The accused is sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of two police officers near Kusel at the end of January. The district court of Kaiserslautern also determined the particular gravity of the guilt.
The accused was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of two police officers near Kusel (Rhineland-Palatinate) at the end of January. The district court of Kaiserslautern also determined the particular gravity of the guilt. A release of the 39-year-old after 15 years in prison is therefore ruled out.
A 24-year-old police officer and a 5-year-old police commissioner were shot in the head during the night-time crime on a remote county road in the western Palatinate. The bloody deed during a vehicle inspection had caused horror across the country.
The public prosecutor assumes that the main defendant wanted to cover up poaching with the crime. At the time of the crime, 22 freshly shot deer are said to have been lying in the van.
The district court found a co-defendant guilty of complicity in commercial poaching. However, it refrained from punishment because the 33-year-old had already testified extensively before the trial began. He was said to have contributed to the investigation of the crime. The man is said to have helped remove the traces, but did not shoot.
The two men were arrested shortly after the crime in neighboring Saarland. The main defendant testified in the trial that the police patrol surprised the two men. “Suddenly” his accomplice at the time first shot the policewoman with a shotgun and then shot the policeman. The policeman then started shooting: The 39-year-old therefore killed the 29-year-old with three shots from a hunting rifle in a kind of self-defense situation. However, the court did not follow this version. The police commissioner fired 15 shots from the service weapon, but did not hit the shooter on the rainy January night.
With the verdict, the court followed the request of the public prosecutor. The prosecution had said that there were several characteristics of murder in the act and that the act had “executive character” – so the guilt was particularly serious. The defense had pleaded for “a fair verdict” without making any specific demands. From her point of view, the act was “not murder, maximum bodily harm resulting in death”. The verdict is not yet legally binding.