comment
oddness
"Actual representation of strange crimes" was once called the Real State Councilor and President of the Appellate Court Ansbach, the criminal justice teacher Paul Johann Anselm Ritter von Feuerbach a collection of criminal cases published by him. He did not mean "strange" as "strange", but: remarkable. And the cases seemed remarkable to him because they taught him something: about the deeds, the people who commit and suffer them, the enlightenment and the law, which they want to grasp and "honor" as punishable deeds. Since the year 1828, when Feuerbach published his book, the number of reports of crime has multiplied severalfold. The lessons to be learned have not developed to the same extent.
Since December 6, there has been talk of a strange crime: in Augsburg, a man has been killed by violence; a second man was injured. If you follow the statements and reports that have come since then, the act, in advance and in any case, is appalling, horrible, horrible, shocking, deeply disturbing, unbelievable, and so on. Everything else would almost be self-pardoning again, as it "downplayed", disregarded the victims, misunderstands the reality, excuses crime, etc. So you can probably, unless you immediately, unasked and unconditionally attuned to the loudest possible cry, only unpopular, but at least suspicious of the promotion of violence, brutalization and contempt for human beings.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to distance oneself from the action, to get some air and to watch the events from the outside. In contrast to the partly lying, partly sensed impressions, which are communicated and reported around the clock, nearly 100 percent of all people are in the "outside" of the event: they are not affected, even if they are still so overwhelmed by their "dismay "assure. They were not there, even if they still look at the photos of the scene for so long. And they are not part of the now running "procedure" of media, criminal, political nature, either as injured or bereaved, whether as an accused or (their) relatives.
press conference
Please think twice about the last time you saw a live 50-minute police press conference in ARD or ZDF, and in what fact-case that was the case. I think that many will not think of anything, others will have vague memories of terrorist attacks, other catastrophic events or unusually serious investigations. As far as I know, the ARD has not transmitted any live PK nationwide to the 3,200 completed or attempted homicides registered by police in the past year.
LUKAS BARTH-TUTTAS / EPA-EFE / REX
Official press conference in Augsburg, 9.12.2019
In front of the cameras: a police chief, a head of the crime department, a senior prosecutor. Each of the three has many years of work experience. Everyone knows what a manslaughter is, what a personal injury. Everyone knows the difference between adolescents and adults, the conditions for arrest warrants and for convictions. Everyone knows the statistics on violent crime, and has already seen many hundreds of cases for such crimes. Of all these experiences flows into the statements of the three respondents: Nothing. And none of the numerous journalists asks. The police chief assured that he was particularly affected by the crime, because the "blue light sector" (police, fire, rescue services) in Augsburg work well together, and praises the excellent cooperation in the matter. The head of the KPI explains time and again how extraordinarily good, successful and perfect he has worked and the inspection he has led. The "20-member investigation team" had in "outstanding police work" clarified the facts and arrested all suspects. A little later, he explains: A youth had told the police on questioning, he could imagine who might have been there in the act. From this note, the perpetrators have been identified. There is nothing wrong with that. However, it is not "outstanding", but rather simple routine work.
The Senior Attorney General (LOStA) apologizes for the fact that "his capital deputy" (he means: responsible for homicide prosecutors) was not present: Just now she was at the District Court, "to obtain arrest warrants." Five have already obtained, he hopes that he can still report in the course of the PK for the next two execution.
All seven arrest warrants are reportedly received on the second victim for alleged manslaughter (one accused) or aiding and abetting (six accused persons) on the first victim and the dangerous assault (all seven accused). This is important for various reasons, above all, because according to § 112 Abs. 3 StPO with suspicion of a manslaughter a so-called "reason" is not necessary: The assumption of manslaughter leads also without escape, flight danger or danger of darkening to the arrangement of pre-trial detention. LOTA and KPI leaders do not mention this fact. Of course, it is a good thing that the people and the social-media nation, which are churned up in fear, horror and anger, do not have to explain what the reasons for their arrest and why they did not arrest adolescents with "multiple nationalities". Locking up is always good. Bavaria is safe.
Tatverdacht
The matter itself remained vague in the press conference. According to the police, what happened, recorded by a surveillance camera, was said to have taken place within a few seconds: the group of victims initially passed the group of offenders; then the later first victim turned around and approached the seven persons. These "surrounded" him briefly, it was talked; then one of them suddenly hit his head with his hand. "And that led to death," the KPI leader repeated several times; on further journalist questions there was "for reasons of victim protection" no information. Of course, this description leaves everything open. Maybe that can not be otherwise, because you just do not know anymore. But then you should not pretend that any crucial facts are already known.
"That led to death": What does that mean? As a mere statement about causality, it is almost silly, because the victim has died. It is unclear, however, what the "so" should mean: Did the victim die directly from the blow? Did it hit your head on the floor? The police chief reported that a patrol had been at the scene one minute after the emergency call and had "started the resuscitation". That would imply that the man was already dead by this time. Enlightenment will only bring the forensic examination.
A "manslaughter" occurs when a person intentionally kills another person (§ 212 StGB). Intentional (§ 15 StGB) presupposes that the perpetrator recognizes the possibility of success (here: death) and either wants this success or at least " approves ", ie consciously accepts . So it is not enough that the offender could or should have anticipated the onset of success. These are rather the conditions for so-called "negligence" (§ 15 StGB), and thus minimum requirement for any criminal liability at all: What you can not foresee and avoid, you can not be punished. This results from the Basic Law and distinguishes a civilized criminal law from an arbitrarily arbitrary "random" punishment.
Specifically: A criminal liability (and thus an "urgent suspicion") for manslaughter requires that the 17-year-old accused at the moment of (a) strike thought that blow could lead to the death of the victim, and that this result is also right was or even wanted it. So it is not enough that he wanted a violation of the victim. This seems to have been undoubtedly the case, according to previous findings: The blow was targeted and not a "mistake". This would in any case a "deliberate assault" given (§ 223 StGB). Of these, the police registered more than 550,000 in Germany each year.
However, there are "simple", "dangerous (§ 224; 60,000 registered cases)," serious (§ 226: 300 registered cases) and personal injury "with fatalities" (§ 227 StGB: 80 registered cases). The dangerous ones differ from the simple ones in that a dangerous tool is used (here: not given) or that the act is committed jointly by at least two persons (here: presumably yes). "Serious" bodily injuries are those in which the act results in a serious, permanent injury: loss of an eye or limb, disfiguring scars, etc. This serious consequence may be intentionally committed by the perpetrator intentionally carrying out the fundamental offense (assault) bring about or negligently (§ 18 StGB): So it can be an unwanted, but predictable and avoidable consequence.
Similarly, § 227 is constructed: Intentional (simple or dangerous) bodily harm, negligent (predictable, but not foreseen) "serious consequence" death. That's the difference: if death is wanted or "approved," is manslaughter given, if it is an unintended consequence of a personal injury, is given "assault with fatality".
For the victim, the difference is of course indifferent: It is dead. But the guilt of the offender differs considerably. In 2017, 81 deaths were reported by police; In the same year, 37 convictions were made for such acts. Of course, the registered and the sentenced cases do not agree: much that is registered with the police as "manslaughter" turns out to be a personal injury resulting in death, because a killing charge can not be determined.
The most common "classic" case of fatalities occurs in spontaneous injury when either an additional, unforeseen circumstance occurs (eg, the victim falls, hits the ground or edge, stumbles and crashes, etc.). ) or that the victim has undetected previous damage (special vulnerability, occurrence of heart attack due to arousal, etc.).
How it was in Augsburg on 6 December, of course, do not know. The previously known external circumstances, however, make it little likely after the experience of life that the slamming adolescent in the moment of his (a) stroke intended the death of the victim or "accepted with approval". In the image of spontaneously quarreling, possibly drunk, excited youngsters are "complications" of acts rarely before. This does not change the aggression as such, but every reader may even like to imagine (possibly also to remember) how a confrontational, aggressively charged situation "feels" and whether, on the brink of folk festivals or confrontations in the public (traffic) space ("Do you have problems?", "What do you want?", etc.) seriously think about it and consciously accept to kill the enemy here and now: in public, in front of numerous witnesses the lens of a surveillance camera, without meaningful occasion.
The most puzzling is the allegation that the six other suspects were guilty of "aiding and abetting homicide". Aid (§ 27 StGB) is the intentional support of an intentional act of another person. The suspects must have known that the chief culprit wanted to kill the victim and decided to help him with it. Now the KPI leader told us at the press conference that the whole event took only a few seconds, the victim had approached the accused and the main perpetrator had struck "suddenly".
It seems to me that it is extremely unlikely that the six people could have imagined that the 17-year-old would now kill the victim, and they wanted to "help" him by "standing by". Rather, this version sounds almost adventurous given the known facts. It is also indecisive in itself: If the "standing by" or the "encircling" should have been a deliberate assistance (to manslaughter), it would be much closer, to pursue all seven because of community action, ie complicity. The version, however distant, has two advantages: It avoids the need to explain to the rabid public what negligence is, and it has led to speedy and - apparently without resistance - arrest warrants being "obtained".
It is also unclear how the second act fits in: The police spoke of a "serious facial injury"? Does that mean: broken cheekbone? Broken nose? For what reason should the perpetrators deliberately kill one opponent and only hurt the other? Why is the second act not persecuted as "attempted manslaughter"? The chief prosecutor did not say what he and "his captain-in-chief" mean. The present specialized press did not consider such questions. We are very excited about the progress of the legal assessment.
fire Department
The victim was a firefighter. He was certainly also much else: husband, friend, neighbor, car driver, athlete. He had, like everyone else, a variety of social roles and meanings. This also applies to offenders and suspects. You may be "Italian", "teen", "born in Augsburg", have "Turkish parents". At the same time they may also be students, apprentices, mates, football players, sons, brothers. Every human being is many. For the legal property "life", the victim and the relatives, it does not matter whether it is a victim, a cashier, a dentist or a plumber.
Stefan Puchner / DPA
Mourning firefighters in Augsburg, 8.12.2019
The Tatopfer of Augsburg was before the facts with a friend and the two wives at the Christmas market and then in a restaurant. He was not in the firefighting operation; his job was not to look at him either. There is not the slightest reason to believe that the profession of the dead person could have had any significance for the deed. Therefore, one has to ask why the fire brigade plays such a prominent role in the public handling of the case - up to the absurd assertion of the chief of police of Augsburg, he was "particularly" affected, because the police work closely with the fire department.
The trace of words can usually be picked up especially well with "Bild", even with a closed nose. There we read: "He is an example, a hero" (8.12.). From here it runs through the German press world to the prime time news: "Fireman dead beat"; "dead-beat firefighter"; "Teenagers beat firefighter dead". I do not even want to talk about the "social" mob media; the events there are disgusting.
Language is - who knows better than the press - never chance. One does not say "firefighter" because the victim (by chance) has this job, but because the job (accidentally) fits the message. So the "fireman" stands next to the "Christmas market" and the "perpetrators with different nationalities". In the photos 150 uniformed firefighters stand shoulder to shoulder around the candle and flower decorated crime scene. "Stunned" Augsburgers are photographed. Live circuits to Königsplatz are broadcast, "where drugs are sold". Reporters randomly interview passers-by and want to know how "concerned" they feel. Man is ashamed while watching and reading.
safety
Federal and Land Interior Ministers and the Prime Minister have announced that they are deeply shaken by the terrible crime. Other legal politicians have joined this. From "first demands" to "consequences" is to be read. One is to expand the video surveillance of public space. It is faithfully reported, although the case shows that the video surveillance the act just did not prevent. Next, presumably, the "data retention" will be mentioned; not to mention the "fight" allegedly "more and more escalating" violence.
The victims are used shamelessly: for pomposity, disaster-killing, sensationalism. We have heard nothing about the dismay of the internal politicians, demonstrations of solidarity, demands for tougher penalties and stricter controls, on the occasion of the brawls on the half-yearly Augsburg "Plärrer". How many strikes against the head were reported in Bavaria last year, prosecuted, tried? How many press conferences has the ARD broadcast?
It is depressing that people's good will, fear and insecurity are exploited. Offenses happen, sometimes with serious and terrible consequences. Of course, they must be prosecuted and punished. Of course you have to feel sorry for victims of violence. But the present case shows that the social processing of such events gets out of hand: on the one hand they serve as a welcome occasion for unscrupulous agitation against the institutions of the rule of law. Others as a means of profiling and self-promotion. Still others as a foil for the enthusiasm for their own "feelings", as proof of their alleged "empathy".
The victims remain on the line: the victims, but also the accused. They are degraded into balls of an arbitrary, random and cynical construction of media reality. Truth also gets stuck when crime is perceived as a series of the "unbelievable", as an occasion to increase "disgust", as an entertaining series about the worst offenders, the poorest victims and the toughest knacks. It is a great pity if the institutions of the state, which were supposed to resist and counteract it, carry it with a clear eye.