Police violence | Acquittal despite unlawful shooting

Flashback: On the night of August 10, 2024, two police officers were called to a Düsseldorf park. Witnesses had reported a confused man, feeling threatened by him. This led to a later, fatal mix-up: The police were informed of a "butterfly knife" the man was carrying – in reality, it was a set of keys. However, because of this report, the police assumed a "knife situation" even before arriving at the scene and acted accordingly. When the now-charged officer encountered the 32-year-old, who was already known to the police to be mentally impaired, the situation escalated immediately as he pointed his service weapon. "Lie down or I'll use the remote stun gun!" he shouted at the visibly confused man. But the man didn't follow his instructions, waving his arms around and reaching into his pocket. The officer holstered his pistol and fired his Taser. The electric shock had little effect, and the attempt to restrain the 32-year-old failed. In a struggle, the homeless man allegedly stole the police officer's taser. During the evidence gathering, there were discrepancies between the witness statements and the allegations of the accused officer. The officer then drew his pistol and fired three shots. The third shot hit the fleeing man in the back. The 32-year-old sustained life-threatening injuries and presumably survived only through emergency surgery. Due to his mental state, his testimony was deemed inadmissible by the court, and he was not granted a private prosecution.

After the evidence was presented, it was beyond question that the use of firearms was unjustified. Presiding Judge Rainer Drees emphasized unequivocally during the hearing: "Objectively, there was no case of self-defense," and "the man's movement away" blatantly contradicted this. The result seems all the more astonishing: acquittal. The court was clearly unwilling or unable to hold the shooter criminally responsible. The officer was under enormous stress and made a fatal misjudgment in a split second. "We had days to assess everything here. The officer had only a few seconds," the judge emphasized.

The defendant had "misconceived the facts," and there could and should be "no question" of a "trigger-happy police officer." Therefore, the offense of dangerous bodily harm in office ultimately went unpunished; the officer had fired in a "momentary lapse of judgment." The judge's consideration, which ultimately led to the acquittal, was that the state must stand up for its officers. In this "special decision-making situation," the chamber found that sensitivity was necessary. Criminal consequences could be avoided because the police officer had not acted "arbitrarily or abusively." For Michèle Winkler of the Committee for Fundamental Rights and Democracy, who followed the trial critically, the verdict demonstrates the "creative hours" courts experience in such constellations: "In order to exonerate defendants of police violence and, if possible, to justify any (potentially) fatal shot—even if it is in the back—outlandish and completely incomprehensible legal constructions are employed."

After the verdict, prosecutor Alexander Ofiarkiewicz stated that an appeal would be considered, as the acquittal and its reasoning did not reflect his legal opinion.