After the recent incidents in Duchcov (see http://www.romea.cz/en/news/czech/czech-police-only-one-romani-person-involved-in-new-incident-in-duchcov) discussion of a supposed "double standard" in the Czech legal system has once again taken off on social networking sites. For now, only verbal attacks are being made in general against all the members of a particular minority in this society, one that allegedly does not obey the laws and abuses the welfare system (those attacks, however, could soon become physical as well).
People are calling for reprisals and provoking one another. As usual, the neo-Nazis are adding fuel to the fire by organizing marches.
Lies, rumors and tripe
Various lies, rumors and tripe are turning up online in this context. Let’s try to correct them here.
Why bother? Because both racist demonstrations and anti-Romani marches have a high potential for motivating people to take violent action. In the past, such gatherings have indirectly set off various violent assaults aimed not at alleged rowdies or perpetrators of any other crimes, but at randomly selected people, including young children.
Today, for example, two crime cases are being compared online with respect to their first-instance verdicts: In the first case, a non-Romani crossbow shooter from Chotěbuz was sentenced last month to 10 years in prison for committing grievous bodily harm resulting in the death of a Romani man in a public road who was collecting scrap metal. In the second case, a Romani youth was sentenced in January to two years in prison for his role in the death of a non-Romani bar customer in front of a pub in the town of Strakonice.
According to some, these verdicts prove that "white" Czechs are being discriminated against in court. Let’s look at both cases in more detail.
A flier about these cases is currently making the rounds online which has been written at about the mental level of an eight-year-old. The authors of the flier not only do not know the law, they are inciting hatred for Romani people by comparing two cases that cannot be compared. By publishing this flier, the authors have also committed slander, because they are labelling the scrap metal collector who died in the Chotěbuz case a thief, even though neither the police investigation nor the trial ever proved those charges (see http://www.romea.cz/en/news/czech/czech-media-misreport-that-victim-of-crossbow-shooting-was-allegedly-a-thief).
Chotěbuz
One year ago, rail mechanic Jaromír Šebesta (then aged 39) saw a group of three Romani men in broad daylight in front of the windows of a storage building he had been spending the night in. The men were moving around on his plot of land, which had no signage up indicating it was private property.
Fearing these Romani men (who were not "thieves", as the defendant himself later admitted before the court), he took up his crossbow, fitted an arrow to it, pulled back the bow, released the safety catch, went outside, and aimed at them. When they started running away, he ran out onto the road and shot Martin Hospodi as he was stepping into a car on the public street.
Both before the shooting and during it, Hospodi had nothing in his hands, made no threats, and committed no attack. Despite that, he died a violent death.
Strakonice
In Strakonice, toward the end of September 2012, a group of young Romani people walked into a pub and asked to buy some loose cigarettes. Milan Šlemenda (age 29) was sitting at the bar and cursed at them, calling them fools.
The barman told the Romani youths to ignore Šlemenda, because he was drunk, and they left the pub. Šlemenda left his beer unfinished, ran outside after them, and tried to provoke a conflict.
Ivan Demeter, age 19, punched Šlemenda once. He fell to the ground.
The youths continued on home under the impression that nothing serious had happened. Demeter did not call an ambulance or provide first aid.
When Šlemenda never returned to the pub, the pub owner went outside, found him, and called for medical help. Šlemenda died several days later in hospital as a result of injuries sustained during his fall.
What the courts have ruled
How have the courts ruled on these cases? Neither suspect is in custody. For the time being, only a first-instance verdict has been handed down in both cases. In the Chotěbuz case, the sentence issued was toward the lower end of what was possible, while in the Strakonice case, the sentence issued was toward the upper end of what the law allows (naturally, the sentencing limits refer to two different kinds of offenses).
Both of the convicted men remain at large. For the time being it is not known whether the verdicts will be appealed.
The shooter from Chotěbuz said his actions were taken in necessary self-defense, but self-defense is unnecessary when no attack is underway. Instead of calling the police, the shooter took "justice" into his own hands and used his weapon, even though he had to have known that it could kill a man.
The shot taken was not a warning shot, but was aimed at a person. According to the judge, the perpetrator did not intend to murder his target, just to cause him serious injury in order to revenge himself for previous thefts which the victim had nothing to do with.
The judge therefore agreed with the state prosecutor that the crime committed was that of grievous bodily harm resulting in death. The sentencing range that currently applies to that crime is between eight and 16 years in prison.
In the Strakonice case, the state prosecutor also propose charging the suspect with grievous bodily harm resulting in death. The judge, however, was of a different opinion and qualified the crime as one of negligent homicide, a definition regularly used to cover traffic accidents where the driver doesn’t pay attention to the situation and unintentionally causes a fatal accident.
According to the court, the defendant, who was as drunk as his victim, could not have known that a medium-strength punch to the face might cause death. The incident was an ordinary pub argument, dozens of which take place all over the country every weekend.
Unfortunately, in this case the conflict ended in death. The section of the law that covers this crime authorizes a sentencing range of up to three years in prison.
What is the main difference between these cases?
The main difference between these cases is that, according to the court, the crossbow shooter did not commit his crime because he was disturbed or impassioned. He calmly prepared to shoot and then did so when practically nothing was at stake, neither his health nor his property.
Šlemenda’s death was caused by his fall, not directly by the punch he received, while Hospodi’s death was caused by the shot that was fired. According to the judge, the accused crossbow shooter, Šebesta, never expressed regret for his actions. Demeter did.
Comparing two cases which cannot be compared and drawing racist conclusions from them could cause even more deaths. Every internet user now calling for violence should remember this.
The current hysteria in Czech society and the wave of racist curses on social networking sites could lead yet another person to take "justice" into his own hands and attack someone who has nothing to do with such cases. These attacks can cause fatalities.
Dangerous flounderings
The best recent example of this is the arson attack that was committed in the town of Vítkov in 2009, where some young guys chose to target a particular family solely because they considered its members to be their racial enemies even though they did not know them and had never had any problems with them. They were inspired to action by what they read online and heard at marches.
In a state where the rule of law applies, only the court decides who is and who is not a perpetrator of which crimes. In both of the cases described above, the verdicts have not yet taken effect. All objections being made to them by people who are ignorant of the law are just cheap, but highly dangerous, flounderings.
