By Karin Hendrich
An off-duty police officer was also involved in a scuffle after a Union game in which an Afghan was injured. He was fined for assault but appealed.
It’s been almost six years. And the case is still occupying the Berlin judiciary: After Union’s second division defeat against Aue (0:1), football fans at Karlshorst S-Bahn station had a physical argument with the Afghan asylum seeker Asif B.* (26). At the time, he was working in a kindergarten as part of the Federal Volunteer Service.
The heavily intoxicated police officer Stefan K. (42, then off duty) is also said to have “mixed in”. The judgments of the district court for joint dangerous bodily harm in May 2022: Six months probation for painter Philipp G. (29), 7200 euros for bricklayer Dennis Y. (27). And 9600 euros fine for the police officer plus 800 euros compensation to the victim. Among other things, he suffered a broken nose and psychological damage.
Court upholds verdict
While the other two judgments became final, Stefan K. appealed. However, he missed his goal (acquittal) on Tuesday.
Because the district court confirmed the first instance judgment (120 daily rates of 80 euros plus 800 euros for pain and suffering). After hearing not only the two co-defendants at the time, but also all the witnesses. Just not one: the injured party, now back in Kabul. Although a joint prosecutor, a visa for the trial was refused. The court merely read what he said at the time.
The judge and her two lay judges came to the conclusion: After the two co-defendants had verbally attacked and racially insulted the victim, the accused also interfered in the station hall. When the injured person was lying on the ground in front of the hall, “all three hit him”. The accused said to the police colleagues who finally arrived: “No German interests are affected here.” This shows “his xenophobic attitude”.
Among other things, the court assessed his then massive alcohol influence (2.85 per thousand) and the long duration of the proceedings as mitigating. Why 20 daily rates should be considered enforced. On the other hand, the “racist act” increases the punishment. One must expect “lawful behavior” from a police officer in particular. However, it is not the decision of the court whether he can remain in service.
Conclusion of the judge: “We would have imposed a higher penalty. What we are not allowed to do here because of the ban on deterioration in the appeal.” The official still has the revision.
*Name changed