As for the “tripod” – attack on the Marijampolė official: he was afraid to continue the service, he was afraid of revenge

German’s first meeting with an RS officer took place on January 18 of last year. He himself said that he was driving down Vytauto Street when he saw the flash and realized that it had been captured with a tripod.

“I wanted to know how much I exceeded the speed, so I turned around and approached the officer. Maybe he was a little dissatisfied,” German said.

Spilled threats

Even so, the official herself claimed that she remained severely intimidated after the encounter with the Germans.

He recalled that the driver who was approaching BMW put on a “tripod”, got out of the car and began to make threats.

“Get out of here, idiots, I am not going to pull my car anywhere now so you cannot measure the speed, you will see what will happen to you, Marijampolė is a small town, I will find out what car you are driving, you will not need to measure and drive more, horn you – I answer “said the German.

It is true that the man himself denied saying that. The policeman worked alone and did not turn on the camera, so the conflict was not recorded.

“Then I called a colleague, I told him what was happening and I didn’t know what to expect, I asked him for help. Speaking of me, BMW left, ”he said.

Three days after the incident, the German again went through a “tripod” supervised by the same official, exceeding 89 km / h.

This time he managed to turn on the camera and filmed the collision. “I’ll buy you that ‘tripod’ soon, stupid you! ”Germanas yelled at him.

“After these cases, I was afraid to continue with the service, I felt intimidated, insecure,” said the policeman in court. – I moved to another apartment, although it was not only this event that caused it. I changed my personal car because I was afraid of being recognized. I parked the car further from the police station for fear of revenge. When I was driving home, I always turned a set of wheels to make sure they weren’t following. “

Charges received

On January 24, the police arrived at German’s home and locked him up. Suspicions were reported to him under article 287 of the Penal Code. This article establishes the responsibility of those who have used mental coercion by requiring an official to act or refrain from acting for the benefit of the perpetrator or other persons.

There are similar case units in Lithuania, last year according to article 287 of the CC. 11 investigations were started and 4 last year.

After reviewing the images, the Marijampolė District Court ruled that German had not threatened the officer during the second encounter, but had only insulted her, so this could only lead to administrative liability.

However, trial judge Laimondas Noreika trusted the official’s words and convicted the man for the threats made by German for the first time.

“The victim does not know the accused personally, it has not been established that the victim seeks to defame the accused or harm him in any other way. This was not mentioned by the accused either during the pre-trial investigation or during the judicial process, said the Judge – The victim’s testimony given at the court hearing is consistent and not contradictory. More than half a year elapsed between the incident and the testimony in court, but it accurately described the defendant’s behavior and the words spoken.

The court imposed a fine of 3,500 euros on the man for this crime, but the convicted himself did not agree and appealed the sentence.

Outraged by the behavior of the police

German stated before the Kaunas Regional Court that the charges were made against him to artificially criminalize his behavior.

As he taught in his complaint, his arrest was a demonstration to show both the public and the police how officials are protected from undue influence.

“Officials of the Immunity and Internal Investigations Unit, who, after a hearing on January 21 From the audio recording of the interview, it should have been clear that the appellant’s conduct did not show any indication of a crime and, therefore, decided” beautify it “on January 18. the conversation took place, which was not recorded by any means of sound recording, only by the testimony of a policeman,” said the convict.

He was convinced that it made no sense for the police to go to his house and arrest him, since he himself would have come to the police station.

“The reasons for the arrest were unfounded and stenciled to strengthen the image of the convicted person as prone to crime. Meanwhile, your question about a misplaced tripod was quite natural, at the time there was public outrage over the unmarked speedometers. The will of the police to demonstrate their power is clearly confirmed by the preventive detention measure that was subsequently imposed on the condemned man, “Germanas wrote in the complaint.

He also found it strange that the investigation had barely started almost a week after the first collision, so the convict questioned whether the police officer had in fact been intimidated as alleged in court.

“She is a police officer who is specially trained and prepared to deal with various conflicts and other atypical situations, she needs to know and evaluate emerging occupational risks. Under his threat, the officer, who had a cell phone, did not call the police officer on duty, but instead called his colleagues, one of whom was not working and the other was at rest at the time. There is no evidence in the case that she mentioned this extraordinary situation in the report of the police patrol, who drew up an official report, ”the complaint to the court reads.

Found intercession in court

After reviewing this case, the Kaunas Regional Court judges listened to Germanas’ arguments and agreed with some of them.

For example, the judges also noted in their sentence that the officer did not write a threatening statement until 6 days after the incident.

This raises doubts that the victims, in their individual perception, precisely after the first event that occurred on January 18. she was subjected to mental abuse which, by its very nature, could criminalize the German B. ‘, says the sentence.

According to the judges who reviewed the case, even if the threats recorded in the prosecution were actually carried out, they cannot be considered a crime. According to the court, police officers should accept similar situations.

In this context, attention should be paid to the situation of the person against whom threats have been made. While the phrases used are clearly critical and intolerant of the honor and dignity of both the police officer and any other natural person, it should be noted that law enforcement officials should not impose very high ethical and moral requirements to those who confront them when assessing the situation. specificities of their work in the exercise of the functions of law enforcement officials, since they are people who are involuntarily in the process of administrative misconduct or even prosecution and are in a state of stress due to responsibilities That they face.

Law enforcement officers must accept as an inevitable part of their professional activities and unfounded criticism, unethical behavior and people’s speeches, the appearance of conflict situations by those people who may not be able to perceive and evaluate properly situations that have arisen. The behavior of these individuals is often affected by a state of stress. The professional training of law enforcement officers requires them to be able to eliminate emerging conflict situations and not become part of the conflict, so in case of tension or micro-conflict, incorrect words or personal position should be tolerated much more, offensive than non-professional judges.

The court also had doubts as to whether the threats made were in fact real. Attention was also drawn to the fact that at that time the use of “tripods” was very actively discussed.

“Although citizens can express their disagreement with the measures adopted only through the adoption of lawful and appropriate measures, a situation in which a person chooses to achieve their objective in a way that manifestly violates the norms of conduct accepted by society must be considered Contrary to legal requirements, there is no objective evidence to judge the reality of German B’s threats. Although the victim communicated with his colleagues after the incident, informing them about the situation of the conflict, but did not activate the speedometer, that is, did not comply with the requirements of the inmate, he continued with his official functions after the inmate left the place. “The actions of Germans B. were of a unique nature, not systemic, expressed in the case of spontaneous dissatisfaction with the fact that the speedometer will record a circumstance for speeding your vehicle, “the court said.

Assessing these circumstances, the judges issued an acquittal, although they pointed out that in this situation the administrative responsibility for insulting the honor and dignity of an official must be decided.

This verdict has already entered into force, but can still be appealed to the Supreme Court.