The prosecutor proposes that the 35-year-old police officer of the DIAS group, shot and killed by 16-year-old Roma, be referred to a trial before a Joint Jury for murder with intent in a calm state of mind, but also for illegal neutralization shots. during a police chase, last year in December, in western Thessaloniki.

In his proposal to the Criminal Court of Thessaloniki, which will decide on the impeachment of the accused police officer, the public prosecutor describes in detail the history of the chase, which began when the police were informed that the 16-year-old victim left with the I.X. his father’s van from a gas station, without paying the amount of 20 euros for the fuel he had put in.

As described in the prosecution proposal, the accused police officer fired with his service weapon twice from a distance of 10-15 meters: one of the bullets hit the car from the rear, penetrated the windshield, hitting the back of the head of the 16-year-old who lost consciousness and control of the car, as a result of which it successively hit the steps of an adjacent hotel and an external wall, where it stopped. The minor victim succumbed to his injuries after being hospitalized for eight days, while the toxicological tests conducted revealed that he had used narcotic pills, as pointed out in the prosecutor’s proposal.

Referring to the 35-year-old police officer’s claim that he was in self-defense and that he fired the shot out of intimidation, due to the dangerous maneuvers the 16-year-old was making, endangering the physical integrity of both himself and his colleagues, the prosecutor notes: “If he really wanted to just to intimidate the 16-year-old could shoot one or more times in the air.”

Commenting on the action of the police officer to shoot, the prosecutor points out – among other things – that “he shot in order to force the 16-year-old to stop the course of his vehicle and thus end the chase”, while at another point he emphasizes: “Maybe and filled with feelings of anger and vindictiveness for the juvenile’s dangerous driving and his refusal until then to obey stop signs combined with the lack of training he has received and is receiving in dealing with similar incidents (training as a police officer for four months, training in the use of a weapon once a year)’.

With regard to the accusation of unnecessary neutralizing shots, the prosecutor’s proposal states that the shooting “in this particular case was prohibited, as it was aimed at a minor, as the accused knew, without being the only means of preventing an imminent risk of death, since, on the one hand, the 16-year-old was now only trying to escape and was not attacking the police, on the other hand, the accused could have shot to intimidate by aiming high.”

In documenting his proposal of illegal neutralizing shots, the prosecutor points out that “it was not a case of repelling an attack coupled with an imminent risk of death or grievous bodily harm to a person, nor of rescuing hostages, as provided by law.”

It should be noted that after his confession, the 35-year-old was released with a restrictive condition, while he was suspended.