Technology

hideshow 24 child comments

[–] Duke_Nukem_1990@feddit.de 102 points 3 years ago

Bavaria doesn't even pretend to care anymore.

parent

[–] hoshikarakitaridia@sh.itjust.works 92 points 3 years ago (1 child)

Kind of. Iirc it's a very controversial practice and whenever the police pulls it out in a public case it gets protested again (for good reason). Also, even if the practice is legal right now, there's a lot of limitations to it. Obviously it's nudging the ethical boundaries of police work either way.

parent

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 33 points 3 years ago

Maybe they should arrest everyone that might protest against this before they arrest the other people that might protest against climate change. But then people might protest against that too. I guess everyone is under arrest! You're all under arrest. Get in the hole!

parent

[–] stergro@feddit.de 51 points 3 years ago* (2 children)

Oly in Bavaria. In every other German State this can only be done for a few days max in extreme situations.

parent

[–] theKalash@feddit.ch 20 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

Actually, Bavaria has a 2 month limit. Schleswig-Holstein is the one with no limit.

parent

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 3 years ago

Makes sense, they border denmark after all

parent

[–] alvvayson@lemmy.world 31 points 3 years ago (14 children)

I can't read German, but we have a similar legal system in the Netherlands.

Most likely, these people committed some crime during a previous protest, such as illegally entering private property or vandalism. Often they will get sentences that are conditional.

If there is evidence to believe they are conspiring to commit a similar illegal act, then the conditional part of the sentence gets triggered.

hideshow 14 child comments

parent

[–] squaresinger@feddit.de 56 points 3 years ago (13 children)

Nope, it's actually only that the police has reason to believe that they might commit a crime.

No need for them to be prior offenders or anything. The police can arrest anyone at any time if they believe you might commit a crime. And even comparatively minor things like blocking traffic counts.

hideshow 13 child comments

parent

[–] Admetus@sopuli.xyz 23 points 3 years ago (2 children)

Feels like a half assed Minority Report plotline.

parent

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 10 points 3 years ago (1 child)

"Okay, so what cool plot idea do we use to determine who might commit crimes?"

"IDK, just anyone maybe? People who use the internet?"

parent

[–] HerbalGamer@lemm.ee 11 points 3 years ago

Same way I look for weed in illegal countries; find hippies and dreadlocks.

parent

[+] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 6 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

[deleted]

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 18 points 3 years ago (1 child)

It doesn't sound like it. Conspiracy means there's documented evidence of a plan and motive to commit a crime. This doesn't seem like it meets that standard.

parent

[+] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 2 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

[deleted]

parent

[–] squaresinger@feddit.de 5 points 3 years ago

The difference in regards to a conspiracy charge is that you don't need a conspiracy behind it.

In Germany, there are actually 18 different laws regarding this, since that part of the law is federated. So each state of Germany (plus the federal police and the federal criminal police) has it's own law regarding under what circumstances they are allowed to arrest someone before they committed a crime and for how long.

Originally, these laws had two purposes:

Stop someone from committing a serious crime
Stop someone from doing harm to themselves

And as such, these laws used to have tight limits on when they can apply and for how long people are allowed to be arrested.

A case could be made for these laws. E.g. if someone announces online that they are going to shoot kids at a school, it would be totally justified to quickly bag that guy before he kills children. Waiting for a court order might not be fast enough to save the would-be victims.

But then they started to expand the reasons why someone can be arrested and for how long.

In Bavaria, for example, it's enough that someone carries items that can be used for criminal purposes. And there they can jail people for up to two months without a charge.

There have been cases where someone was put in jail for two months for carrying items like crowbars or ropes in their backpacks.

parent

[–] theKalash@feddit.ch -4 points 3 years ago* (5 children)

Well they did identify themselves as members of a group that publicly announced it would continue to commit crimes.

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] squaresinger@feddit.de 3 points 3 years ago (4 children)

Well, no. Blocking traffic is no crime. It's just a misdemeanor (Verwaltungsübertretung).

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] theKalash@feddit.ch 4 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

It's really something for the lawyers but it could be considered "Nötigung" (§ 181 StGB) and/or "Gefährlicher Eingriff in den Straßenverkehr" (§ 315b StGB).

Pretty sure if it's in the StGB it's a "crime" (Straftat).

parent

[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (2 children)

In English, at least for the US, there are typically only misdemeanors and felonies, and both are crimes. There are also violations, but those are usually civil, not criminal (parking tickets, for example).

parent

[–] squaresinger@feddit.de 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

Sorry, mistranslation. I meant violations. Over here we only split into violations and crimes.

Violations cover most things done with a car/in traffic without actively harming someone.

parent

[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago

Yeah, in English (in the US, generally) we'd call that a civil violation. Or a civil action where a lawsuit is brought by a private citizen, like suing someone for damaging your property. It's against the law, but probably not going to be prosecuted by the government.

parent

[–] dojan@lemmy.world 26 points 3 years ago (2 children)

There is a law that lets the police take people into custody to prevent terror attacks, but that’s not the case here.

Complaints have been lodged before, but hitherto dismissed. And final clarity on the legality of the procedure is still pending.

It helps to read the article.

parent

[–] GenEcon@lemm.ee 27 points 3 years ago (1 child)

but that's not the case here

But this is in fact how the police argues. Climate protests are terror attacks (since they disrupt traffic) and therefore this is justified.

Pretty sure the Bundesverfassungsgericht (basically our supreme court) will shut this practice down – just like all the other times Bavarian laws have been ruled unconstitutional – but Bavaria doesn't care. They scrap the law and replace it with a similar unconstitutional version and wait 2 years until the Bundesverfassungsgericht rules it unconstitutional and so on.

parent

[–] Haui@discuss.tchncs.de 16 points 3 years ago

It’s basically our texas or florida, depending on your pov. It’s a place with great nature, interesting culture but also very crude beliefs and you either like the culture or you dont. Most importantly, police is said to be a pot rougher over there and politics is pretty conservative as well.