Security trial in St. Gallen "I want a chance to get on with my life" - ex-security officer shows remorse in court

Two former Securitrans security guards in front of the St. Gallen cantonal court: They are accused of beating a man to the ground in the Avec store at St. Gallen railroad station, kicking him and later falsely accusing him. The verdict will be announced in writing.

It is quiet in the courtroom when Roland K. takes the floor. "If I had been trained like that back then, I would have reacted differently. That's all I can say," says the man who now works as a police officer.

Sitting next to him is Michael R., sturdily built, hands folded. "I have made mistakes. But I'm not what I look like. I have my life under control, I'm sensitive to my fellow human beings. I want to have a chance to get on with my life," he says.

Six years after that evening in March 2019, the two former security guards have to stand trial again. It's about an altercation in an Avec branch at St. Gallen train station in which Buric S. was injured.

What really happened in the store?

According to the indictment, the two Securitrans employees at the time were called to help after Buric S. had behaved conspicuously in the store. They took the man into an adjoining room to search his rucksack. At that moment the situation escalated.

According to statements made in court, the video from the surveillance camera shows a scuffle. Buric S. is brought to the floor. According to the indictment, Michael R. gave the man lying on the ground "a heavy kick to the head".

Roland K. is said to have hit him in the body with his knee shortly afterwards. The public prosecutor's office speaks of abuse of authority, assault, deprivation of liberty, false accusation and, in the case of R., also of attempted grievous bodily harm.

In court, the public prosecutor leaves no doubt about his view. "If it weren't for the video from the surveillance camera, we certainly wouldn't be here," he says. The footage, the statements of the Avec employee and chat messages from R. would paint a clear picture.

"H**** son kicked in the head"

"They beat up the victim and abused their position. That is no role model for a police officer," the public prosecutor continued. K. is "no longer acceptable in the police service". He demanded a prison sentence for both of them and a five-year ban on Roland K. working in the field police force

Michael R.'s private correspondence was also discussed during the trial. The court president quoted from the messages that R. had sent after the operation, in which he wrote, among other things, that he had "kicked this H**** son in the head" and "broken his skull".

These statements contradict his later account that he had aimed for the back. "I was in a very bad environment," R. said. "I wanted to make a name for myself, to present myself better."

The defense paints a different picture. Roland K.'s lawyer emphasized that his client was "a model police officer" who acted "with sensitivity and professionalism" in critical situations.

"It is in no way proportionate to ban him from his job," he says. K. has not been guilty of anything since then and is appreciated by superiors and colleagues alike.

"I would work today with a lot of talking"

According to the defense, Buric S. was the trigger. He was intoxicated with drugs, harassed the shift supervisor at the Avec branch and suddenly reached into a box.

"The check was calm at first. Then S. suddenly reached forward. K. fixed his hand to calm the situation. There is no evidence of a blow on the video," says the lawyer.

According to his lawyer, Michael R. only intervened when the situation had already escalated. He had not aimed at the head, but at the back. "You can't even tell where the head or back is on the video," she said. Even the alleged victim could not remember being kicked in the head.

She also criticized the evidence: "R.'s cell phone was evaluated on the basis of an illegal audio recording. That was a fishing expedition - a search into the blue."

The judges wanted to know what Roland K. would do differently in retrospect. "I would de-escalate the massive threats, not gesticulate or physically intervene. I would talk a lot," said K.

Since the incident, K. says he has never had any more problems. "Today, I solve 99 percent of cases with de-escalation." The public prosecutor remained skeptical: "Lack of self-reflection, no remorse - that's not enough."

After more than three hours, the presiding judge closed the hearing. The verdict will be opened in writing.

*Name known to the editors.

The live ticker to read

• Liveticker

  New posts
• Liveticker closed
11.19 a.m.

"I would have reacted differently"

Now Roland K. takes the floor. "If I had been trained like that back then, I would have reacted differently. That's all I can say." Michael R. talks about his appearance. "I'm broad and I know what I look like. I've made mistakes. But I'm not the way I look. I have my life under control, I'm sensitive to my fellow human beings. I want to have a chance to get on with my life," says R.

The presiding judge closes the hearing. The parties are informed of the verdict in writing.

11.16 a.m.

"The punch never happened"

Roland K. had said that he would handle the situation differently today. The Securitrans security staff were "moderately trained, to put it mildly", said Roland K.'s lawyer, adding that he had acquired knowledge as a police officer. This shows that K. is dealing with his actions. "The public prosecutor's office says that K. is not remorseful about the beating. He can't be, because it never happened," says the lawyer. "Once again: Mr. K. is a model police officer, he takes responsibility for his actions."

11.12 a.m.

Lawyers contradict the public prosecutor

Michael R.'s lawyer contradicts the prosecutor's statements. It was not possible to see where the weapon had been. "With the knowledge of today, you can't draw conclusions about the situation at the time." In addition, the lawyer points out once again that the messages from the cell phone may not be used.

Roland K.'s lawyer says that the public prosecutor's office is ignoring the rationality of the ban. An increase to five years is not rational, "I cannot understand that." K. had informed his superiors and a member of the police command was present. "That shows his self-reflection, he informed everyone."

11.05 a.m.

"Should he really continue working as a police officer?"

He found it shocking that two security guards had become violent. "Lack of self-reflection, no remorse - is this really a police officer who should continue to work as a police officer?" asks the public prosecutor. "Roland K. is no longer acceptable as a police officer," the public prosecutor concludes his remarks.

11.02 a.m.

"You beat up the victim"

Now the public prosecutor speaks. He demands a five-year ban on Roland K. The judgment of the lower court is "convincing and consistent with the files", says the public prosecutor.

"If it weren't for the video from the surveillance camera, we certainly wouldn't be here," says the public prosecutor. Looking at the video, he did not see a weapon, as the lawyers had pointed out earlier. There was talk, you can see that. We don't know what exactly.

"We have the bragging in the WhatsApp chats, we have the statements from the Avec employee and we have the video." According to the public prosecutor, this is enough to sufficiently prove the facts of the case.

The ban on Roland K. working was proportionate. A good police officer needs numerous character traits. "You need credibility and a cool head as well as self-reflection". They have regular contact with people in need of protection. The allegations against K. are serious. "They beat up the victim and abused their position. That's no role model for a police officer."

Michael R. had accepted the ban on his activities. "That shows a certain remorse that I still miss in Roland K. today," says the public prosecutor. This is about nothing less than protecting the public.

10.49 a.m.

"He is a model polo player"

Roland K. had been on the streets as a police officer for several years. There had never been an investigation or an incident. This shows that an activity ban is disproportionate. "He is practically a model police officer," says the lawyer. He would handle critical situations with great sensitivity. A transfer to internal service is not possible.

10.43 a.m.

Roland K. is said to have an impeccable reputation today

Roland K.'s lawyer also says that Buric S. was the catalyst for the whole situation. The district court had stated in its judgment that S. had behaved "passively". However, this could be clearly refuted, both on the basis of the statements of the Avec shift supervisor and the surveillance cameras. The police had not been able to talk to Buric S. because he was so intoxicated with drugs.

Today, Roland K. is held in high esteem by superiors, employees and customers at the police station. His reputation is impeccable. Should K. be sentenced to a prison sentence, he would lose his job, which would probably lead to existential hardship for his family, the lawyer continued.

K. has never been guilty of anything since the incident and his prognosis is positive. How the district court came to a different conclusion is beyond him, says the lawyer.

10.38 a.m.

"Preconceived opinion of the judges"

There is no evidence of a blow to the neck area, as the public prosecutor's office writes in the indictment. This was also not medically proven. The opinion of the district court was preconceived, the judges merely tried to support their opinion with interpretations of the surveillance video, the lawyer accuses the judges.

10.37 a.m.

Now Roland K.'s lawyer speaks.

Now Roland K.'s lawyer speaks. He is to be found guilty of roughhousing. The lawyer demands an acquittal on the remaining charges. A conditional fine should be imposed, or alternatively a conditional prison sentence of six months. He does not want an activity ban.

Roland K.'s lawyer also recapitulated the incident. Buric S. had opened the rucksack himself, the scene was reminiscent of an airport security check. Why did S. voluntarily consent to a search despite having weapons in his rucksack? "We all know that Buric S. was intoxicated with drugs," says the lawyer.

Roland K. had carried out the search consensually. The video footage shows that the situation was initially calm to relaxed. S. then became increasingly aggressive. For example, he tried to touch the shift manager of the Avec store. Suddenly and abruptly, Buric S. reached into the box and waved it in front of Roland K.'s face. K. then fixed his hand to calm the situation.

10.23 a.m.

"Massive violation" - lawyer sharply criticizes the justice system

The lawyer explains once again that Buric S. was also guilty - with his behavior in the Avec store, but also with his behavior towards the two Securitrans employees. The shift supervisor had called Securitrans and the police. The police report clearly stated that the two employees had tried to restrain Buric S.. As he had put up a fierce resistance, a scuffle had ensued.

Michael R. should be completely acquitted of attempted grievous bodily harm, assault, deprivation of liberty and false accusation, the lawyer demanded. A conviction for abuse of authority is partially admissible, but the sentence should be set at the lower end of the scale on the basis of the execution just carried out. R. had always behaved in an exemplary manner in recent years.

The lawyer then went on to criticize the judicial system: the crime had already been committed six years ago and there was still no final judgment. The requirement to speed up proceedings has been massively violated. "It took around four years until the first verdict, even though the case is not that complicated." She therefore wants a conditional prison sentence of seven months and a fine of 10 daily rates.

10.12 a.m.

Was the backpack check legal?

The lawyer says that the accusation of abuse of authority is partly true. "The action clearly went too far." But the arguments would not stand up. The two employees were undisputedly called to the situation. In addition, Buric S. had handed over his rucksack voluntarily, as he had said during questioning. The altercation had initially taken place between Roland K. and Buric S., Michael R. had only stood by and had not been involved in the search.

Buric S. had indicated a blow towards Roland K. with his cell phone. Michael R. had only intervened when the altercation had already begun. The kick in the direction of the accused had clearly gone too far, Michael R. also accepted this.

10.08 a.m.

Shift supervisor was only in the room for a short time

The incident took place in the storeroom. It was a separate area and the door was either closed or ajar. The shift manager of the Avec branch had only briefly entered the storeroom twice and then left again. She was not at risk, Michael R.'s lawyer continued.

R. had not only dislocated his kneecap, but also suffered a torn ligament. Buric S. had also been carrying a weapon. The altercation had calmed down after around 5 minutes and the city police arrived 2-3 minutes later. They then took control. During the altercation, the employee informed the municipal police that a customer had become violent towards two Securitrans employees. The requirements for deprivation of liberty were therefore not met and Michael R. was to be acquitted.

9.56 a.m.

Where did Michael R.'s kick go?

It should not be forgotten that the Securitrans employees had only been called to help because Buric S. had behaved conspicuously in the store. "He gave me the impression that he wanted to be beaten by the employees - so that he would not be guilty", the lawyer quotes from the interrogation of the Avec employee.

There was a latent risk for the two Securitrans employees. "During the search, a loaded weapon, ammunition and an imitation hand grenade were finally found", says the lawyer. S. was not an innocent customer whom the two Securitrans employees had encountered by chance.

The verdict of the district court stated that Michael R. had "deliberately kicked S. in the head". However, this is not recognizable on the video. "You can't recognize S.'s body, you don't know where his back or head is." The moving image does not give a clear answer as to exactly where Michael R. was aiming. According to the lawyer, not even S. could remember being kicked in the head. "That is somewhat surprising." That is why one cannot speak of attempted grievous bodily harm. R. had also decided to deliberately kick S in the back, as he was no longer able to kneel down due to his serious injury.

9.50 a.m.

Was the cell phone even allowed to be analyzed?

Michael R's defense lawyer now makes her plea. She does not want an activity ban and only a suspended prison sentence. She also wants to show that R's cell phone should not have been analyzed, she announces.

"The accusations were made more than six years ago," says the defense lawyer. The lower court based its verdict almost exclusively on the video. "But the crucial question is: what can you see and what can't you see?" Some crucial actions cannot be seen. For example, the camera could not record any sound. "It's a fallacy to conclude that a crime has been committed based on the moving images."

The cell phone should not have been analyzed, says the defense lawyer. The seizure was based on an illegal audio recording. In the process, "WhatsApp messages were found by chance", says the lawyer. This almost screams of a "fishing expedition", i.e. a non-targeted search for information, especially for incriminating evidence.

9.41 a.m.

"Would have a de-escalating effect today"

Now the public prosecutor asks questions. He wants to know from Roland K. what exactly he would do differently in retrospect. "I would de-escalate the massive threats, not gesticulate or physically intervene. Act with a lot of talking." The prosecutor asks: "So you didn't talk to the people back then?" - "Certainly not in that situation, or not enough," says K. In police training, he had learned to defend himself. "With the training I had back then, it certainly wasn't possible to do it the way I would today."

9.33 a.m.

"I certainly made mistakes"

"I would react differently today," says Roland K. With the level of knowledge at the time, restraint was the only option. He has never had another problem since the incident. "Today, I solve 99% of cases with de-escalation," he says when asked about his police career. "But with the level of knowledge I had at the time, I had no other option."

Michael R. is tight-lipped. "I certainly made mistakes," he says, but doesn't go into more detail.

9.31 a.m.

False statements made to the police?

The accusation that the two Securitrans employees deliberately gave false information to the police in order to cover themselves is rejected by both. "I certainly didn't make any deliberately false statements", says Roland K. Michael R. confirms this: "I was still under painkillers at the time." Both individuals maintain that they did not "deliberately misrepresent anything", even after repeated questions from the court president.

9.30 a.m.

"H**** son kicked in the head"

The court president now turns to WhatsApp messages that Michael R. had sent afterwards. They say, for example, that he "kicked this H***son in the head" and "broke his skull". However, this contradicts the statement that he had aimed for the back. "I was in a very bad environment", says Michael R. "I wanted to make a name for myself, to present myself better"

9.28 a.m.

Do insults justify violence?

The court president now wants to know from Roland K. what exactly happened. K. himself had assumed that Buric S. wanted to attack him. However, the court president says that the video recordings show nothing of the sort. Would the insults and abuse that Buric S. is said to have made justify violence? "No, absolutely not", says Roland K after a long silence.

9.21 a.m.

Now it's all about the scuffle

After the search, there was a disastrous scuffle. Michael R. explains the scuffle from his point of view. "I grabbed him and pushed him onto the freezer. Then I flew backwards and dislocated my kneecap in the process." He doesn't remember exactly how the scuffle started. After his injury, he hobbled over to Roland K., who pushed Buric S. to the ground. According to the court president, the indictment states that Michael R. kicked S. in the head with his lace-up boot. "I was aiming for the back", Michael R. defends himself.

9.18 a.m.

Switchblade knife, imitation hand grenade and criminal property

A switchblade knife, imitation hand grenades and criminal property were found during the search, says the court president. The court president wants to know why Buric S. would have voluntarily consented to a search in view of these circumstances. "I don't know, maybe he thought we had no idea and couldn't do anything anyway," says Roland K.

9.16 a.m.

Statements about the search contradict each other

The court president says that it was clear from the indictment that the search of the rucksack was in breach of the employer's instructions. "In my opinion, our actions were correct," says Roland K. "There weren't even any training documents at the time."

Buric S. was asked at the time whether they were allowed to examine the rucksack. Roland K. says that Buric S. had spread out the contents of the rucksack of his own accord, which was taken as consent. The statements of the Avec shift supervisor at the time contradict this. Buric S. had clearly stated at the time that he did not agree to the check, but Roland K. had nevertheless continued.

9.11 a.m.

What do the cameras show?

Roland K. now describes the details of the incident. They were informed about the incident by the head office and then went to the store. Michael R. says that Buric S. was stopped outside and then walked through the store with him. "You can see the rest on the videos from the surveillance cameras."

9.08 a.m.

No longer have all the details

Now it's about the relationship between R. and K. They were in the Securitrans team together and were a well-rehearsed team. Today they only have sporadic contact. Neither of them can remember the incident in detail, they state on the record.

9.06 a.m.

"I'm afraid I'll lose my job"

Michael R. is now also questioned. He also reports on his training as a Securitrans employee. This took about a week. Escalations were recorded in reports and they exchanged information with each other. There were no formal debriefings. R. now works in a different area and his superiors know nothing about the procedure. "I'm afraid I'll lose my job. I can't afford that."

9.02 a.m.

Roland K. now works as a police officer

Roland K. is questioned first. He now works as a police officer. A guilty verdict would have consequences for him, says Roland K. "Dismissal would certainly be possible." His superiors know about the proceedings, but he is still deployed in all areas. A professional ban, as demanded by the public prosecutor's office, would probably cost him his career. "But I can't say for sure, my superiors will decide that."

8.50 a.m.

Trial begins

The court opens the trial. The presiding judge goes through the history of the trial once again and explains how today's hearing will proceed.

8.30 a.m.

The start of the trial is delayed

The start of the trial is delayed because not both defendants are present.

8.15 a.m.

Trial to begin at 8.30 a.m.

The trial against the two security guards is due to start at 8.30 am.

Show more