Deadly hemp by Malters again in court



"The arguments are all on the table, that's right," said the defender of the pensioner's son, who had shot himself during the trial during the police operation in Malers in March 2016. Yet Oskar Gysler did on Thursday. His supplication lasted one and a half hours, in the replica he went into detail again in certain points.

Finally, it was his client, the son of the pensioner, who had appealed against the judgment at first instance. He, who was in custody at the time of the police deployment, had also filed a complaint against the police for abuse of office and negligent murder.

The court acquitted Lucerne police commander Adi Achermann and head of police Daniel Bussmann of guilt and punishment. They would have acted in the context of the action that the police must have.

The 65-year-old woman had been entrenched in the apartment during a 19-hour police operation and offered resistance against the eviction of her son's hemp plant. Eventually the police stormed the apartment.

It is clear to the public prosecutors' counsel that this intervention was completed even before "non-hopeless alternative actions" were seriously investigated or carried out. Gysler referred to an excerpt from the wireless protocol. Already in the morning it was fueled, the intervention took place at noon – regardless of whether the woman is asleep or barricaded.

He now wants to prove whether Bussmann sent out this order and if not who else. The head of the police himself asserted against the judges that he was not involved in this radio traffic.

Especially the question of the verdict of the woman was discussed during the hearing. She has repeatedly stated that she will kill herself in the event of an attack, Gysler said. "The suicide was a direct response to access."

According to Gysler, one should have responded to the time required for reflection. Because: "The woman wanted to continue her life when her son was released," Gysler said. There was no evidence that she wanted to kill herself anyway.

Commander of police Bussmann described another image of the woman: she blocked everything, was dominant and set the tone. It was time for Bussmann to come up with a Plan B.

By 10 am the decision had fallen that the negotiations with the woman had failed and that an access had to be planned. According to Bussmann, the trained psychologist estimated the woman as "dangerous and unpredictable." In spite of this, this contradicted an intervention. He advised to wait with one access.

Court president Peter Arnold has drilled several times on this point. He wanted to know, for example, why he had not followed the advice of the police psychologist. "Wait, what about it?" Backed up Bussmann.

"I could not wait anymore, we were in an endless loop, negotiations with the woman had failed and I was responsible for the operation," said Bussmann. And finally, the danger of women was undisputed among all those involved.

The longer he had waited with the intervention, the greater the risk would be that the woman would have been locked up somewhere and would have made an intervention with the planned assistance dog even more difficult.

Also a complete demolition of the employment was discussed, said Bussmann to the question of a judge – but rejected. The woman was shot, the danger was great.

The Lucerne police commander Adi Achermann once again stood behind the head of the police. When he arrived in the morning between 8 and 9 o'clock, he realized that a systematic process was underway, he assured.

There were no arguments against intervention, said Achermann, and stressed that the psychologist would not have expressed himself in principle against intervention. "Only against time."

The extraordinary public prosecutor, Aargauer Christoph Rüedi, once again emphasized the complexity of the case. The judgment of the lower court seemed reasonable to him, he drew this because then no further. Nevertheless, he emphasized: "There are strong arguments that can lead to a guilty verdict."

All was clear that the woman was mentally ill. The extent of the disease is not crucial. "She was in a stress situation, she misjudged reality and could not decide whether she wanted to live or commit suicide," Rüedi said.

He also spoke about alternative negotiation options. It can not be denied that all possibilities for negotiation entail both opportunities and risks. And he asked again if they should not have kept negotiating or consulting the son. "Undoubtedly some things went wrong at work," Rüedi said.

The judgment will be announced in writing at a later date. (SDA)

Posted on 23.08.2018 | Updated 12 minutes ago


Source link

Deadly hemp by Malters again in court



"The arguments are all on the table, that's right," said the defender of the pensioner's son, who had shot himself during the trial during the police operation in Malers in March 2016. Yet Oskar Gysler did on Thursday. His supplication lasted one and a half hours, in the replica he went into detail again in certain points.

Finally, it was his client, the son of the pensioner, who had appealed against the judgment at first instance. He, who was in custody at the time of the police deployment, had also filed a complaint against the police for abuse of office and negligent murder.

The court acquitted Lucerne police commander Adi Achermann and head of police Daniel Bussmann of guilt and punishment. They would have acted in the context of the action that the police must have.

The 65-year-old woman had been entrenched in the apartment during a 19-hour police operation and offered resistance against the eviction of her son's hemp plant. Eventually the police stormed the apartment.

It is clear to the public prosecutors' counsel that this intervention was completed even before "non-hopeless alternative actions" were seriously investigated or carried out. Gysler referred to an excerpt from the wireless protocol. Already in the morning it was fueled, the intervention took place at noon – regardless of whether the woman is asleep or barricaded.

He now wants to prove whether Bussmann sent out this order and if not who else. The head of the police himself asserted against the judges that he was not involved in this radio traffic.

Especially the question of the verdict of the woman was discussed during the hearing. She has repeatedly stated that she will kill herself in the event of an attack, Gysler said. "The suicide was a direct response to access."

According to Gysler, one should have responded to the time required for reflection. Because: "The woman wanted to continue her life when her son was released," Gysler said. There was no evidence that she wanted to kill herself anyway.

Commander of police Bussmann described another image of the woman: she blocked everything, was dominant and set the tone. It was time for Bussmann to come up with a Plan B.

By 10 am the decision had fallen that the negotiations with the woman had failed and that an access had to be planned. According to Bussmann, the trained psychologist estimated the woman as "dangerous and unpredictable." In spite of this, this contradicted an intervention. He advised to wait with one access.

Court president Peter Arnold has drilled several times on this point. He wanted to know, for example, why he had not followed the advice of the police psychologist. "Wait, what about it?" Backed up Bussmann.

"I could not wait anymore, we were in an endless loop, negotiations with the woman had failed and I was responsible for the operation," said Bussmann. And finally, the danger of women was undisputed among all those involved.

The longer he had waited with the intervention, the greater the risk would be that the woman would have been locked up somewhere and would have made an intervention with the planned assistance dog even more difficult.

Also a complete demolition of the employment was discussed, said Bussmann to the question of a judge – but rejected. The woman was shot, the danger was great.

The Lucerne police commander Adi Achermann once again stood behind the head of the police. When he arrived in the morning between 8 and 9 o'clock, he realized that a systematic process was underway, he assured.

There were no arguments against intervention, said Achermann, and stressed that the psychologist would not have expressed himself in principle against intervention. "Only against time."

The extraordinary public prosecutor, Aargauer Christoph Rüedi, once again emphasized the complexity of the case. The judgment of the lower court seemed reasonable to him, he drew this because then no further. Nevertheless, he emphasized: "There are strong arguments that can lead to a guilty verdict."

All was clear that the woman was mentally ill. The extent of the disease is not crucial. "She was in a stress situation, she misjudged reality and could not decide whether she wanted to live or commit suicide," Rüedi said.

He also spoke about alternative negotiation options. It can not be denied that all possibilities for negotiation entail both opportunities and risks. And he asked again if they should not have kept negotiating or consulting the son. "Undoubtedly some things went wrong at work," Rüedi said.

The judgment will be announced in writing at a later date. (SDA)

Posted on 23.08.2018 | Updated 12 minutes ago


Source link

Leave a Reply