Chemnitz-verdict: Once when the rule of law collapsed

column

The location

We are, dear audience, continue and once again in the never ending 24/7 quiz "Who runs whose business?". If you're a trained "Matrix" geek and "GamesCom" visitor, the feeling is nothing new. Others have yet to declare that it is an update designed by the famous software developer Charles R. Darwin from Shrewsbury for the operating system "paradise". Some brothers and sisters, not only but also on the Elbe, are still very confused, not to say worried.

For them there is now even a separate party. The has a so-called program, which is largely made of nonsense, but is suitable for early, middle, late and retired, 30 years ago their apprenticeships "broken", their three-room apartment collapsed and their honor as the best friends of the Soviet Union and as ingenious clever eggs, and all because of this Helmut K. and his secret lover, Mrs. Birgit Br., whom one should never have believed. A Hermann Axen and a Carmen Nebel would not have happened, what Helmut Kohl of this so-called Gorbi! Gorby! was cheered under the sweater. Isolated on Facebook was already read that Gorbatschowi may not have been German at all. By the way, I would not be surprised if that was true!

Over is over! Even if it was nice, as comrade Egon Krenz said last week at a big celebration for the 60th birthday of the socialist Sandmännchen. Backwards never! Therefore, we go, arm in arm, and fellow Lutz Bachmann front, in the new Germany, where the traffic light men always green, the coal always brown, the bird always early and the pension always safe. The so-called BRDäh has bitterly disappointed us and the citizens of Saarland, Bremerhaven, the Ruhr area and Upper Hesse. Even the Eifel can not be the land of the future. On the other hand, homecoming in the DeDeräh, at least jeans and travel technology, would not be the yellow, except perhaps for a few pastors, poets and white-deer-dwellers. In addition, you would then again 85,000 Vietnamese, Mozambicans and Cubans (ie a kasernierten workers from the Russian colonies per 200 original Germans) on the heel, and from this mess, the Hungarian fratricidal people this time probably would not help us out.

There remains only: either transhipping and Rübermachen to Königsberg, or purely in the time machine and back to zero, ie 1933th What we mean of course only the positives - not that we are again misunderstood or maliciously assumed by the left Pressemafia what! No one wants to gas Jews or block heroes from working in camp! There are at most a few big shots, ticks, estate agents, Zinswucherer, child molesters, Brunnenvergifter, Schächter or Raser. Also Rechtsverdreher, lying idiots, politicians. The whole pack so that the people sucked and fed with alms and still laughing and despising it. And that's normal and has nothing to do with a right corner. But it comes practically from nature. Each species protects itself from its enemies. In an anthill or a hive, you can not just clean and mess everything up.

The judgment

With that we arrived in Karl-Marx-Stadt, or, as it was called earlier, Chemnitz. On August 22, 2019, the local district court (jury court) in the case 1 Ks 210 Js 27835/18 the defendant, the "S." means (protection of personality!), because of manslaughter (§ 212 StGB) on a "German-Cuban" in majority with dangerous bodily injury (§ 224 Abs. 1 No. 2 and No. 5) to a total custodial sentence (§§ 53, 54 StGB) sentenced to nine years and six months. The defense appealed the appeal against the judgment. If the Criminal Court has written the written grounds (it has nine weeks to do so) and has served on the parties to the proceedings, the defendant has one month to file a statement of grounds for the appeal, which is decided by the competent criminal court of the BGH. It may take a while, friends of law, but that's it.

Matthias Rietschel / REUTERS

Convicted Alaa S .: Nine and a half years in prison for manslaughter and dangerous assault

There is a memorial stone for the fatality. Since the act, about 800 people have been deliberately killed in Germany, for which there are no memorial stones. In most, the public mourners took much less interest than any cat saved from the tree, and every piglet adopted by a princess. I know that it is useless to say so, as well as the petitioner's requests have helped to leave him alone. The rabbits of Chemnitz do not want to be disturbed or stopped by their really great pleasure in mourning. Certainly not from the victim.

What a chairman of the board says when giving the verdict is non-binding and does not have to be his personal opinion. I mention this, because again this time all sorts of interpretive acrobatics spilled over the verdict "of the judge" (meant: the chamber chairman) and about "their reasons". As far as always my tip: first of all, stay calm! You've been feuding for justice for a year now; there can not be a few weeks to the written verdict! The state election of fate you will stop without legal opinion to the procedure 1 Ks 210 Js 27835/18 create citizens of the IFA-city! But you get it! Mr Maassen was with you to warm you with the light of his very big Latinum, and Mrs AKK, to show you that even with modest means you can make much of yourself. And the SPD is planning to introduce socialism in the near future, and Frau Doktor Giffey will play live a new children's audiobook in front of Karl Marx's head. And Ms. Baerbock said we can do it.

At this point I have to come back to a legal principle that is always close to the reader's heart: the so-called doubt clause, also called "In dubio pro reo". He is already 1,500 years old and comes from Constantinople, so practically from a foreigner, but is now also in Article 6 paragraph 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights: "Every person charged with a criminal offense is considered as a legal proof of their guilt innocent." He ensures, for example, that you at home at any time of day or night, the state security may look, whether you are doing just something that should leave you better; and that even if you always wear a black, red and gold hat while walking, or "Hare, you stay here!" not be taken to Bautzen or Waldheim for four years until an organ has time to sentence you to 20 years in prison for allegedly supporting a possibly terrorist group.

The famous constitutional and care party "AfD" is a great friend of the doubts, although the organs of Brandner, Maier, Reusch and Co. are otherwise rather critical of legal nimbleness. But the doubt is a real matter of the heart. After the doubts, says the AfD, it is practically impossible that a knotty pensioner in Potsdam may have committed an incitement or an androgynous in the haunten history teacher from Bornhagen an advocacy of crime. The same applies, of course, to those friends of law and peace, who incidentally occasionally stand by, when in Connewitz or in the Schanzenviertel other paving stones or steel bullets slip from their fingers. They too are, it is certainly the "taz" for sure, totally innocent, as long as not a "legal proof" is performed.

The proof

What is legal proof? If one reads leading press organs of the whole Germany to the Chemnitzer judgment, the answer is obvious:

Expert Bangel wrote on August 23 on "Time Online". And expert Ferudastan brought it in the "SZ" on the following point:

Just over there is also over, says Karl Marx. In § 261 StPO it is stated that the court wins its verdict "with free conviction". In other words, there are no "rules of proof" in German criminal law (as they used to be: "Seven witnesses tell the truth" and the like). Of course, "free belief" does not mean arbitrariness or "firm belief"; the judge must have rational grounds that can be reasonably tested. The doubt says that a court can not judge if it has reasonably well-founded doubts, and conversely, it can only condemn if it has no doubt. So, if a court is convicted because it has no doubts , it may be wrong for all sorts of reasons, but it certainly is not a breach of doubt. Anyone who claims that simply has no idea and should definitely refrain from writing editorials on criminal cases.

more on the subject

Process of stabbing in Chemnitz How was it really?

The said legal experts do not really mean that the doubt was violated. But they think the court should have had doubts . So they misunderstand the "doubts" and consider it a rule of evidence that states that if only one witness incriminates the defendant, the judge must have doubts. Or: As long as a suspected accomplice is fleeting, one must not condemn other participants in the crime, but must have doubts. Both rules are of course nonsense and do not exist. In short, claiming that it was "the height" that the court condemned, because it had no doubts about guilt, is plain nonsense. When the same process experts report on convictions in sex crimes cases, where there is very often only one eyewitness and one "statement against statement" situation, they like to hold every form of doubt for a kind of sacrificial slander.

This is annoying, because the cited journalists are concerned with alleged legal versions, although they just like other smart animals, they would know it "better". They want to tell us that if they had been judges, they would have judged differently and therefore more correctly. Yes great, the criminal judge is astonished, that's a completely new argument, I've never heard that before! Then he goes to his room and makes sure to do it the next time. A few more samples:

• "New Osnabrück newspaper": "There is no doubt about the guilt, it is said." The evidence was thin, as far as known. "
• "Hannoversche Allgemeine": "A dubious witness and a suspect who has settled down leaves plenty of room for doubt despite the long prison term."
• "Cicero": "The sole main burden witness, a 30-year-old snack chef, became inconsistent during the trial, but the judge still bases her judgment on his testimony."

Warm air. Journalists write about how the trial would have ended if the court had been as smart as the reporter. This "approach" has two advantages: you do not have to know anything and can still be important. This is considered "critical" reporting. It is the craft of the great, the Leitartikler, of people who, without apparent resistance, can be described as the "Grande Dame des Gerichtsreportage". A simple, unfussy, knowledgeable rendition of the event and an expert-based explanation of its meaning and systematics, however, do not apply: they do not show enough "personality", do not develop enough soap charm and are not suitable for later books titled " My horrible murders "or" How I once knew better "to publish.

The monstrous

But now to the point. We have to introduce some more quotes:

• "Die Zeit": "It happened on Thursday with our state of law something outrageous It looks like, at a German court a politically motivated verdict has been made. (...) The Chemnitz Mayor Barbara Ludwig had previously been the Expectation formulated that there may be a guilty verdict so that the family of the victim find peace (...) What would have been feared in Chemnitz now, if after an acquittal the angry mob starts again, on the anniversary of the Chemnitz chase, a week before The election (...) The (...) judiciary is obviously permeated by Pegida supporters. "
• "Welt" (Friedrichsen): "Those who persecuted the process gained the impression that the defense was at a loss from the start. (...) The hope (for legal peace) should (...) not be fulfilled so long, when you have not gotten hold of the allegedly actual perpetrator because to condemn a defendant comparatively mildly, because you have a bad conscience and the real culprit fatally not at hand, but the road calls for a guilty: This does not make the rule of law good Testimony. "
• "Frankfurter Rundschau": "One week before the parliamentary elections in Saxony, three days before the anniversary of the violent death of Daniel H. in Chemnitz, the district court found a guilty party to enlighten the fact it has not been able."
• SPIEGEL ONLINE: Witness evidence in court traditionally has the least value, and for good reason. In this case, the cook wanted to be the only one to see how Alaa S. did (...) The Chemnitz Chamber (...) was enough to present the citizens at home with a culprit for the fatal bites. "
• "Southern Germans": "No court of justice could have been content with such a questionable testimony of such a questionable witness, and no judge whose lead alone is the law and law should have condemned a person on such a fragile basis."

So so! So something "monstrous" happened: a human being was convicted because one did not find the "actual perpetrator". A court imposed ("mildly") nine years imprisonment for doubting whether the accused was guilty. It is therefore without objective reason, contrary to the obvious evidence, a person has been sentenced to a long prison sentence. The judges who have made this judgment of judgment have acted intentionally and for four reasons that everyone can see: for fear of a right-wing radical mob; from political opportunity; on the instructions of the mayor of Chemnitz; and out of an effort to prove to potential voters of the AfD that the "rule of law" is proceeding with severity against Syrians stabbing German-Cubans. Even if they did not do it. - This is, compressed, the explicit, conclusive, overtly intended tenor of about 25 reports of major German press organs that I have read, heard and seen. Incidentally, two exceptions to be explicitly mentioned here were the Deutschlandfunk and the FAZ.

Jan Woitas / DPA

Mayor Ludwig: hoping for a conviction

This raises the one, the crucial question: what conclusions drew and pull the editors-in-chief's editors from their finding that in the middle of Germany, a district court of three professional and two lay judges publicly a "monstrous", right-wing, unjustifiable, only political motivated a judgment of shame and constantly detained a person who, in the opinion of all rational people, absolutely had to be acquitted?

Again, "No judges whose lead is the law and law should have condemned a man on such a fragile basis," wrote the Süddeutsche Zeitung. The "TIME" headline: "In doubt for the mob". And Mrs. Friedrichsen complains in the "world": The district court has imposed nine years, " because (!) You have the real culprit at hand (...) and the road for a guilty demands".

All three lighthouses of the allegedly "Fourth Power", who otherwise liked to like "Investigations" dramas and sentimental sermons about the value of law, subsequently did - nothing. They did not call for demonstrations against injustice and arbitrary justice. They did not charge resignation claims against ministers and no claims for investigations. No petition, no call for resistance and disobedience was spread; no editors and no printer union went on strike. And quietly one must say: It has, dear reader, not even a single of the mentioned newspapers even a complaint for Rechtbeugung reimbursed, so the absolute minimum of what was done to defend the rule of law would have been required.

Karl Marx City

Truly, there could have been something outrageous: there came a moment when, according to most of Germany's major and important press media, "obviously" was a turning point in the (legal) history of the Federal Republic. It was the day when the naked injustice for fear of a right-wing radical mob over law, law, justice and human reason won out before all eyes, at which the German justice revealed itself as shameful bailiff of a political executive through which the enemies of the rule of law thrived. The day on which a person who should never have been sentenced in a legal seed was sentenced to nine and a half years in jail.

On that day, the powerful editorial offices of the free press did nothing. They wrote that the rule of law had been tremendously trampled underfoot. Then they reported a few new jokes of an idiot in Washington, commenting on Mr. Johnson's footsteps on the side table of Mr. Macron and rambling about whether you should be taxed on Mrs. Schwitigs or Mrs. Klatten's house for the care of our dear Amazon. Mrs. Thunberg, we read, pukes on the way to the moon on average often. So normal, and in Chemnitz, the rule of law collapses.

more on the subject

Getty ImagesExhibitions in ChemnitzHie politics and police failed

What do we learn? Variant one: All stupid stuff, all lies, all irresponsible pettiness. This is supported by the fact that a leading medium that seriously states the "monstrous" can not simply do anything about it without being completely ridiculous.

Variant two: Karl Marx City is everywhere. And in the so-called "editorial offices," which are open-plan offices and include a few billionaires, are exactly the same fearful bunnies and opportunists that they so much like to look down on. The ridiculousness does not really change that.