G8 2003 Cops to Go Free?

international | summit mobilisations | news report

Thursday February 16, 2006 19:08

by Aubonne Support Group

http://www.aubonnebridge.net

The prosecutor (lawyer of state) is demanding that the two policemen be acquitted. He is clearly trying to turn the situation upside down and make the accused (aggressors) into the victims of the police intervention...

The verdict will be announces Friday, 17th of February at 11.45 am. We call for everyone to come to the court for the verdict.

A more detailed briefing & best quotes of today, Wesdnesday can be read below.

Before that you can have a look at this Report of the Swiss television where Martin is making a point (click at video streaming)

Day 3: Wednesday, 15th

Supporters of Gesine Wenzel and Martin Shaw were refused entry to the court building this morning despite the near freezing temperatures and were told to ‘fuck of’ in the process by police. The first witness in the case- a police officer thanked Poget for his work during the G8 summit – these two events set the tone for the day…

The second witness Mrs. Poget testified for her husband declaring that he was a ‘gendarme (policeman) to the bottom of his heart, a very committed man and a perfectionist who would never disobey an order and a man who has much heart’.
In his summing up the lawyer for Martin and Gesine, Mr. Garbade, stressed the many errors of the two police officers. He recalled the fact that despite some of the denials of the police during their testimonies the video had repeatedly shown the reality of the police actions. And whilst immediate psychological help was set up for Deiss (the officer that cut the rope) the Swiss state had offered nothing to Gesine and Martin or others who were on the bridge and witnessed the event.

He added that Deiss and his superior Poget had failed to assume their responsibilities for the security of the motorway and reacted in an aggressive and highly dangerous fashion on the bridge.

The lawyerGarbade also pointed out the refusal to take the case by the Swiss state and the examining magistrate, who refused to hear demonstrators as legitimate witnesses. Additionally Garbade pointed to the spontaneous reactions of the police on the scene which saw a situation that was under control descend in to chaos upon the arrival of Poget and Deiss, including the disobeying of orders (their only orders were to assess the situation). The testimony of officer K (who testified on the second day of the trial) showed that it was entirely possible to communicate with protestors on the bridge. The criminal charge of negligence seems completely relevant for an officer who required more than 12 minutes calling an ambulance (we are not even sure that it is him that telephoned!).

The prosecution in his summing up dropped the arguments against the police officer preferring to focus his efforts in discrediting the protestors. He began his speech by arguing that there was no such thing as impunity for officers stating that police officers were treated the same as the public. He added that the events of the G8 protests that morning meant that the police were incredibly stressed when they arrived on the bridge and this affected their actions. The ‘prosecution’ supported Deiss by saying that a large banner which Deiss ripped up such as “Stop, if you do not you will kill two people’ was incomprehensible due to the stress of the situation.

Best quotes of Wednesday, 15th

«Mr. Poget has a particular rapport with the highway, (…). How could they touch my highway ? … Poget is born on the highway that Obelix fell into the magic potion »
Podget’s lawyer

« (…) We were told that he (Poget) could have thought … Do you think than in such a situation you are able to think ? »
Poget’s lawyer

« I feel closer to the ideas of anti-globalisation than the ideas of the American President Bush »
Deiss’ lawyer

« When there’s no chief there is always a certain tendency to anarchy »
Poget’s lawyer

« Claude, we all would have done the same as you did »
Poget’s lawyer is quoting the policemen (high-ranking or not) who were in the court, witnesses or not.

« Justice does not support people who are building their chalet in the passage of an avalanche»
Poget’s lawyer, quoting one of his collegues

« Mr Poget will soon retire (…) he must be bleached by the court »
Poget’s lawyer

much more here:
more pics on German IMC...

...jfk

save preference

Comments (3 of 3)

more info

by info

Thu Feb 16, 2006 20:00

here
http://indymedia.ie/article/74232
and here
http://www.aubonnebridge.net
and here's Martin on swiss TV
http://www.tsr.ch/tsr/index.html?siteSect=600001&sid=64...57000

the court has acquitted both policemen.

by -

Fri Feb 17, 2006 18:19

from swissinfo:-
Judges on Friday said the defendants could not be blamed for causing bodily harm through negligence to a British demonstrator after policemen intervened to end the blockage of a motorway bridge near the city of Lausanne.

The court found that the officers made a mistake when they cut a rope that was stretching across the road – and to which the two protestors were attached and dangling from the bridge.

But judges ruled it was not a punishable offence and merely the result of a series of unfortunate misunderstandings. The two protesters, who were part of a group of anti G8 activists, were trying to stop delegates from reaching a summit of the world's most industrialised countries and Russia in nearby Evian in June, 2003. When police cut the rope, apparently because of a lack of communication between the two officers, one demonstrator fell 25 metres and was badly injured. The other protester, a woman from Germany, was unhurt because other activists stopped her from falling. In a first reaction, the protestors' lawyer criticised Friday's ruling as "a stab in the back of the victims".During the five-day trial, he had argued that the police interference amounted to more than negligence. He also demanded financial compensation. The prosecution had dropped all charges against the policemen. It said the risky nature of the demonstration had outweighed the outcome of the police interference. The defence lawyers had demanded an acquittal. In 2004 a court found the demonstrators guilty of obstructing traffic, while an investigation into the two police officers was dismissed through lack of evidence.

http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=10...29000

cops go free - campaign to appeal

Fri Feb 17, 2006 18:20

Direct reaction of Martin and Gesine announced after we had left altogether the "hall of justice" in the middle of the verdict being read out:

“What we have seen here during the last three days is exactly the reason why we and thousands of other people like us all over the world think that direct action is the best way to overcome injustice.
The entire judicial procedure from the time the rope was cut has been clear whitewash. The prosecution is supposed to defend the law but what they actually defend is the state – and its officers. This court case has been an elaborate, expensive and time-consuming piece of theatre to provide a platform to find excuses for inexcusable actions and to misguide the public by pretending to provide justice.
This verdict is a pure cover up of police brutality by the justice system and is just further proof of the almost complete police impunity in Switzerland.”

http://www.aubonnebridge.net/
previous post

http://indymedia.ie/article/74232

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Human Rights in Ireland

Lockdown Skeptics

G8 2003 Cops to Go Free?

Comments (3 of 3)