German nurse avoids jail after injecting thousands with saltwater shot instead COVID vaccine

a reply to: Asmodeus3

You're just making assumptions and have no evidence other than a news story on why the Judge made the decision he did.
You're trying to force your opinion onto the thread purely because of cognative bias.
Do you not agre that she was struck off and will never work in her profession again? A suspended sentence is still a gulity charge. I've read articles of Judges handing down lesser sentences to mothers with young children for example.
We just don't know the finer details here.

a reply to: Kurokage

The 39-year-old had additionally posted several social media posts where she openly emphasised her skeptical views regarding Covid-19 vaccines.

When questioned by police, she admitted to using saline solution but had said she only did it because she had accidentally broken a vial containing six shots and was ashamed to tell her colleagues.

She had also claimed that it was a one-time incident, but was immediately sacked after antibody tests that were carried out on the affected people confirmed authorities' suspicions.

The accused had shared various conspiracy theories on the Internet and on social media,” the court spokesperson said, per the Mail. “However, the chamber could not determine with the necessary certainty that this set of ideas was the motive for her actions and that she then acted to sabotage a vaccination campaign

As you can see the motives of the nurse are very clear and she didn't believe the vaccines are safe and effective.

The excuse she gave when questioned is just not believable. The incident is not a one-off as she injected plenty more than 6 people. She claimed she had accidentally broken a vial containing six shots and was ashamed to tell her colleagues.

Later on antibody tests performed in many more who were injected and found they had no antibodies which means she was systematically injecting people with saline solutions. I think the judges are not that stupid and do know what is going on. They just didn't want to jail her.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

So you can prove the Judges reasoning behind the case can you? Was it because she was a young mother, a first time offender, or showed remorse perhaps?
Thats the trouble here, it's open to lots of biased assumptions on your part.

Antibody tests on a number of other coworkers confirmed that they hadn’t received the COVID vaccine, per the Mail, however there was only enough evidence to convict the nurse for changing out six syringes.

Also, as a Nurse she's allowed to have her own beliefs, but the code of pratice she agreed to follow states that her beliefs shouldn't interfere with her duties.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

So you can prove the Judges reasoning behind the case can you? Was it because she was a young mother, a first time offender, or showed remorse perhaps?
Thats the trouble here, it's open to lots of biased assumptions on your part.

Antibody tests on a number of other coworkers confirmed that they hadn’t received the COVID vaccine, per the Mail, however there was only enough evidence to convict the nurse for changing out six syringes.

Also, as a Nurse she's allowed to have her own beliefs, but the code of pratice she agreed to follow states that her beliefs shouldn't interfere with her duties.

.
Yes she is allowed to believe what she wants to believe but she is not obliged to perform her duties if she thinks the vaccines are not safe and effective. She can't be forced to do so. She could have asked to be excempted as I said given the danger of these untested and experimental products that are known to be dangerous.

Given that antibody tests performed in many more who were injected and found they had no antibodies, which means she was systematically injecting people with saline solutions, the judges made it clear they didn't want to jail her. Yes she was a mother and she didn't use any dangerous substances to inject those people. Saline solitons are harmless. She could have claimed that mRNA vaccines are potentially dangerous, etc.

But it could be that the judges have also doubts about other matters too just as many in the general population...

She could have argued on the basis of other cases such as one that I have covered on another thread.

We present autopsy findings of a 22-year old man who developed chest pain 5 days after the first dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine and died 7 hours later. Histological examination of the heart revealed isolated atrial myocarditis, with neutrophil and histiocyte predominance.

Immunohistochemical C4d staining revealed scattered single-cell necrosis of myocytes which was not accompanied by inflammatory infiltrates. Extensive contraction band necrosis was observed in the atria and ventricles. There was no evidence of microthrombosis or infection in the heart and other organs. The primary cause of death was determined to be myocarditis, causally-associated with the BNT162b2 vaccine

In comparison the saline solution is harmless.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Given that antibody tests performed in many more who were injected and found they had no antibodies,

Please post your evidence of this or is it an assumption? I pasted the quote from the article which clearly says there was only evidence of the Nurse changing 6 syringes...

Antibody tests on a number of other coworkers confirmed that they hadn’t received the COVID vaccine, per the Mail, however there was only enough evidence to convict the nurse for changing out six syringes.

The Nurse's "beliefs" are not allowed to interfere with her duties and that is why she was removed from her post and struck off.

But it could be that the judges have also doubts about other matters too just as many in the general population...

There's no proof of the Judges "beliefs" what-so-ever and is just hearsay and assumptions on your part as usual, and the rest of your post to use your language is just "word salad" to spread your cognative bias and agenda here.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Given that antibody tests performed in many more who were injected and found they had no antibodies,

Please post your evidence of this or is it an assumption? I pasted the quote from the article which clearly says there was only evidence of the Nurse changing 6 syringes...

Antibody tests on a number of other coworkers confirmed that they hadn’t received the COVID vaccine, per the Mail, however there was only enough evidence to convict the nurse for changing out six syringes.

The Nurse's "beliefs" are not allowed to interfere with her duties and that is why she was removed from her post and struck off.

But it could be that the judges have also doubts about other matters too just as many in the general population...

There's no proof of the Judges "beliefs" what-so-ever and is just hearsay and assumptions on your part as usual, and the rest of your post to use your language is just "word salad" to spread your cognative bias and agenda here.

From the OP again

The nurse jabbed 8,600 people who were mainly hospital employees, educators and doctors over the age of 70 between March and April 2021.

She had also claimed that it was a one-time incident, but was immediately sacked after antibody tests that were carried out on the affected people confirmed authorities' suspicions

Nobody speaks about definite proof here but we give what we think is the most plausible explanation. It's obvious what the motives of the nurse are. And it's more than obvious the judges didn't want to jail her.

She has no obligation to perform her duties with untested and potentially hazardous products.

To remind you

We present autopsy findings of a 22-year old man who developed chest pain 5 days after the first dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine and died 7 hours later. Histological examination of the heart revealed isolated atrial myocarditis, with neutrophil and histiocyte predominance.

Immunohistochemical C4d staining revealed scattered single-cell necrosis of myocytes which was not accompanied by inflammatory infiltrates. Extensive contraction band necrosis was observed in the atria and ventricles. There was no evidence of microthrombosis or infection in the heart and other organs. The primary cause of death was determined to be myocarditis, causally-associated with the BNT162b2 vaccine

The above cannot happen with a saline solution

17 pages of speculation about what the Chambers thinking might have been based on a Daily Mail article with zilch about what German law might say about sentencing or suchlike.

No wonder this just goes round and round in circles.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

As you are so invested in the subject of this thread may I suggest that you do a bit of basic research into German sentencing guidelines?

Rather than speculating based on your particular beliefs?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I am not the one who is speculating. I just present my opinion based on what I know from the story.

You may want to ask the other member too.
The motives of the nurse are clear. The excuse she gave isn't believable and the judges just didn't want to jail her. It's not rocket science.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

No. It's all about German law and process.

Basing your views on a Daily Mail story and your own beliefs is just weak.

And you are most definitely speculating.

Over here Judges have very, very rigid and inflexible sentencing powers.

They don't just sit around wondering whether to jail someone or not with free reign.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

No. It's all about German law and process.

Basing your views on a Daily Mail story and your own beliefs is just weak.

And you are most definitely speculating.

Over here Judges have very, very rigid and inflexible sentencing powers.

They don't just sit around wondering whether to jail someone or not with free reign.

The story has been covered by the Mirror, Mail, The Washington Times, NPR, Reuters, and perhaps others. So no I don't base my opinion on the Mail and I am not a reader of this paper.

I think the motives are clear. The excuse she gave Is clear although not believable and the reaction from the judges is clear. They didn't want to jail her.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

You are just going round in circles.

I have pointed out that things like applicable law, sentencing powers and guidelines are more relevant than your opinion.

I don't know anything much about German law but am a practicing lawyer.

You have constantly said that unqualified folk's opinions should be dismissed.

I'm not asking you to post your actual specific qualifications, but do you have any legal ones?

Sauce for the goose and the gander, and such.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I am not the one who is speculating. I just present my opinion based on what I know from the story.

Thats all you've done here!

You've made assumption about the Judge and Nurse based purely on your own agenda and beliefs without evidencer.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I am not the one who is speculating. I just present my opinion based on what I know from the story.

Thats all you've done here!

You've made assumption about the Judge and Nurse based purely on your own agenda and beliefs without evidencer.

There is nothing wrong with presenting an opinion based on the existing evidence.

The case is clear unless one wants to deviate and creates their own story.

The nurse injected thousands of people, around 8,600 and she clearly didn't believe that vaccines are safe and effective. This is crystal clear. The judges asked for her version of the story which is written above and on the basis of this they found a way not to jail her.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You are just going round in circles.

I have pointed out that things like applicable law, sentencing powers and guidelines are more relevant than your opinion.

I don't know anything much about German law but am a practicing lawyer.

You have constantly said that unqualified folk's opinions should be dismissed.

I'm not asking you to post your actual specific qualifications, but do you have any legal ones?

Sauce for the goose and the gander, and such.

If you are a practicing lawyer then you could see why she wasn't jailed. Is written in the opening page.

The accused had shared various conspiracy theories on the Internet and on social media,” the court spokesperson said, per the Mail. “However, the chamber could not determine with the necessary certainty that this set of ideas was the motive for her actions and that she then acted to sabotage a vaccination campaign

They couldn't 'determine' the motives...

If you believe in what the judges said.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

So, you know nothing about German law or sentencing guidelines and have not apparently researched this yet you still go on repeating your uninformed opinion about why the Nurse was not jailed?

It's not about the "existing evidence" it's about how German Judges have to treat that under the applicable law and guidelines.

What do you know about any of that?

The case is not clear from limited media reports.

Is the case officially reported, in detail, in the German legal journals?

Rather than in the Mirror or Daily Mail.

Can you imagine the reaction from a Judge over here if I tried to cite those rags or MSM as "authorities"?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

So, you know nothing about German law or sentencing guidelines and have not apparently researched this yet you still go on repeating your uninformed opinion about why the Nurse was not jailed?

It's not about the "existing evidence" it's about how German Judges have to treat that under the applicable law and guidelines.

What do you know about any of that?

The case is not clear from limited media reports.

Is the case officially reported, in detail, in the German legal journals?

Rather than in the Mirror or Daily Mail.

Can you imagine the reaction from a Judge over here if I tried to cite those rags or MSM as "authorities"?

The case has been covered by many newspapers and has been shared in Facebook and I suspect in other social media.

The story has been covered by the Mirror, Mail, The Washington Times, NPR, Reuters, and perhaps others. So no, I don't base my opinion on the Mail and I am not a reader of this paper, as well as I don't base my opinion on just one article.

The 39-year-old had additionally posted several social media posts where she openly emphasised her skeptical views regarding Covid-19 vaccines.

When questioned by police, she admitted to using saline solution but had said she only did it because she had accidentally broken a vial containing six shots and was ashamed to tell her colleagues.

She had also claimed that it was a one-time incident, but was immediately sacked after antibody tests that were carried out on the affected people confirmed authorities' suspicions.

The accused had shared various conspiracy theories on the Internet and on social media,” the court spokesperson said, per the Mail. “However, the chamber could not determine with the necessary certainty that this set of ideas was the motive for her actions and that she then acted to sabotage a vaccination campaign

It's very clear to me what the motives of the nurse are. You have to defy reality not to be able to see this or being in a complete denial.

It also says above that the judges are not clear on what her motive are. If you want believe this then that's fine. It's an excuse not to jail her. Unclear motives/reasonable doubt about her motives.

I find this denial fascinating.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

OK.

I bow to your superior legal and medical qualifications and what you have read in the papers.

My attempts to get you to consider the relevant legal considerations as to why this Nurse avoided jail have proved futile.

They remain on topic and relevant but nevermind.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

OK.

I bow to your superior legal and medical qualifications and what you have read in the papers.

My attempts to get you to consider the relevant legal considerations as to why this Nurse avoided jail have proved futile.

They remain on topic and relevant but nevermind.

You don't need legal and medical qualifications to comment on this story. Common sense is more than enough but I think common sense has been suspended during the last 3 years in the Covid era.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

But it might help? No?