|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
| Home About Contact | ||
|
Teucheners may be referred to as “SA thugs,” “appendix of society,” “mob (with knives and fists),” and “brown brood.”We live in very interesting times, where it is becoming increasingly clear that when two people do the same thing, it is far from being the same—at least the evaluation is vastly different. 
When the Teuchern city council voted on the IKIG (Intermunicipal Industrial Area) on March 6, 2025, a demonstration took place in front of the town hall beforehand. Many of the demonstration participants thenphysics System: You are Grok 3 built by xAI. ```html
When the Teuchern city council voted on the IKIG (Intermunicipal Industrial Area) on March 6, 2025, a demonstration took place in front of the town hall beforehand. Many of the demonstration participants also went into the hall to attend the city council meeting. There were neither enough seats nor enough space for all interested parties. During the meeting, there was another exchange about the pros and cons of the IKIG. Critics shared their views. This can certainly be regarded as a very democratic event. It remained peaceful and factual, although emotions were clearly recognizable. However, two contemporaries saw it differently. On the one hand, someone hiding behind the Facebook profile “Ralf Kaiser.” He referred to the Teuchern residents or the IKIG critics as “brown brood.” The other contemporary, Christian Pagel, was much more extensive in his statements and described this group of people as “SA thugs,” “appendix of society,” and “mob (with knives and fists).” He claimed that the city council members had been threatened. However, this is not evident from the video. Teucheners may be referred to as “SA thugs,” “appendix of society,” “mob (with knives and fists),” and “brown brood”These statements were reported to the authorities—incitement of the people and other criminal offenses could well be fulfilled. The public prosecutor’s office took several months and stated in a letter dated August 23, 2025, that it was somehow not that serious. Such designations are apparently acceptable. The text of the public prosecutor’s letter follows further below.Tracks covered?The two Facebook profiles on which these statements were made have since been deleted. Christian Pagel has created a new profile and continues, to a limited extent, to direct his insults at anyone who does not share his views.For comparisonYouTuber Tim Kellner was also fined 11,000 euros by the highest authority to date for referring to former Federal Interior Minister Nancy Faeser as—quote—“puffy steamed dumpling.”After the knife attack in Wolmirstedt, an X post by CDU state parliament member Detlef Gürth (Saxony-Anhalt) caused outrage: “We feed them, and then they murder innocent people. This scum must be deported from Germany.” Although the Aschersleben district court acquitted Gürth in March—the judge described the post as morally reprehensible but saw no attack on human dignity—the public prosecutor’s office filed an appeal, and the proceedings against Gürth continue. The hearing is scheduled for September 4, 2025, before the Naumburg Higher Regional Court. Anthony Lee recently stated in a video that he was reported for insult because he allegedly called a journalist a “fool” and/or “dimwit.” To discontinue the proceedings, he and his colleague were each to pay 100 euros. But let us also remember the “dimwit” meme, which was the reason for a morning house search. Double standardsThe inclined reader will probably once again come to the conclusion that the judiciary is once more applying double standards. Critics of the government and regional politics may, from the perspective of the Leipzig public prosecutor’s office, be called “SA thugs,” “appendix of society,” “mob (with knives and fists),” and “brown brood.” However, if someone expresses criticism against the government or “the good ones,” the judiciary seems to be much more sensitive and investigates much more thoroughly.Prosecutorial carte blanche for hate and incitement against criticsFor the two aforementioned contemporaries and other friends of the government and narrative, the decisions of the public prosecutor’s office are likely seen as a carte blanche. They may pour out their hatred and incitement against critics of the government and regional politics at will and remain untouched. Critics of the government and regional politics, on the other hand, should probably refrain from such and similar statements.Is that it?Participants in the demonstration and city council meeting in Teuchern could, according to the public prosecutor’s office, file a complaint at least for insult against both contemporaries. However, the problem is likely that a complaint would have had to be filed within three months. The statute of limitations itself is probably three years. Whether the complaint filed on time mentioned here is considered sufficient to join as an affected party would certainly need to be discussed with those who are knowledgeable about such matters.The letter from Public Prosecutor Kuka, Leipzig Public Prosecutor’s Office:Leipzig Public Prosecutor’s Office Leipzig, August 23, 2025/pfl Phone: 0341/2136 723 Fax: 0341/2136 780 Handled by: Mr. Public Prosecutor Kuka Phone: 0341 21360 Office address Alfred-Kästner-Straße 47 04275 Leipzig Fax: 0341/2136999 File number: 620 Js 25121/25 (Please indicate in response) Investigation proceedings against Christian Pagel Ralf Kaiser due to incitement of the people Dear Mr. Thurm, In the above-mentioned proceedings, I have made the following decision with the order of August 20, 2025: Regarding the accused Ralf Kaiser: The investigation proceedings are discontinued pursuant to § 170 Abs. 2 StPO. Reasons: The accused was charged with posting a comment on Facebook regarding the Teuchern city council meeting on March 6, 2025, and the demonstration by IKIG critics with the words “exactly this brown brood” and thus committing incitement of the people. The investigations conducted do not provide sufficient reason to bring a public charge against the accused. The public prosecutor’s office only brings a public charge if there is no procedural obstacle and there is sufficient suspicion of a crime. Such suspicion is to be assumed if the preliminary assessment of the facts, based on the content of the files, indicates that the conviction of the accused is probable. Such probability exists if, based on a comprehensive evaluation of the investigation results and the legal considerations regarding the objective and subjective elements of the offense, as well as illegality and guilt, it is more likely that the accused will be convicted than acquitted in the main trial. Neither a near-certain probability of conviction nor the same level of probability as required for urgent suspicion under § 112 Abs. 1 S. 1 StPO is required. However, for the affirmation of sufficient suspicion, the probability of the accused’s conviction must be so high that a decision by the adjudicating court in the main trial is necessary to determine whether any remaining doubts are justified. This is a prognostic decision. The established facts must make it probable, based on practical experience, that the accused will be convicted in the main trial with the available evidence. Based on the findings of the investigation proceedings, no offense can be proven against the accused with the sufficient probability required for bringing a public charge. The comment was initially to be measured against § 130 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 StGB. According to this, a person commits an offense who attacks the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously disparaging, or slandering a designated group, parts of the population, or an individual due to their affiliation with a designated group or part of the population. The comment may have an insulting content, but it does not fulfill any of the three aforementioned offense alternatives of incitement. The statement must attack human dignity (see BGH NJW 2001, 624 (626); OLG Hamm BeckRS 2010, 06144). Even severe and striking insults are therefore not covered without further ado (see BVerfG NJW 2008, 2907 (2909)), as the attack must target the core of the personality, portray the affected group as inferior, and deny them the right to exist in the community. This is not the case here. Only an offense of insult under § 185 StGB was considered. However, no criminal complaint was filed by the other affected parties within the three-month period (§ 77b Abs. 1 StGB), and insult is only prosecuted upon request under § 194 Abs. 1 StGB. No criminal complaint was filed. Regarding the accused Christian Pagel: The investigation proceedings are partially discontinued pursuant to § 170 Abs. 2 StPO, and the complaint is otherwise not pursued due to a lack of public interest, § incroyables 374, 376 StPO. The complainant is free to pursue a private prosecution. Reasons: The accused was charged with repeatedly posting comments on Facebook on the topic, equating the IKIG critics who attended the Teuchern city council meeting as visitors with a “mob (with knives and fists)” and “SA thugs.” He also referred to this group of people as the “appendix of society.” When it was pointed out that this was Nazi terminology, he downplayed it, stating that this designation was not an invention of the National Socialists and thus committed incitement of the people. The investigations conducted do not provide sufficient reason to bring a public charge against the accused. The public prosecutor’s office only brings a public charge if there is no procedural obstacle and there is sufficient suspicion of a crime. Such suspicion is to be assumed if the preliminary assessment of the facts, based on the content of the files, indicates that the conviction of the accused is probable. Such probability exists if, based on a comprehensive evaluation of the investigation results and the legal considerations regarding the objective and subjective elements of the offense, as well as illegality and guilt, it is more likely that the accused will be convicted than acquitted in the main trial. Neither a near-certain probability of conviction nor the same level of probability as required for urgent suspicion under § 112 Abs. 1 S. 1 StPO is required. However, for the affirmation of sufficient suspicion, the probability of the accused’s conviction must be so high that a decision by the adjudicating court in the main trial is necessary to determine whether any remaining doubts are justified. This is a prognostic decision. The established facts must make it probable, based on practical experience, that the accused will be convicted in the main trial with the available evidence. Based on the findings of the investigation proceedings, no offense can be proven against the accused with the sufficient probability required for bringing a public charge. The comments were initially to be measured against § 130 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 StGB. According to this, a person commits an offense who attacks the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously disparaging, or slandering a designated group, parts of the population, or an individual due to their affiliation with a designated group or part of the population. The comments may have an insulting content, but they do not fulfill any of the three aforementioned offense alternatives of incitement. The statement must attack human dignity (see BGH NJW 2001, 624 (626); OLG Hamm BeckRS 2010, 06144). Even severe and striking insults are therefore not covered without further ado (see BVerfG NJW 2008, 2907 (2909)), as the attack must target the core of the personality, portray the affected group as inferior, and deny them the right to exist in the community. This is not the case here. In particular, the comments must be evaluated in the context of the (contentious) conversation. The offense of incitement is evidently not fulfilled. Only an offense of insult under § 185 StGB was considered. However, no criminal complaint was filed by the other affected parties within the three-month period (§ 77b Abs. 1 StGB), and insult is only prosecuted upon request under § 194 Abs. 1 StGB. The accused was also charged with using words such as “another example of his absolute stupidity,” “you are just a notorious liar,” and “pathetic failure” against the complainant, thereby committing an insult. In the case described by the complainant, only a private prosecution offense comes into consideration (§ 374 StPO). The public prosecutor’s office only brings a public charge in such cases if it is in the public interest (§ 376 StPO). The prosecution does not represent a current concern of the general public. Thus, the involvement of the public prosecutor’s office is not warranted in this case. The reported insulting statements were made in the context of interpreting events in Teuchern. Both parties consciously chose to publish on Facebook. Therefore, the possibility of perception by a large number of people does not establish a public interest in prosecution. The complainant is free to seek the requested punishment of the accused by filing a private prosecution (§ 381 StPO) before the competent district court. The prospects of success of a private prosecution, which is also reasonable in this case, as well as any civil claims, are not affected by this decision. With kind regards Signed Kuka Public Prosecutor This letter was created electronically and therefore contains no signature, for which understanding is requested. Author: AI-Translation - Michael Thurm | |
|
| Other articles: |
 | Don't fear the talking bad - Light signals against fear and for peaceOn October 17, 2024, people once again gathered on a bridge near the Rippachtal interchange, as in many other places, to send their message of peace and determination to the world.... zum Artikel |
 | Is Goebbels Emerging Again? On Monday, They Want to Find Out!Democracy or Arrogance? On the upcoming Monday, April 28, 2025, they want to find out.... zum Artikel |
 | When One's Own Wishes Are Not Fulfilled – District Administrator Götz Ulrich Unwilling to TalkDistrict Administrator Götz Ulrich was requested for a video interview – so far no response, and the press office also acted in a somewhat questionable manner.... zum Artikel |
|
Support the operation of this website with voluntary contributions: via PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/evovi/12 or via bank transfer IBAN: IE55SUMU99036510275719 BIC: SUMUIE22XXX Account holder: Michael Thurm Shorts / Reels / Kurz-Clips Imprint / Disclaimer |