover, the one about La Godegrand, which occurred to me again when I did the “deceder tumescent” word play above and finally, the song, La Chanson d’Une Fille de Quinze Ans (Song of a Fifteen Year Old Girl) Composed by Ann Savoy / Marc Savoy / and sung with Linda Ronstadt. Which is one of the most beautiful songs ever, and I was sure I had stolen the CD from my father. But, I couldn’t remember the name, or which CD it was on, and there is nothing on Youtube of them singing the song.
But I found it, and ordered a CD for myself. I wonder if my father stole his CD back from me???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Paul
De Gaulle was the only force that was pushing back the Germans. His tanks were superior, his tactics were superior, and he was defending his homeland, but ran out of gas and Petain threw in the towel. If De Gaulle had had support the Germans might have repeated their WW1 scenario of advancing too far, too fast, and outrunning supplies. The French high command poopooed De Gaulle’s concepts of mechanized warfare. However, the books that De Gaulle wrote on the future of warfare, coordinated air, mechanized, tank and artillery supported were required reading for guess who, the Germans.
The French and British had the upper hand in numbers, aircraft, and tanks, etc. They French general that was allowed to command the bunch did not believe that the Germans could make it through the Ardennes Forest. There were three ways into France between Switzerland/mountains and the sea: the low countries as in WW1, the Ardennes-thought to be impossible by the French, and the Maginot line-this was impossible. So, the Germans mounted two thrusts, both highly mechanized and rapid with air support-one through the low countries and one threading through the Ardennes. By doing so they cut the French and British forces in two able to wipe out one while holding the other off. Then they rolled to the coast.
The Germans stopped short for two reasons, one there may have been concerns of losing to the RAF and the British Navy if forces, air and land got too close, two Hitler stopped the advance and mop up for reasons known only to him. If the Germans had known that Britain was pulling out its air force to protect the home island, the German military may just have continued on. He did this several other times and lost the war because of it. If it had been up to the generals, we would all be speaking German as a first or obligatory ‘lingua franca’ now. The Germans could have taken Russia by taking first Africa then a pincer up from there to connect with one from the West. There were many blunders made by Hitler. Most historians concur that Germany could have taken the entire 450,000 French, and British troops captive and/or wiped them out. There was no central allied command and the French had blundered in the Ardennes. Britain retreated to ‘fight another day’.
Most of this stuff is now light reading and common knowledge. My retort vis a vis France is that one hopes to engage Americans on this blog who don’t make scurrilous comments about other countries that are unfounded and from the ‘people in glass houses’ position. If you lived in France and observed you would find the French not too different than Americans. They are passionately protective of their rights, drawn from their history, and constantly attempting to join the past to the future through the present. The great differences between the US and France when viewed objectively is population and military. ‘My gun’s bigger than your gun’ falls short in a discussion, i.e. a back and forth.
issac – it is no state secret that the Germans stopped because the High Command felt their supply column was too extended and vulnerable to attack. They wanted time for the infantry to catch up.
Yes, De Gaulle did force a retreat with his 2nd attack, but he had 400 tanks. The Germans were always outnumbered by the Allies during the Battle of France. You would have to give me a cite to exactly which tanks he was leading, I have no idea if they were better equipped or not.
“This lawsuit is the result of French laws allowing charges for endangering the lives of others by deliberately ignoring security protocols. It carries a maximum penalty of a year in prison and 15,000-euro ($16,300) fine.”
This sounds more like they are bringing criminal charges for endangerment, rather than civil charges seeking compensation. Whether or not they were harmed (since by sheer luck the terrorists did not see that broadcast) the media still is guilty of putting them in danger and therefore violated the law.
Nick
I am an admitted, unabashed Francophile. So much so that I have my undergraduate degrees in both French and Political Science. Yes, I know, the world was waiting for me once I graduated with those two very useful degrees.
While I love vichyssoise, the same does not apply to the former Vichy government–by the way, vichyssoise does not originate in Vichy, which is probably why I like it so much.
🙂
Oops. I mistakenly highlighted too much info in my attempt to highlight and copy the relevant part of the California Penal Code.
Apologies.
Paul, You can tell who was educated in France, and who loves all things French.
“Yet, the notion of liability for reporting public facts is a dangerous rollback on press freedom,”
What is a “public fact”? Something that’s discoverable? That’s quite a lot these days, given enhanced snooping capabilities, pretty much everything except stuff that the favored political party wants to keep a secret, like the substance of the administration’s dealings with Iran and the Secretary of State’s communications. Little things of this nature. (That’s PRIVATE y’all, back away lest ye anger yer betters.) Even facts that should, in a decent society, be recognized as “private” are disclosed all the time by the media, with impunity. Given this I can understand the notion of liability for reckless reporting of “public” facts, in this case reporting that endangered lives. The media’s ability to ruin lives, businesses, careers, and reputations has been abused of late buy the press. I do not necessarily agree with the notion of liability for reporting public fact but the fact that I have to think it over, given our modern media, is telling. The days of bellowing about “dangerous rollback” on the sacred “freedom of the press” and dropping the mic, argument over, are gone.
JT I can’t believe you would support the press on this. I always personally wanted to be a journalist and this is why I would not do it. It put their lives in danger for the entertainment value of the world. We are a vicarious culture.
So, what have we learned and seen from the following event anyway?
As a legal rule, aiding and abetting means providing some kind of assistance in the commission of a crime. In other words, by doing or saying something to further criminal activity. A prosecution for aiding and abetting falls under what is known as the “accomplice liability” theory: the act of being criminally complicit.
California Penal Code Section 31 provides in relevant part: “All persons concerned in the commission of a crime…whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, or, not being present, have advised and encouraged its commission…are principals in any crime so committed.” Thus, those persons who are commonly referred to as “accessories” or “accomplices” as well as those who actually perpetrate the offense, are to be prosecuted, tried and punished as principals in California. (Penal Code Section 971.)
Terms Defined
The term “aider and abettor” is often used today to refer to principals other than the perpetrator, whether or not they are present at the commission of the offense.
The term “accessory before the fact” is used to describe those who aided in planning or by encouraging the commission of a crime before it was committed. For example, a person who participates in the planning of an armed robbery before it is committed is an “accessory before the fact”.
The term “accomplice” is a person who actively participates in the commission of a crime, even though they take no part in the actual criminal offense. For example, a person who acts as a lookout or as a getaway driver to an armed robbery is an “accomplice”.
The term “accessory after the fact” is reserved for those who have no role in the actual commission of an offense, but rather knowingly assist a person who has already committed a crime to avoid arrest and prosecution. For example, a person who assists the actual perpetrator of an armed robbery by hiding the stolen money for the perpetrator is an “accessory after the fact.”
Examples of Aiding and Abetting
Aiding and Abetting a crime
Aiding and abetting computer fraud
You can be charged with aiding and abetting for contributing to the commission of a crime without actually committing the crime itself. Some common examples of aiding and abetting are:
◾Acting as the “getaway” driver;
◾Keeping a “lookout” while someone else commits an armed robbery;
◾Creating an alibi for someone who has committed a criminal offense;
◾Providing information to someone you know will use it to commit a crime;
◾Directing a vehicle down a one-way street, knowing that vehicle is about to be carjacked; and/or
◾Assisting in a kidnapping or rape.
It is important that you understand that, unless you have a legal duty to act, simply witnessing a crime being committed does not constitute criminal intent and does not make you liable for prosecution as an aider and abettor, regardless of whether harm could have been prevented if you had acted to prevent the crime in progress.
Elements of Aiding and Abetting a Crime
Aiding and abetting in the commission or attempted commission of a crime occurs whenever the following occurs:
◾With knowledge of the unlawful purposes of the perpetrator; you ◾Act;
◾Aid;
◾Promote;
◾Encourage; or
◾Instigate the commission of the crime; and
◾Do so with intent or purpose of: ◾Committing;
◾Encouraging; or
◾Facilitating the commission of the crime.
Prosecution for Aiding and Abetting a Crime
Aiding and abetting prosection
Prosecution for aiding and abetting
If you are accused of aiding and abetting in the commission or attempted commission of a crime, a prosecutor must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following elements:
1.You had knowledge that the perpetrator intended to commit the crime in question;
2.Prior to or during the crime being committed, you intended to assist, aid or encourage the perpetrator in the commission of the crime; and
3.Your conduct or encouragement did in fact aid and abet the perpetrator’s commission of the crime.
Instigating, encouraging or promoting the crime is sufficient enough for you to face criminal charges. The test used in order to distinguish a principal from an accessory is whether the defendant independently contributed to the causing of the crime, rather than merely providing some form of limited help and encouragement, whether directly or indirectly.
Defenses to Aiding and Abetting a Crime
Our attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have successfully employed several defenses to a charge of aiding and abetting on behalf of our clients facing prosecution as an accomplice or an accessory to a crime. Some of these legal defenses include:
1.No Participation: You did nothing to encourage, aid, or instigate the crime’s commission;
2.Duress: You were coerced into participating in the crime under threat of immediate injury or death;
3.False Accusation: You’ve been mistakenly identified as an aider and abettor;
4.No Duty to Act: You were present during the crime’s commission but had no duty to prevent it;
5.Withdrawal from Participation: You backed out prior to the crime’s commission and made your crime partners fully aware of your withdrawal;
6.Accessory after the Fact: You had no role in the commission of the crime itself; rather, your involvement was limited to after the crime had already been committed. This defense is not significant enough to find you not guilty of this crime; however, it is significant enough to lessen the severity of your sentence.
Punishment and Sentencing for Aiding and Abetting a Crime
aiding and abetting jail time
Aiding and abetting punishment
If you aid and abet another person during the commission of a crime, you may also be referred to as “an accessory before the fact.” However, under California law, there is no distinction between an accomplice and the principal perpetrator of the crime.
Generally, whether you are the person who commits, or attempts to commit the crime, or assists in its commission or attempt, either person faces the same penalties for that crime.
This is true for all crimes committed which resulted from “natural and probable consequences” of the intended illegal act.
Finally, “accessory after the fact” is a crime
Paul
France is not anti-Semitic. Lots of the French are but the French laws and social attitudes support equality for all. Oh, and by the way, French girls have been shaving their armpits and legs for well over a century now. And, yes they threw in the towel to the Germans rather quickly but so did the Americans in the Philippines, the British capitulated against a vastly inferior Japanese force in Singapore, and so it goes. Also the French won WW1 by stopping the German advance at the first battle of the Marne. After that the Germans did not have the stuff to go on other than to entrench. The most the US contributed was shortening the war by six months, that’s all. The French lost 1,300,000 men. They knew when they could win and they won. In WW2 they knew when they couldn’t so they threw in the towel, just like anybody else. Point your finger to the mirror.
issac – you are ill-informed. The French fought brilliantly against the Germans and actually held off the Germans at Dunkirk. De Gualle attacked the German blitzkrieg with his tanks and lost. Still, it scared the German high command so they stopped short of Dunkirk allowing the escape of British and French troops.
Richard above is right. On a civil basis there is PROBABLY no liability because there are no damages, in other words, no actual harm occurred. The common basic elements in our country for such a claim are, from Wiki:
Now, there is a POSSIBILITY of damages through the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, which requires:
Sooo, here, one of the people inside the freezer could theoretically AFTER hearing of the reporters’ idiocy, have a panic attack of “OMG, what if??? Quelle Horreur!” and then incur some damages and costs by having to go see a shrink, missing some work, becoming unable to have sex, etc.
AND, to make this even more fun, a bystander, usually a husband or wife or family member of one of the hostages, could theoretically after seeing on TV the reporters report the position of the hostages inside the freezer, could become sooo freaked out by the blatant stupidity and recklessness, that he or she suffered the same sort of damages. Once again, such persons would do good to document their damages, and see a shrink.
Now, there are more nuances, and this is based on generalized American law. If you are interested in French laws on this stuff, then here is a starting point, and you can google further:
http://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5129&context=lalrev
I tried to go further but international law requires specialized knowledge. For example, most Italian tort law (torte) appears to be based on bad pastries and cakes or something like that???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Always kinda funny to get the ethical outrage on this blog. so #principled
Always kinda funny to find someone contributing so frequently to a blog he/she finds so #principled.
How would the media outlets that released the information in live broadcasts know that there was no tv in the shop that might be tuned to a local news channel? Many, if not most delis and small shops here in NY do. Also, these media outlets are incredibly lucky that Coulibaly’s girlfriend didn’t tip him off while she was fleeing the country on her way to Syria. Deeply irresponsible and I hope they pay a price for their stupidity.
Richard
I have no evidence that refutes the possibility that the murderers were NOT listening to the news in some shape or form, especially with the availability of such info on a cell phones. The issue, as far as I can see, is not whether the info broadcast ever influenced the perps or if, in fact, they ever heard it. What is crucial is that it was disseminated and was available to the murderers to assist them in succeeding to kill more innocents, which was their stated purpose and known to the media.
Example: If I know that a murderer needs my assistance with money to flee the jurisdiction and escape from the police, am I guilty of aiding and abetting that criminal if I stuff cash into his pockets and he never uses it? I would claim YES, that my willingness to provide him with money, knowing its intended purpose, with the absence of duress, would make me guilty of aiding and abetting. I don’t believe there is a requirement, on the part of the criminal, to actually SPEND it, to find me guilty.
Pual S. I’m curious as to your reasoning, since there is no evidence that they provided any information to the perpetrators or otherwise assisted them in any way.
Rhiacrhd – we know that many, in fact most, terrorists are media savvy. And even if they are not, the media put out information that could have led to their deaths. I think a grand jury would buy it in the US, but as anti-Semitic as France is, they would probably get a medal.
I agree with those who think they could be charged as accessories.
I hope they get every franc. However, France is very anti-Semetic.
bam bam, but how do you establish all the elements of such charges where there is no point of contact between the media outlet and the perpetrator. There is no reason to believe the perpetrators were listening to the reports at issue and so no evidence that the media outlets provided any information or other assistance to the perpetrators.
I’m curious as to why JT, who could run circles around me with his legal expertise and knowledge, doesn’t recognize a potential criminal charge here. No disrespect to you, JT, but it seems, at least to me, that there exists a strong case for bringing criminal charges against those who inform murderers, in real time, where they can access their next victims. You only suggest that they lose their jobs over this. I believe that a strong case could be made to charge those responsible for broadcasting this information as accessories to a crime.
Just my humble opinion.
There is a crime of aiding and abetting a criminal, at least there is here in the US. The broadcasting of the hiding place of those still trapped in the refrigerator, knowing full well that the murderers were searching for more victims and were likely to have been listening to media reports, is tantamount to giving assistance to these criminals. I hope that they are slapped with any and all kinds of penalties available under French law. One should not be able to argue that informing murderers, while they are actively searching for additional victims, as to the whereabouts of additional victims, has any protection under the law. Let’s see if the land of Liberte, Egalite and Fraternite, rises to the occasion.