[ad_1]
On July 5, 2020, the 47-year-old man is said to have deliberately ran over a cat in Saalfelden im Pinzgau that was already injured on the B164 road. The Austrian denied the accusation. The process ended in diversion. The defendant has to pay a flat fee of 150 euros. Procedures are temporarily suspended. The trial period is two years.
The accused and the prosecutor agreed on the various processing of the process. The defendant had previously stated that he was not to blame for the cat’s death. He had no intention of running her over. “I drove the car so as not to catch the cat.”
Contradictory statements
When he saw the immobile animal lying on the street, he initially braked his car. But because he was unable to evade due to a restricted area and a nearby traffic island, he turned away again. He drove the car in such a way that the animal was located in the middle between the wheelbases and was not touched by the tires, emphasized the hitherto innocent academic. According to the defense attorney, the car had a ground clearance of about 18 centimeters.
Two witnesses described the events differently. They incriminated the accused with his information. “He sped up and ran over the cat,” said one of the two young men who wanted to take the injured animal off the street and take it to the vet. Unlike the defendant, the other drivers made a sharp curve around the jack so as not to touch it.
The two men were convinced that the defendant’s car passed over the cat’s head. There was also a noise. However, they did not see the rollover specifically, as they explained in response to questions from Judge Peter Egger. Before the defendant left, the cat moved and meowed, witnesses said. After that, his head was deformed and the body was very soft and no longer moved. “The cat didn’t have as big injuries before as after him. If he had driven like he said he would, the cat wouldn’t have had more injuries.” The animal finally died.
Judge: Dodge would have been better
The partner of the accused, who at that time was a passenger with him in the car, confirmed today the statements of his partner. “I’m sorry for the cat. We both like animals. On Saturday we will have our own cat.”
The judge assumed that the cat was “probably” killed by the defendant. It would have been better if he had driven around the animal, Egger noted. The judge praised the kindness of the two men who had dealt with the injured velvet leg.
