A Vilnius man trapped in a gas station without a mask had a conflict not only with a police officer, but also with a judge.

“When I entered the gas station, they did not warn me that I could break the law, they did not even ask me, but on the contrary, they allowed me to buy coffee,” said Gediminas V, a Vilnius resident who took administrative responsibility.

According to the decision of the officers of the Vilnius County Police Chief Commissariat Patrol Team, the man was brought to administrative responsibility not only for non-compliance with safety rules when there is a risk of spreading dangerous infectious diseases, but also for disturbing public order and human gravity.

The police officers fined Gediminas V. a thousand euros for these violations, but the judge of the Vilnius City District Court, after examining the offender’s complaint, reduced this fine to 600 euros. However, the judge who heard the rape case decided to arrest the Vilnius resident for another rape; During the court hearing, Gediminas V. did not comply with the order, fired the judge, and when warned that a fine could be imposed for breach of the order, he continued to respond and insulted the judge. For this, the man was fined another 150 euros.

According to the case data, it was established that on June 4, when the quarantine was announced in the country, around 11:40 p.m., Gediminas V. and his friend visited Vilnius, Geležinio Vilko str. at the Circle K gas station. The man was without a mask covering his nose and mouth, cursing loudly in uncensored words while interacting with a friend.

When the noisy man was disciplined by a police officer at the gas station at the time, Gediminas V. tried to cover his face and nose with a sweater, but to no avail: he was constantly falling.

When the police asked him why there is a mask without a mask and he cursed out loud, the man could not answer anything.

“It’s because I’m quarantined,” Gediminas V replied, trying to cover her face and nose with a sweater.

“Why are you doing this? Do you see other people and don’t react?” The official continued.

“Why do I have to react?” Asked the offender. And here he admitted that he was cursing at the gas station as if he did not feel.

“I was taught this way at school,” added Gediminas V.

Due to the administrative infractions committed, the agents took the man to the police station, where a report of the infraction was drawn up. Although the officials considered that the penalty would be imposed on the offender, he wrote two explanations. In one of them, he stated that he did not oppose the gas station officials, he obeyed all their demands, and even before drafting the protocol, he regretted and even asked to be forgiven for the alleged fault.

“Nobody warned me, I did not know that I could break the law, I ask you to review all the circumstances and, based on my great regret for the situation, evaluate the humanity factor,” Gediminas V wrote to the police.

In another explanation, he stated that he wanted an explanation from the agents about the reason for his arrest, although in addition to him, there were other people at the gas station at that time who did not cover their faces with protective masks.

“I want to point out that when I entered the service station, they did not warn me that I could break the law and they did not ask me to leave the service station, and they treated me, I bought coffee,” said Gediminas V.

After assessing the circumstances of the case, the police officers imposed a fine of 1,000 euros on the offender, although he faced a fine of 500 to 1,500 euros. Gediminas V., who did not agree with the police ruling, appealed to the district court, stating that not only did he disagree with the decision and the fine imposed, but also demanded “a thorough examination of the case based on the file and the evidence gathered “.

At that time, the policemen asked not to satisfy the criminal’s complaint: “Gediminas V. was given an administrative order, but he did not use it, he did not deny the violations at the hearing, he did not express a clear position.”

The judge of the Vilnius City District Court examined Gediminas V.’s complaint according to oral procedure: he summoned not only the offender, but also the police officers who had registered the rape at the gas station. However, the court was faced with an unexpected vision of the offender: he did not follow the established court order, spoke regularly without giving the floor, did not allow the judges to conduct the hearing, he was warned about it, but continued to speak after the warning, did not listen to the requirements.

Incredible, but Gediminas V. called the judge who hears the case in court a “lady” and even questioned whether he was a judge: “This person who pretends to be a judge”, “maybe you’re a cleaner who comes from the street”, “I demand that this man who pretends to judge to produce the document.”

He also gave the judges phrases such as “you are shouting here”, “what else is not clear to you?”, “They are testing their rights even before they present who gave them such powers”, “I see a woman who is pretends to be a judge, without presenting a document, and displaying some rights ”,“ you show up, then you can send what I have to do, what not ”, etc.

During the hearing, Gediminas V. also insisted that the hearing judge appear and deliver a certificate proving his identity and credentials, although at the beginning of the hearing the hearing judge presented himself and presented the clerk present at the hearing.

As Gediminas V. did not respond to the judge’s comments and warnings and obstructed the examination of the administrative misconduct case, the court decided to examine the offender’s complaint in his absence. In addition, the offender was fined 150 euros for non-compliance.

But the judge who investigated the criminal’s case even made a decision in favor, reducing the fine of 1,000 euros imposed by the police to 600 euros.

According to the judge, the violation was committed by Gediminas V. after the government declared quarantine in the country, at that time all people over 6 years of age were required to wear protective equipment (masks, respirators or other means) that cover the public nose.

“Gediminas V. did not use a protection device that covered his mouth in a public place of sale (gas station store), this is confirmed by the testimony of a witness and a service report, which was recorded on video”, the judge pointed out. – The video shows that Gediminas V. only tries to cover his face with a sweater when the officers arrive, until then his face is not covered at all. In addition, it can be seen that even such a coating is ineffective, since the sweater is constantly decreasing. The video shows that there are many other people in the gas station store, therefore, with such actions, Gediminas V. created a risk of spreading dangerous or especially dangerous infectious diseases. “

Furthermore, according to the judge, the video recorded by the police officers confirms that Gediminas V. swore uncensored in the gas station store.

“Gediminas V. saw other people, saw officials, but still used uncensored words,” the court emphasized. – The police said in court that these words had definitely been heard by outsiders, and had the impression that Gediminas V. was provoking, because even after noticing the officers, he continued to swear. Thus, he realized that he was using uncensored words in public when listening to others, that is, he could not help but understand that he was behaving inappropriately and violating public order. “

Although the court had no doubts about the guilt of the offender for committing the administrative offenses charged against him, the judge questioned the reasonableness of the amount of the fine imposed.

“The subject who imposes the penalty must also take into account other circumstances of the case: the nature of the crime, the guilt of the person, his personality,” the judge emphasized. – Gediminas V. el. He said in a mailed statement that he regretted the situation. Although this cannot be recognized as a mitigating circumstance (because he did not admit guilt for the crimes committed), it can be considered as a positive characteristic of the person. It is also clear from the Registry of Administrative Offenses that Gediminas V. has not been administratively sanctioned in the last 5 years, according to the information system of the Liteko judicial information system, he is not convicted, which is also valued positively. Therefore, the court sees reasons to impose fines lower than the average of the fines provided for in the sanctions. “

But even Gediminas V., who received a lesser fine, disagreed: he appealed the partially favorable court decision to the Vilnius Regional Court and asked not only for the fine to be canceled for failure to comply with the court hearing procedure, but also stated that he had been sanctioned, although “he did not participate in an administrative offense.” that no one was even convinced in court whether he was really the person stopped by the police at the gas station.

However, these complaints by Gediminas V. were declared unfounded – in the final and unappealable judgment, the Vilnius Regional Court judge stated that the offender was reasonably punished for the violations, the fine imposed on him was not excessive and there was no doubt that he was not wearing masks and in words.