Purpose due to murder and tumult after the verdict – diepresse.com

After a 20-year-old basic military servant had fatally injured a colleague in the Turkish barracks in Spittal on the Drau by a shot last October, he was guilty of murder at the State Court of Klagenfurt on Wednesday. The young man was sentenced to twelve years in prison, the judgment is not final.

Immediately after the verdict, there was a scandal: numerous family members of the victim with a Turkish background, the prison sentence was obviously too low. They loudly demanded a higher punishment. On the way to the outside, a disinfectant donor also broke. In front of the courthouse, the few police officers who had monitored the process to obviously trouble to cope with the mood, and there were also friction among the relatives themselves. Several police patrols, including service dog handlers, were ordered to the park in front of the courthouse, where the situation then calmed down relatively quickly.

Unanimous decision

The jury had previously decided with eight to zero voices that the crime was a murder. Judge Dietmar Wassertheurer, who preserved the jury, said the accused has repeatedly caught up in contradictions. « The act was not intentionally planned. But it was crucial that – despite repeated instruction – they focused on their victim and deliberately pressed the deduction. » The accused would have « accepted » that his victim would be killed.

In the case of the undamaged man, the penalty was remained in the lower area: « We assume that this is measured and actual. » Neither the defendant’s defense lawyer nor the prosecutor gave a statement.

The indictment assumed the accusation

In the afternoon of October 22nd, the fatal shot was in the Wachnokal of the barracks, in which the accused served. After the later killed occurred, the shot came after about two minutes. According to the indictment, the 20-year-old had taken his pistol out of the Holster, directed it to the 21-year-old. The projectile penetrated the breast of the 21-year-old and stepped out again on the back. Despite the rapid emergency medical help, he died of bleeding as a result of the pulmonary shot in the shock room of the Klagenfurt Clinic.

The defendant had admitted the shot levy after his arrest, but declared that it was unintentionally. However, that was not understandable, prosecutor Doris Wieser had referred to the changing information from the accused: At first he said that he fell down the weapon belt, and a shot had come loose. He later stated that he was « frightened » when the later victim came and the weapon had fallen on the holster – referred to a video, according to which the later killed was two minutes in the waking room before the shot fell.

Defense: « Tragic misfortune »

The defendant’s defender, Kurt Jelinek, spoke of a « tragic accident ». The accused and the victim knew each other and also understood that there was no reason why his client should have killed his colleague. The 20-year-old guilty of grossly negligent killing: « He created a dangerous situation with the weapon, which should not have happened. » Several times, the defense lawyer asked the family of the killed, who was also in the courtroom.

The defendant himself said that he went around in the waking room and « played » with the pistol by easily pulling her out of the holster and falling back in. After all, he wanted to lose the belt because he got sick. Suddenly the later killed spoke to him: « I didn’t notice that someone was there. I was startled, I noticed that something was falling. Then I picked up and heard a bang. » But he did not realize that it was a shot. The defendant could not say exactly how this « retrieval » had expired on repeated demand from judge Dietmar Wassertheurer, who preserved the jury.

Weapon and fuses worked

The weapon expert, Manuel flows, came to the conclusion in his investigations that both the weapon and all backups worked perfectly. He had tested the murder weapon quite challenging, dropped it or worked with a rubber hammer: « Under no circumstances did a shot have solved. » The holster, in which the weapon was stuck, worked perfectly: « I let the pistol fall in several times or let the holster slide very carefully. It is always snapped in, so it was not able to fall out. »

Prosecutor Wieser said in her plea that they had a victim, knew why this had died, and also had the perpetrator: « The only thing we don’t have is a motive. » You don’t know whether that was a dispute or the defendant « broken down » with the weapon. In any case, she saw a « conditional intent »: « Everyone knows that someone can die when you press the withdrawal of a weapon. »

Jelinek contradicted this: « It was a tragic, fateful accident, » repeated the lawyer. If in doubt, the more favorable variant for the accused should be chosen, he appealed to the jury. The fact that his client could no longer say how the exact process was not automatically speaking against him. He had set misconduct that he could no longer explain – but it was none of them. (APA)