The following story isn’t about Islam, or jihad, or immigration, or cultural enrichment. Except for the fact that we all know what would have happened if the defendant in this case had been, say, Syrian. Then the two main concerns would have been:
|(1)||Why were his social benefits so paltry that he was reduced to scrounging food in the trash?|
|(2)||Was the garbage in the dumpster halal?
Many thanks to Nash Montana for these two translations. First, from POLITIKSTUBE, a short commentary:
Upper Bavaria: Poor pensioner looks for food in trash can — fined €200.
While sexual molesters and drug dealers and asylum optimizers — after committing their fifth offense — leave the courthouse with a triumphant grin on their faces, in short: the gifted people never experience anything near a serious application of the law, while the justice system bears down with its full weight on our indigenous people, applying rules and the law. After the case of the Bonn prosecutor who relentlessly and without the slightest sense of mercy pursued a poor old bottle-collecting woman because of a “Anatevka” ticket she found in the trash [for the play “Fiddler on the Roof Anatevka”] — not accepting the not-guilty verdict of the judge even — now we learn of a new case of a poor pensioner from Upper Bavaria who was looking for food in a local trash container. The incident happened in December of 2015 — now the 78-year-old, living on a pension income of €300 per month, was sentenced on last Monday. The verdict: €200.
It was the pensioner’s misfortune that a passing woman observed him in the act and notified the police. The “brave” manager of the Discount store where the trash container was located then filed a complaint for theft and trespassing. Is this what we call citizen involvement, to combat impoverished native people?
And here is the original article from OVB Online:
Looking for food in the trash container
Because a pensioner was looking for food in trash containers behind a Discount grocery store in Neumarkt-St. Veit, he had to be judged in front of the Mühldorf court for trespassing: The verdict: €200.
Some background: On December 20th 2015, a Sunday, the accused was looking around in trash containers on the property of a Discount grocery store — apparently to find something to eat. A woman who passed by saw him and immediately called the police, whereupon the manager of the store then filed a report with the police for trespassing and theft.
In June of 2016 the man appeared in court, but the trial was postponed because his defense lawyer wanted a psychological evaluation to be performed on her client. And this psychological evaluation was available to the court in December: The evaluator observed signs of the beginnings of dementia in the defendant, but he did not conclude there was a significant loss of his cognitive abilities.
Actually we are dealing with just a bagatelle here! Says the prosecutor’s office
A diminished legal culpability may not be ruled out, said Judge Florian Greifenstein in his judgment, but in his eyes the defendant knew very well that he was not allowed to step on the property. “Actually we are dealing with just a bagatelle here,’ said even the prosecutor in his final speech. But the multiple previous convictions — the federal crime register shows twenty previous entries for the man — spelled doom for the defendant.
Since his divorce her client was unable to get back on his feet, his defense attorney Petra Braunstein explained. “It was a downward spiral that just kept going on.”
Just about €300 per month is left over for the 78-year-old man to live on. “My client is not able to pay. Any monetary fine is impossible to pay; the consequences outweigh the accusation,” the attorney explained. She had hoped until the very last minute for an acquittal, and had therefore entered a not guilty plea. In her opinion the case for trespassing was not even realistic because the property was easily accessible.
But Judge Florian Greifenstein disagreed: “Shrubs and bushes surround the property, and furthermore there is a fence.”
He instead complied with the request of the prosecuting attorney and sentenced the defendant to a mild monetary fine — twenty daily payments of €10.
The verdict did not seem to have much of an affect on the defendant. He seemed listless as he followed the one-hour long trial — he said: “I can’t hear anything, anyway. My hearing aid is at home.”