The index page for the 1954 French flap section of this site is here.
Reference number for this case: 15-Oct-54-Sinceny. Thank you for including this reference number in any correspondence with me regarding this case.
[Ref. 1686] "LE FIGARO" NEWSPAPER:
|
Mr. Ruant, farmer with Sinceny (Aisne) was busy, in the night, in repairing his car, in a meadow near his home, when two blows of shotgun were aimed at his direction. Leads crushed on the body of the vehicle, not far from his head. Mr. Ruant pressed charges and the investigation opened at once made it possible to quickly find the author of the two shots, who was a neighbor, Mr. Faisan. The latter last declared to the police force: "I believed, seeing a silhouette evolving in the light of two headlights, being in the presence of a Martian repairing his flying saucer. I went to get my rifle and I shot." Mr. Faisan will be prosecuted, in spite of his good faith. |
[Ref. 1053] "LA REPUBLIQUE DE TOULON ET DU VAR" NEWSPAPER:
|
MISSED SHOOTING
|
[Ref. 325] "RADAR" MAGAZINE:
|
|
|
Three candidates to the SHOOTING AT THE MARTIAN![unreadable] |
Note:
The "million de radar" was a contest organized by this magazine, who promised a million of old francs (aka cents of modern francs, 7 modern francs being 1 of today's euro) to whoever would deliver a Martian to the magazine, DOA.
[Ref. 1754] R. COMBALDIEU, DOCTEUR EN DROIT:
R. Combaldieu, Doctor in Law, Substitute of the Attorney General at Court d'Appel of Paris, Member of the Commission d'Etudes Pénal Legislative, published an article entitled "Flying saucers, Martiens and... Criminal law" in the issue of October-December 1954 of the Revue de Science Criminelle et de Droit Pénal Comparé.
He tackles the legal question of whether to shoot at a Martian is an act that can be judged according to the laws.
He notes from the start that that the question may seem to be silly or of science fiction relevance, without practical application, but it is precisely not the case because of Sinceny case.
It seems that the charges pressed against the shooter were not known to him, and since no wound was caused, he evokes as a possibility the attempt at murder, or something of the order of a hunting regulation violation, or that the case could have no qualification, which would exclude charges.
Approaching what the influence of the error can be on the penal responsibility in general, he concludes that the gunner wanted the action but not the outcome of having nearly hurt or killed a man.
He notes that the responsibility for the gunner can be established if it can be demonstrated there was a neglect on his part in the fact of not having checked what he shot at, and that in this case, the error being a negation of intent, charge for intended murder gets excluded.
He notes that there is a real error in this case, because he did not shoot to hurt or kill is neighbor if one believes the reports, but he shot while sincerely believing to be confronted to a Martian, which however does not cancel his penal responsibility.
He notes that the gunner wanted "to kill Paul and killed Peter", but that that is did not happen within an error of shooting, he wanted to kill Peter, so there is still an intent at murder.
This brings logically to a discussion of the obvious question: his attempt at voluntary manslaughter makes sense if he had wanted to kill a human being, but is there any sense in that since he wanted to kill a Martian?
He must indeed be judged for having wanted to kill a Martian, and not for having wanted to kill a man.
This brings the following questions: can it be said that a Martian equates a man whereas it is not known what a Martian is? Can a Martien be equated to a man insofar both are anthropomorphic (we say "humanoid" today)?
He concludes in the negative: "human" comes from homo and is related with humus, or the ground. The human is terrestrial by virtue, in opposition to celestial creatures. The Martien could be pronounced a being, necessarily adapted to the physical conditions of his original environment, and also as an evolved being, with reason and intelligence, insofar he invents and uses spacecraft to come on our planet (not without humour, he notes that it is not reciprocal).
But he concludes: "It nevertheless remains true that any assimilation of the "Martian" with the human would be purely baseless, as it is not proven, and thus without value, in a matter where any argument based on analogy must be banished."
He mentions quotes of Professor Oberth, the inventor of the V-2 rocket, that had been published in the Press in a naive form: Oberth had explained that Martians, or other extraterrestrial beings, are perhaps as different from us than a vegetal of an animal, and the newspapers had thus headlined that according to Oberth, the Martians are vegetal!
From this, he shows that in this legal problem, there is a complete disintegration of the concepts and framework for which our laws had been established.
He condemns the act of the shooter: the existence of "Martians" not being proven yet, even if at that particular time more and more in more people believed in the existence of Martians - which would have been reason for psychiatric intervention a few months earlier - to him the gunner should have thought: "If what I interpret as a Martian has a chance to be a normal human being, I should not shoot before checking."
For the purpose of the discussion, he then takes the business under the angle of a hunting regulation violation. But it would then be necessary to view the Martian as a noxious or dangerous animal, "whereas they appear peaceful and even tender, if one believes some witnesses!" He also evokes the motivation of the shooting, which is not known or is not known to him: is it fear, a defensive reaction against the Martian thought to be dangerous, or is this an attempt to neutralize the Martian, even if it meant to kill him, so as to seize him or it, to get a proof of his or its existence?
Beyond the humorous aspects of the legal discussion of the case, he notes that the shooter, "lacking the most elementary interplanetary courtesy, took the risk, with this ill-considered gesture, to start the most incredible war of the worlds."
[Ref. 411] MICHEL CARROUGES:
The author reports in the chapter on the confusions cases at the time of the French 1954 saucers flap that in Sinceny in the Aisne, a serious confusion has resulted in a shooting at a neighbor, according to the newspaper Le Journal du Dimanche for October 17, 1954. The author of the gunshot had stated:
"I believed, when seeing a silhouette evolving in the light of two headlights, to be in the presence of a Martian repairing his flying saucer. I went to get my rifle and I shot."
The concerned Martian was in fact Maurice R., who was busy repairing an ordinary car in a meadow next to his place. Luckily, leads of the shotgun by Mr. F only hit the car.
[Ref. 312] GERARD BARTHEL AND JACQUES BRUCKER:
The two authors cite the AFP news release about this confusion:
"Lille, October 18 (A.F.P.). -- Mr. Maurice Ruant, farmer in Sinceny, close to Chauny (Aisne), almost became the victim of the panic that the appearance of the flying saucers or other objects causes to some people. He was occupied repairing his car in the meadow near his residence, when two hunting shots were fired in his direction. The leads crushed on the body of the vehicle, not far from his head. Mr. Maurice Ruant pressed charges, and the at once opened investigation allowed to quickly find the author of the two shots, who lived close to Mr. Ruant: Mr. Faisan, himself a farmer. The latter told the police force:
"I believed, by seeing a silhouette evolving in the light of two headlights, that I was in the presence of a Martian repairing his flying saucer. I went to get my rifle and I shot." Despite is good faith, Mr. Faisan will be prosecuted."
[Ref. 812] DOMINIQUE CAUDRON:
|
In Sinceny (Aisne), a certain Mr. Faisant [sic] shot at a "Martian" who was repairing his saucer, but it proved to be only his neighbor who was repairing his car. |
Confusion, known as such at the time.
(These keywords are only to help queries and are not implying anything.)
Sinceny, Aisne, confusion, martian, humanoid, road, car, saucer, light, gun, law, charges
[-] indicates sources which I have not yet checked.
