[ad_1]
The Minsk Soviet District Court sentenced journalist Dmitri Galko. He was convicted under Article 364 of the Penal Code "Violence or threat of violence against an employee of the police" and sentenced to four years in prison. an open correctional facility.
– To sentence the perpetrator of the crime provided for in Article 364 of the Penal Code and apply the sentence in the form of restriction of liberty with referral to an open institution for a period of 4 years, the judge read out the verdict. for Galco three years of imprisonment.
The story began last year at the end of November, when the minor son of Dmitry Ian celebrated his birthday, where his father was also present. When two militiamen called the apartment, according to investigators, Galko opened the door in a state of intoxication and, knowing that the police were in front of him, did not obey his staff, he used violence, in particular "to avenge the official acts of the militia". He swore with his mate, explaining why teens and alcohol in the house categorically refused.
According to the prosecution, Galko inflicted at least one hit on the hand of a police officer, at least two blows to the head. When he was detained, he began to resist, broke the jacket of one of the police officers, the second was broken by a cell phone. During the holidays, the miners had alcohol. And then the riot police arrested the participants. One of the teenagers, running away, jumped off the balcony and broke his leg.
Galko himself said that he was simply taking the hands of the policeman, there was no fighting.
Galko and his son traveled to Ukraine to Mariupol, where his wife lives. In April, Galko decided to return to Belarus and was detained on the Ukrainian-Belarussian border.
Dmitri Galko did not acknowledge his guilt. At a court hearing, he allegedly admitted to having accidentally broken the police officer's phone while he was attempting to escort him out of the apartment because he was "entering illegally" .
In court, wounded militiamen – Yuri Chirkov and Vadim Kazanovsky – recounted their versions of what happened. Chirkov, said that during patrols on November 25, 2017, he noticed 8-year-old children on one of the balconies, who dripped, smoked and swore to the carpet. Chirkov returned to the department, called the inspector for the juvenile affairs, Casanowski. He came, together they went to check at the place of residence.
Dmitry Galko said that he was not drinking himself, and as evidence brought the fact that in his administrative case, As for the balcony, large, for two apartments, glazed, to no clear or indistinct speech is forthcoming … I am not at all sure that the purpose of Chirkov's visit to the apartment was somehow related to what he saw or did not see on the balcony. According to the police, I missed them in the drum, and then stood in the door of the apartment. If I had been set up for some kind of conflict, I would organize it in a drum, and not in an apartment. In Kazanovsky and Shirkov, the testimony does not converge: the first is when I do something with Shirkov, the second is distracted by something at the same time, "said Galko.
Galko n & # He did not recognize the guilt and did not agree with the motive attributed to him (allegedly he attacked the police in order to take revenge on them): they say, "I do not have never seen them before, what revenge? "He only admitted that he could unintentionally break the police officer's phone when he was trying to escort him out of the apartment because he was" coming in ". illegally. "
The accused's lawyer Natalya Matskevich pay attention to the fact that the pebbles did not give their consent to the militia entering into the apartment.
"Article 364 of the Penal Code is a special composition for the subject t. In other words, it provides for the responsibility of actions against the police. In other words, the criminal law gives special protection to employees of law enforcement agencies, special protection. Actions which, when they are committed against ordinary citizens, would entail only an administrative responsibility, incur the criminal responsibility of the police. However, this is not an absolute privilege of the police, and this article only applies if the actions are intended to hinder the lawful activity of the police. That is, at the time of the violence, the activities of the police should be legal. Otherwise, the law refers to police officers as ordinary citizens. Thus, the said circumstances, in the opinion of the defense, more than sufficiently indicate that the actions of the victims to enter the premises of housing, find there, restrict the rights of citizens who are living there. find, and produce video footage of Chirkov are illegal. A different badessment of these actions would create an illegal practice, such that any police action is presumed permissible, including an arbitrary intrusion into the citizens' home. I believe that such a practice should not be created and it is dangerous, "said Matskevich, the lawyer .
[ad_2]
Source link
