Par
Editorial Lille
Published on
Nov. 1 2024 at 5:00 p.m
See my news
Hatchets, handguns, baseball bats and even exhaust pipes. On October 29, 2024, at the Lille court, two men aged 46 and 30 were tried for having attacked the two managers of a grocery store in Roubaix (North) in a meeting.
The facts date back to June 2016, when the latter claimed that they would not repay their debt following a car sale. A “big armed altercation” against the backdrop of a commercial conflict which landed them in prison.
“If they had gotten out, they would have died!” »
It was around 2:30 a.m. when the police were notified of a “disturbingly dangerous scene”. It was a witness who made the call after seeing “ten individuals attacking the window” of a grocery store. Inside it, the two store managers. During his testimony, the man testifies: “If they had gone out, they would have been dead!” On June 22, 2016, Karim* ask his friend Ahmed* to drive him to a grocery store in Roubaix. The store managers, two brothers, owe him money following a car sale. Karim says he received a text message from them to have a discussion and resolve the dispute. Ahmed accepts, although he does not have a driving license. “I wanted to help, to be of service,” he defends himself.
In court, the videos filmed by surveillance cameras testify to a scene of extreme violence. In the images, other individuals armed with a gimbal and an exhaust pipe enter the store, shortly after Karim and Ahmed. Things escalate and the two brothers strike the first blows using a hatchet and a baseball bat. “We felt threatened, it was to be safe,” one of them told the court.
Premeditation at the heart of the matter
The defendants claim that they do not know the other individuals. However, after investigating, the police recognized Karim’s brother. “I haven’t spoken with my brothers for years,” he assures. The facts don’t stop there. If the managers succeed in pushing the men outside, the surveillance cameras prove the damage to the window of the grocery store with a hammer by Ahmed. “It’s chaos,” illustrates the president. Suffering from a broken ankle which left him in a cast for two months, one of the grocery store managers says that his attackers crashed his car several times into a wallbefore fleeing. Facts that the defendants deny.
In court, the two defendants confess to a previous visit which also ended badly. “It was a bit tense, we had to find an arrangement. There were strong words, we shouted at each other,” remembers Karim. One of the two managers, present in court, confirms: “It went badly, I said I was not going to reimburse.” According to him, Karim threatened him to “come back to take care of his business” and that is why he returned accompanied and armed the next day.
The question of premeditation is at the heart of the matter. The two defendants claim that they do not know the other armed men. They invoke the “fruit of chance” and suggest that they are “possible friends” of the two managers of the grocery store. The prosecutor is skeptical: “Why didn’t you call the police? “That’s what you usually do when you get attacked.” “The police have never been on my side,” replies Karim, who already has several convictions for similar acts.
A chase with four law enforcement officers
Once the facts have been committed, the two individuals leave by car. On the way, they come across an unmarked police car. “We recognize them by force,” Ahmed taunts in court. A chase ensues which ends in a dead end. According to the four police officers, Karim would have been “violent” and would have “rushed” on them after getting rid of a handgun. The defendant mentions police violence. According to him, he surrendered and said as he got out of the vehicle: “Wait, I’ll explain!” For the prosecutor, it doesn’t work because he is the only one who received blows.
In the vehicle, a black hatchet, gloves and a handgun were found. Karim’s DNA is identified. On the stand, he attempts a risky defense. “I have problems with my hands, I always keep gloves on me to keep my hands warm.” However, during his first hearing, the defendant firmly maintained that he was not wearing gloves. The prosecutor is convinced: “He is cornered, he is improvising.”
For the latter, “their stories are not credible for a single second”. “I am convinced that the two brothers were in self-defense. There were six of them, let’s not forget who the attackers are,” he recalls. For this, he requires an eighteen month prison sentence for Karim. According to him, the defendant has “a manifest incapacity to question himself”.
For Ahmed, the prosecutor wants to be more “lenient” with a modified sentence of one year under an electronic bracelet. Finally, if the first’s sentence is retained, the second will only receive ten months under an electronic bracelet. Both men are also banned from possessing a weapon for five years.
*First names have been changed
By Zoé Hondt
Follow all the news from your favorite cities and media by subscribing to Mon Actu.
