Sanel M. in April next his lawyers Stephan Kuhn (3rd from left) and Heinz-Jürgen Borowsky (3rd from left) in the courtroom
The delivery of the judgment was, as always, at the beginning of the last negotiation day: Sanel M. is in the process to the killed Tuğçe Albayrak for assault causing death to a youth sentence of three years sentenced. So far, so well known -. And also not too surprising
But then the presiding judge Jens Aßling turned to the victim’s family, who had accompanied the process before the regional court Darmstadt as a co-plaintiff. First he brought his condolences: The loss of their own child, Aßling said, was offset by anything. He wooed understanding of his actions in the past few weeks: It should never have gone to the Court aimed to dismantle the daughter or the memory of it, but about finding out what in the night on 15 November 2014 “between two people” happened. The questions have been necessary, which were for family members “may feel uncomfortable”.
One must wonder Aßling said then, “why is this case has become what he is” – he meant above all the nature and extent of media coverage. “For cases like these are not so unusual” – by which he meant the offense
.
It was the beginning of a harsh media criticism. “In the beginning there has been a campaign that can not be otherwise described,” said Aßling in free speech. As a young man of just 18 years was, “the can with his resources not fight against it, to be delivered a major newspaper.” This referred to the “Bild” newspaper. A “killer” and “coma Bat” have you called him there – but that he was not
.
M. had his stroke “much wanted what is wrong, but certainly not the death of a man.” But against the image that had been “blind from many media” taken drawn by him and that, but in the process “if any confirmed only in part” to have, M. had not arrived.
Read more about
Aßlings criticism however was not only directed against the media, which had last reported balanced, but also against the politic. Without that German President Joachim Gauck was named, among others, could he feel concerned. After the death Albayraks he had written in a letter to their parents, their daughter was the “victim of a brutal crime” has become. Aßling now said: “There is also a dish that is an agency, difficult when expressing supreme state representatives beforehand and distribute blame.” The state duty of neutrality this kind is incompatible and contrary to the central constitutional principle of presumption of innocence .
This particular circumstances of the proceedings would, moreover, the reconstruction of what was really, massively difficult. Virtually all witnesses were as “poisoned” to look at, because the friends of the offender as well as the friends of the victim had been significantly affected especially by reporting. The dichotomous fixation of media and M. Albayrak have meant that witnesses particularly M. had attributed acts whose author he could not have been. This applies to some extent also for the famous toilet scene said to have come in the Albayrak two 13 year old girls to help. For this, the judge said: The young girl would have looked not necessarily as 13, but also “to pass as 15″. Between them, M. and two of his friends had initially developed a relatively normal conversation that had slipped towards the end in the area of harassment. Further attacks did not exist. Albayrak had “safely in any form concern for the girl” had. Therefore she had approached the young men and have, without inquiring by what’s going on, said: “. Fuck off, you have no business here” The thing for which had been correct. The young men would but unsure asked: Why do you come from, what you have to tell us? “Which would certainly not put up with it.”
Nevertheless Aßling challenged the view about the co-plaintiff, the toilet dispute was the cause of the subsequent stroke or have set even plans for a punishment action in motion. Also applies to this scene that we have great difficulties to the testimonies filter out what you can put a judgment rendered. Also in the evaluation of statements then applies: “In the benefit of the doubt.”
The situation in the parking lot of the Offenbacher McDonald’s, where it came to the final escalation, the judge looks like this: Both sides have provoked, it may Albayrak approached M. and saw probably told him something that you do not as may introduce friendliness. Unlike speculated variously that he had her then but not only given a “slap in the face”. On a surveillance tape from the Tatnacht is rather to see that M. had continued struck out, as it was usual with a slap. The judge: “He wanted her certainly a neat long.” Only that which followed from it, “he was not sure”. Nevertheless, so Aßling that it was not a simple assault – for the defense had pleaded. M. was in spite of his previous drinking well may know and have that when it strikes so, can plunge the victim -. With possibly serious consequences
M. is sentenced to juvenile justice. By this, the judge could, in the “immature” man doubt. As the prosecutor, but unlike the defense, the judge recognized “criminal tendencies”, who came in previously committed offenses expressed. He had internalized the willingness to use violence to enforce its interests.
You can acquire the rights to this article
<->======== Confirmation page:.! Will be loaded by JS if submission is successful === ============ ->
.
No comments:
Post a Comment