Last night around 19.00 clock now the verdict in the case of Gabriele Sandri , that Lazio fan, who in November 2007 at the motorway service area of Polstrada Luigi Spaccarotella was shot by the agents . The judges could not follow the demand of the prosecutor after 14 years term for manslaughter and convicted the policemen to 6 years imprisonment for manslaughter. Just saw that the prosecution proved that 14 years imprisonment demanded for manslaughter. Well, I do not have the technical expertise to assess whether an assessment of the circumstances of a homicide (ie the killing intent) excluded, only common sense to me is in the six years for someone who is an aimed shot on the highway of time on a moving car without the presence of an acute danger situation are a little bit. Especially in a country where six years typically mean a dismissal after a half years. In addition, I would not imagine how the verdict would have been if the Ultrà Gabriele Sandri had been shot in similar circumstances, the police officer Luigi Spaccarotella.
"E 'una pagina della nostra Repubblica triste, mi auguro che venga in Appello sicuramente riformata perche' sarebbe di un Paese civile indegna"
"It is a sad page in the history of our Republic. I hope that this decision is rejected on appeal, because that would be unworthy of a civilized country. "
(Cristiano Sandri, brother of the victim, 14/07/2009)
We do not know if it was then at the rest stop Arezzo Badia al Pino actually violent confrontations came in, but when it was revealed this, they were the moment the shots stopped in any case, Sandri died in a moving car. It is undisputed that the officer fired the shots on a busy highway on window height of time. No one can convince me that Spaccarotella of the risk was not deliberately to hurt anyone here. That his behavior also contradicted even the simplest standards for the use of firearms by public employees is certainly catchy without a law degree. One gives a warning shot into the air vertically, and if I suggest is a lack of killing intent, it has to seriously question was what other motives the traffic policeman for his conduct. Whom I with an iron bar on a victim lying on the ground builds up and slam what I had for as well before? Loosen the soil around it? As I said, in yesterday's verdict justification I lack an alternative motive. What on earth am I doing, who do I shoot at a moving car, who does not take into account that while someone could be killed. The logic of the award, following yesterday's ruling would have the wood block lamps from the highway bridge at most negligent and - finally had also explains, he wanted to "kill anyone".
"Tutta l'Italia per una Vergogna. [...] Non credo piu 'nella giustizia, non credo piu' in niente. Senz'altro faremo Appello perche 'io non lo Spaccarotella mollo, non lo mollero' fino all'ultimo grado Tues giudizio. Sono disgustato, disgustato, disgustato, disgustato. Io consiglierei a tutti i Cittadini di piu non spender 'i soldi per la giustizia perche' se la giustizia e 'questa sono soldi buttati. "
"A shame for all of Italy. [...] I no longer believe in justice, I believe in nothing. I am disgusted, sickened, disgusted, disgusted. I recommend to all Italians, spend any money for this justice, because if that is our righteousness, are the waste of money.
(Giorgio Sandri, father of the victim, 14/07/2009)
I had hoped the verdict would only be true and to consider each case and refrain from the exploitation - of both the police officers as the Ultras -. Against the background of yesterday's ruling, it is unfortunately rather like, as if yesterday's ruling an assessment of police work and the risks specific to the foundation and a remains strongly of similar cases in which a fire broke up exactly then, whom a police officer just "slipped" and unfortunately, a poor victim was staying in the line of fire. The only way I can explain to me how such a clear case will be evaluated by well-aimed shots, as if Spaccarotella knocked down in a drive by mistake a victim of persecution by the roadside. Or, as would have been solved when cleaning the rifle a shot. Or as he would casting a flower pot fell from the window sill. As I said, the judiciary stands on the side of the exporting state and can bring their delicate task in dealing with ultras in the evaluation. If you consider only the case Sandri, yesterday's verdict may sound absurd, however low.
"Con quale hanno fatto una coscienza i giudici cosa del genere? Stasera, quando i giudici andranno a casa, come i loro figli faranno a guardare? Non credo piu 'nella giustizia, mi viene voglia andare via Dall'Italia Tues. Non hanno creduto witnesses to a tanti, e 'incredibile. Me l'hanno una seconda volta ammazzato. "
"With what conscience, the judges were able to do that? Tonight, if the judges go home as they can watch their children? I no longer believe in justice, I would like to disappear in that moment from Italy. They believed not many witnesses, it is unbelievable. You have me killed him a second time. "
(Daniela Sandri, mother of the victim, 14/07/2009)
Except for the defense of the police officer who wants to appeal, because it appears the sentence too harsh and Spaccarotella himself, who, at home (!), Shed tears of joy heard, only voices that express incomprehension and anger over the verdict. Starting with the present in the room Lazio fans and friends that I had to police violence to be removed too few "involved" persons such as Rome's mayor Gianni Alemanno, who described the verdict as "absolutely unsatisfactory" and expressed his opinion very clearly. And I must express my amazement that shoot to kill will be evaluated on a moving car as well as the negligent homicide in a traffic accident. Even if you do not run out of an intent to kill, the question should be allowed, what the police because then aiming with a loaded weapon, arms outstretched, on a moving car with his finger on the trigger because then else had in mind. I can not help feeling that the fact that the perpetrator was wearing a uniform is included in the evaluation. And I doubt that Gabriele Sandri had been assessed as mild, he had shot at a departing police car and "negligence" had killed a policeman.
"Evidentemente la divisa ha un suo peso. Tues Wed vergogno essere italiano, sono disgustato. Per fortuna c'è la divina giustizia, non si da quella Scappa.
"Obviously, the uniform has its own weight. I am ashamed to be Italian, I am disgusted. Fortunately, there is the righteousness of God, can not flee before you. "
(Giorgio Sandri, father of the victim, 14/07/2009)
Obviously was not here negotiating the "case Spaccarotella" but the case "Ultras against the police," as it takes place in any game weekend. Unfortunately, the violent Ultrà groupings will behave the same way and take yesterday's verdict as an opportunity to take part in any uniformed collective guilt. Payment will be yesterday's ruling, many police officers who had to deal with the fall Sandri nothing. Initial discussions have already addressed last night against the police barracks Ponte Milvio.
"Un poliziotto che hanno cinque witnesses to impugnare visto la pistola con due mani, le braccia stender, Mirare e sparare, è stato per condannato omicidio colposo come un qualsiasi sventurato automobilista per un incidente stradale. Vergogna. Ci sarà Appello un. Ci sarà giustizia ".
"A policeman and five witnesses have seen him holding the gun in both hands, his arms stretched out, took aim and fired, he was convicted of manslaughter as any unfortunate motorist in a traffic accident. There will be an appeal. There will be justice. "
(Cristiano Sandri, brother of the victim, 14/07/2009)
Lawyers for something just exactly is the border that is so difficult: negligence (and that it was difficult) and conditional intent. The latter requires the knowledge of what can happen. The former requires the knowledge of how one must behave properly.
The real scandal is yet again found correct: The different degree to which such situations can be assessed. "In doubt for the accused in such situations is often reserved for just the police officers, the other way is detected much faster to resolve.
I'm not sure if the - long term, maybe even detached from the concrete case - solution is to punish the police officers harder. Actually, the claim must be yet to put on the same scale for civil defendant (if now time for a general critique of the criminal law are disregarded, which is not easy). Personally, I often see the actual arbitrariness in the determination of "Eventualvorsatz" in civilian defendants. This happens just often because they have the accused so do not come just so it could ".
It will also remember how hard it may be sometimes: Of course, do not specify the defendant, which should lead to his shot. It is sufficient legal, if he makes it clear what he should not bring: A killing. Only the other defendants, no one takes off, if they do not call it very good other reasons.
So the same standards for all: Yes! If in doubt against the accused, not better.
Ciao Hans-Werner and thank you for your beautiful and substantive comment. As I said, I lack the legal background and the full reasons for its decision so follow-up. Meanwhile, I express myself very unprofessional and because of common sense - the so admittedly not always coincide with the criminal law must. There is indeed perhaps even partially understandable that the State's staff to whom he hand over a weapon, a degree of protection conferred by its use. Otherwise you've got my main argument worked out nicely: here is double standards!
There were apparently granted to "aggravating circumstances" to negligent homicide, so just that the man was apparently in fine spirit and should have been aware that his conduct may cause injury / death could have resulted, he has thus taken on the death approvingly accepted . Therefore: I understand there in Arezzo drawn fine line between stupid playing with the weapon (dangerous injury resulting in death) and targeted at people shot (murder) is still not and I will probably never understand.
Presumably it is anyway a dirty, not clean at all arguing for the "middle way" between a smooth acquittal and that required by the prosecutor's homicide, which was caused by the large media interest in the case. For any "negligence" speaks really low in view of the circumstances, inasmuch as they had actually (IMHO) can decide is 0-14 years. Both are negative, each with incalculable consequences. I think we are dealing with a "political verdict", which is anyway not stand when both sides seek an appeal.
It is exactly for the issue you mention: I thought Spaccarotella has stated, "to want to kill anybody." What he was doing but otherwise (if not for "killing of conditional intent") when he both hands at a distance to drive off a car aimed and pulled the trigger, is the core of his appeal hearing. I'm curious.
Sorry, but as you can, the four (!) Comments of the family have added is a bit polemical, right? Needless think almost ALL members of a victim so I would, too. But from a judicial one should expect but know that they are as objective as possible is going on, otherwise you would soon death sentences for child abusers. And as a bystander you should also try at least.
More and more differentiated in Schönau:
http://operabuffa.blogspot.com/2009_07_01_archive.html # 2471586213888152310
Let me be clear: I have no idea.
I can not imagine that there was a real intent to kill, so it was almost a kind of execution.
Why repeatedly shoots down a so-far as I know-traveled highway, an answer would you expect from the police should have, perhaps with the threat they would otherwise accept in silence and so the worst come to a harsh sentence. Perhaps he wanted to stop the car and shoot at the tires? And not just mastered his weapon? No idea.
What interests me: I heard he could allegedly after the jail back into the police service - is there anything me or nonsense?
Really now? Polemic? Moi?
You see, and that's the difference between my personal blog and a product of the quality press: If you you also sometimes like to look at the linked article (because there's more quotes from very many other people, including police grandees), I have been following the case meticulously since 2 years now and I've nunmal formed an opinion on the subject. By chance does the same as the view of the victims. Do I have to then censor themselves now? In the name of any editing required "balance"? Nope, there you are in the wrong place, I have no educational mission, but you do not finanzierst me with your TV licensing fees.
What I concoct here, you may like it or not, the Internet is a thoroughly democratic medium, and we can discuss very much, and most divergent. Yes, you can even me to perform line and thread and refute. Then please also arguments (sic) slightly beyond "by a judicial one should have expected but that" or "maybe he wanted to shoot at the tires." When a policeman with an outstretched arm across six lanes of time shooting at a moving car in order to bring this to a halt (and you would not probably even deny that he took some risk in this purchase if you shelter me already, I would irgendwetwas of written intent to kill "), then it must be so was a certain danger in delay, which he tried to prevent the last possible means available and justified this shot. What danger because of the guys went out at the moment? Or rather it was negligent homicide in the sense of an accident? Is he slipped?
And to stay with your argument: Yes, why should not you back to the police? He has still only done his duty .
Five are of course - not even he can. Sorry.
What I suggest is please you, you had written of intent to kill? So we do not need to start discussing first with.
Och Mönsch!
Just to put it into perspective:
I would like to you very carefully to the police to obtain in the last week in Hamburg, an acquittal was first class, because he shot a suspect in sewing and stitching only accidentally so, because he is an uncontrollable reflex, ie, a twitch in trigger finger had:
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/0, 1518,634840,00. html
In contrast, the six years seem almost like a constitutional decree, if one considers that in fact have residual doubts remain whether the Polizotto is such an art shot, that he wanted to meet a targeted search of a six-lane highway across Sun He has simply kept his shit weapon far too high, let alone that he would pull in at all, and taken the death of people approvingly accepted. Clearly, one can evaluate this as a homicide.
Just as I said: For us it would probably have not even given the six years. I can think of at least spontaneously no convictions of a German policemen on duty because of a killing offense.
Ah yes, the 16 (!) Have self-defense (!!)- balls (this would be a hilarious smiley if it were not so sad) you recorded?
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/0, 1518,635740,00. html
In Berlin, they shot New Year's Eve is also a suspect in the car. The investigation is being hindered ever since by the officials.
Panorama on:
http://daserste.ndr.de/panorama/archiv/panoramapolizeigewalt10 0.html
There is a law for them and another law for us.
Yes, exactly, hence my objection, that the man in Germany would probably get an acquittal and the smooth six years really are a Warning signs already. So a small ray of hope given the requisite Schonmal inequality. So the verdict is based on "omicidio colposo" (not just manslaughter and the prosecution demanded by the "omicidio volontario" - manslaughter) with the worsening feature that he has made in purchasing the death. My understanding is to condemn a very, very shaky structure, but certainly with the intention of the man at least to something.
So I think the article succeeded. It should not and can (!) Is not going to be objective. Which is always to doubt. The presentation of the case was' I highly differentiated, even though I am now entered only in this case.
@ Martin: It does also not an absolute killing his intent. Eventualvorsatz simply means: knowledge that can occur so and come to terms with it. Nothing to Do. Bloss no absolutely not-want. As I said, something civilians often happens that the judge reached this conclusion. Important only to see that this is not inevitable. And the assumption seems justified that the status as a state employee, unfortunately, it apparently has its share.
Well, exactly that has indeed the father said: "obviously, the uniform of their own weight," And now I find nothing that speaks against his view. The decision is understandable precisely only against the background that has a shot here in uniform and not some Albanians aufm Kiez. But all is polemical and unbalanced ...
More interesting, however, the question of who is responsible for this fatal shot. The little official or just but the media and the politics that made in the previous months and sentiment against Tifosi Ultras? Who has since admitted that an official comes up with the idea to shoot at a moving car? The spiritual arsonist, the police and the other for a long time eintrichterten that it is terrorists ultras to homicidal acts that are stopping that way.
My speech. Under "normal" conditions would have no police officer pulled the gun to break up a brawl at a village fair. The medial acoustic duration of "ultras = terrorists" (in 2007 there was still the "case Raciti") prepared the ground for this over-reaction, no question. And obviously, the court must include this "environment" with his assessment. But not change the fact that, in my opinion, here in the concrete case never in life circumstances which would justify an aimed shot.