A Facebook user published a post defending police officer Hristo Petrov, who broke a young man’s jaw during a July mornings party near Kite Bar. It is interesting to note that there is support in the public domain for both the injured student and the accused. However, it is important to be objective regardless of which side we take.
Several questions arise after what has happened. The victim, Vladimir Radev, claims that the police officer struck him with a “flashing metal object”, which he perceived to be a metal box, and the evidence is his jaw, which was broken in three places. The question arises, is there premeditation in this act – why did the police officer choose to use a box instead of striking with his hand? One possible explanation is that the combination of boxing indicates premeditation and a desire to inflict as severe an injury as possible. The metal box was not a random object easily found at the scene, suggesting that the police officer had it with him, ready for use when needed. This detail in the preparation and choice of assault weapon clearly highlights the intent to seriously injure. In addition, the fact that the blow was struck with such an object rather than with the hand indicates a higher degree of aggression and purposefulness, further complicating the situation and forcing the issue of excessive use of force.
However, these allegations of the use of boxing were denied by counsel for the 21-year-old defendant. Bochko Boev told reporters the following:
“He sat down to eat pizza. At that moment, two of the company, high and drunk, go over, knock his pizza down and, apologizing to the cameras, piss on the pizza. He grabs one, moves him. They surround him, start yelling at him, shouting at him, scolding him. The injured boy comes forward, raises his hands to reach, and at that point he hits him not with a fist, but with a slap.”
Categorically Hristo Petkov was at the party near Sozopol. And he was wearing a vest of a security company called Delta Guard. At the same time as a policeman, he is a civil servant. And in Bulgaria, civil servants are not allowed to work a second job according to the Civil Servant Act. Specifically, this case is governed by Article 7(2). This rule is designed to prevent any potential conflict of interest and to ensure that the civil servant will perform his duties impartially and objectively.
However, on Friday attorney Boev confirmed that his client volunteered to be a security guard at the event without being paid for it and was not hired. However, law enforcement officials are still checking into what capacity the officer was wearing a security company vest and was at the event.
“Acquaintances who had asked him to go to guard, possible scandals, without talking about payment, but on a voluntary basis and to watch the sunrise”, explained Bochko Boev, who added that the security company vest was given to him by his acquaintances.
And yet – why hit, and not called 112 or his colleagues, so as to avoid conflict. The Facebook user who seems to know the accused commented about him that “Christo meant no harm to anyone. He was burning for his job, for the native police and for the country we live in”. In that case, why is he helping the security firm Delta Guard? Isn’t that a violation?
It has also emerged about Hristo Petrov that he was convicted of false arrest on the same day the altercation occurred. According to the initial data, on 17 April, as a patrol to the “Security Police”, he appeared at an address in the g. “Meden Rudnik”, where he arrested a 42-year-old man. Shortly before that, a woman had called him on 112 phone line to request police intervention. She was told that an immediate protection order had been issued against her husband and he should not come within 100 metres of her.
Judge Anita Veleva ruled that after Petrov spoke to the man, he did not clarify the objective situation, did not check whether there was actually such a warrant in force, but proceeded directly to arrest, for which he also used handcuffs. In the interrogation that followed, the woman admitted that she had acted emotionally, she had not been assaulted, but had simply been angry with her husband. Some time ago, she had again made complaints against him, and on one occasion there had been a restraining order not to approach her, which was subsequently lifted. Petrov has appealed the court’s decision.
Based on all the facts, it’s nice to have objectivity when defending someone and to consider all the parties involved.
