So let's sum it up. The policeman who killed a motorcyclist with his stupid turn à la Cobra 11 was given a three-year suspended sentence, fired and banned from driving for the same period. Does this seem like an adequate punishment for even unintentionally killing a person ? So not me. Especially when the court's reasoning states that the motorcyclist could not have foreseen such a reaction of the police car, and therefore would not have had time to react, regardless of whether he was driving at a reasonable or unreasonable speed. That's the opinion of the court. It is obvious that the Police of the Czech Republic tried everything possible to prove that the motorcycle driver was driving at an unreasonable speed, but the police did not manage to prove that either.
For my taste, the judgment of the court contrasts too much with the case of Lacina , when a person, although acting in an affective and inadequate manner, ended up in prison for 5 years. Please, despite the fact that he didn't kill anyone. Of course, I don't mean that his behavior is understandable or in any way excusable. It is not and was not. Nevertheless, the case of the mentioned policeman creates the impression that something is rotten in the Danish state . How else could we explain the fact that none of the police officers was punished for the completely inadequate procedure in the case of an eighteen-year-old boy who stole his father's car?
The police created a kind of buffer zone from the unsuspecting families on the highway and hoped to stop the outlaw – note. ed. Not to mention the completely botched intervention in Uherské Brod , when the police were equipped and trained for everything. But that's a different story. No, no one was punished, let alone convicted, for these epoch-making blunders. Perhaps because GIBS found the actions of the police officers involved to be justified. Scandalous, yet possible.
In the interwar period and even under rigid totalitarianism, it was quite common for a member of the security forces to receive a more severe punishment than a civilian if he committed something similar. Perhaps because, in a certain sense, he was supposed to set an example for society. Especially in the times of the 1st Republic, it was not possible for just anyone to join the police or gendarmerie. Yes, the state valued its security forces , it was a different time, the job was prestigious and relatively well paid for that time. But that is not the point in the final accounting, or rather, we may not be interested in that at all.
The state is here to at least try to manage tax collections as efficiently as possible and, in other words, it should ensure that idiots do not report to the police because they are attracted to work for the police by a sense of power, instead of being there for the citizen who they pay for it. Why do I think that, for example, in Britain, similar excesses would not happen? Because the vast majority of police officers understand that they are there for the citizen, not against him. If something like this really happened, it is clear that in the civilized world, west of our borders, such people would be hunted down and held accountable . In short, it is clear to the police that it is not a state within a state. Unfortunately, we cannot be sure of that. Neither with the police nor with other institutions.
