[ad_1]
Fabien Martini didn’t stand a chance. The police car collided with his Renault Clio on January 29, 2018 at Berlin’s Alexanderplatz at an impact speed of a good 90 kilometers per hour. The young woman was about to park when police officer Peter G. was thrown out of a tunnel with his company vehicle at about 130 km / h. The police car sank into Fabien’s car half a meter deep. The woman died at the scene of the accident. Fabien Martini was 21 years old.
Presiding Judge Sascha Daue announced the verdict against the policeman in clear words on Tuesday. The extended lay judge of the Berlin-Tiergarten District Court sentenced Peter G. to one year and two months in prison for negligent manslaughter. The sentence is suspended for two years. In this way, the court follows the request of the prosecution. The verdict is not yet legally binding.
With blue light and siren
Peter G. had just started his service that day. At approximately 1 in the afternoon he was called on a mission. A pharmacy is being robbed in Berlin-Mitte, he said. Peter G. and a colleague got in the car and drove off with flashing lights and a siren.
At Alexanderplatz, Peter G. drove his car into and out of a tunnel, although a slope at the tunnel exit made it impossible to see what was happening around the Grunerstrasse bend. The court is convinced that Peter G. knows the location. Then you know how confusing work is. The road behind the tunnel is multi-lane, there are parking spaces, there are pedestrians, there are people like Fabien Martini looking for a parking space.
Judge Daue speaks plain language. “Mr. G., under no circumstances should he have driven as fast as he drove. ” Not even with flashing lights and a siren. Not even for an alleged theft, which in retrospect turned out to be a false alarm. “The effort does not justify everything.” Peter G. was never allowed to drive 80 miles per hour. “That’s the recommended speed on the highway.” This is not the speed for an emergency trip “during the day in the downtown area on the Alex” in central Berlin. “This is not how it works!”
“Absolutely negligent”
There are no clear rules about how fast police officers can drive their emergency vehicles. There is only the principle of driving carefully with flashing lights and siren and “above all not endangering the lives of other fellow citizens”. According to the court, Peter G. should have driven “at most 60 km / h” at the scene of the accident. Policeman G. was driving more than twice as fast. “We just don’t see how anyone could get the idea of driving at such speed,” says the judge. “That is absolutely negligent, in the true sense of the word.”
“It was not an accident like any other,” defense attorney Jens Grygier had previously said. It is likely one of the few lines in her plea that Fabien Martini’s parents also agree with.
From the point of view of the defense, it was not the accused but the young woman who acted negligently. He changed lanes spontaneously and without blinking to park. If Fabien Martini had paid attention to the traffic behind, he should have noticed the police car, says the defender. Maybe she was distracted with her cell phone.
Was the cop under the influence of alcohol?
Grygier only commented briefly on the suspicion that Peter G. was intoxicated. The defendant’s patient record must show that Peter G. was possibly under the influence of alcohol on the day of the accident. The prosecution had the files confiscated. An illegal process, as the court determined in advance. The archive’s findings were not allowed to be used in the process.
“Nobody,” says the defense attorney in his plea and repeats: “Nobody noticed any symptoms of failure.” The defender mentions the fact that the policeman came out of a tunnel at about 130 kilometers per hour.
»Yes ”, says Grygier,“ 130 km / h may have been too fast ”. But it is not said that Peter G. could have avoided the accident if he had driven slower. In any event, “experienced police officers” reportedly told the defense attorney that there was no time to look at the speedometer during an operation. “You trust instinct.” The defense requests the acquittal.
“In our opinion, she didn’t stand a chance”
The court contradicts almost every point. There is no evidence that the victim looked at his cell phone immediately prior to the collision. And every driver knows that it is often unclear at first where the police car whose siren can be heard is. “We are talking about fractions of a second here.” Even if Fabien had seen the headlights of a car in the tunnel, the court did not think that he should have expected the car to approach 130 km / h. “We don’t think he had the opportunity.”
The judge turns to the accused. “Mr. G., none of that would have happened if you had released the gas in the tunnel.”
Peter G., 53, has hidden his face behind a mask. He sits hunched on the dock. The accident also marked him. His defense attorney called it a “psychological disaster” that day. Peter G. looks at the judge, who continues. “Going out of there at 130 km / h like a bullet from the barrel of a rifle is not possible,” says Daue.
The court also finds clear words for the investigating authorities. The presiding judge describes the police work at the scene of the accident as “totally chaotic”. A young woman is dead, and the obvious cause of the accident is still walking around the scene after the first emergency services arrive. “It doesn’t work that way.” Peter G. should have been treated as a suspect immediately and put in a police car. Instead, one officer did not know what the other was doing. “It is not acceptable that there are all kinds of police out there.” Daue’s verdict in the direction of the investigating authorities: “That was nothing, actually it was nothing. We don’t need that kind of research here. “
Fabien Martini’s family no longer trusts the police. His lawyers say the mother and father have almost lost confidence in the rule of law. The parents consider the mishaps of the investigation to be a judicial scandal. They accuse the police of “cover up”. They wanted to protect their colleague Peter G.
The mother’s voice breaks when she speaks of her daughter in her own closing lecture that day. Fabien Martini was in his car at Alexanderplatz because he wanted to open an account at a Postbank branch there. “He was on his way to starting his own business,” says the mother. He wanted to open a cafe and then become a policeman. “Our Fabi,” he says when he talks about his daughter. Everyone would have assured them: if a police officer is involved in a crime, he will be investigated with special care. “It was the opposite.” For the parents it was not manslaughter by negligence, but homicide. “We had to take our daughter to the grave because a police officer was drunk on duty,” says the mother. Then his voice fails.
“The trial is just the beginning”
The court says it found no evidence of a cover-up. Richter Daue puts it remarkably vaguely: “We couldn’t shed any light on the darkness.”
But the trial is not the end, but only the beginning of the legal dispute. “It will take several years and it will go through various instances,” says the judge. It also says that another court may decide differently whether the defendant’s blood sample results should be used. “We will see.”
The judge then goes directly to Fabien Martini’s parents and brother. All three watched the verdict crying silently. “I would like the Martini family to find peace at the end of a long journey,” says the judge.. Look at them. “At some point you have to get on with your life.” A life without Fabien Martini.
