[ad_1]
This tragedy occurred in the early morning of August 27, 2015. Border guards already had information that a smuggled shipment of Belarusian cigarettes would be brought to Lithuania via Nemunas.
Smugglers explode
The suspects arrived at the scene in two cars, one for intelligence and the other for illegal cargo.
When the smugglers gathered around the cigarettes and moved, uniformed officers were already waiting on their way.
Neither Ford Mondeo nor Peugeot drivers obeyed the border guards to stop.
Ford rang the officers’ car, but it didn’t go far and got into the ditch. 14,500 packs of cigarettes were found in the car, worth just over 42,000. euros.
4 men were fined for transporting this contraband. 7.6 thousand were assigned to the organizer of the crime Giedrius Vilčinskas. a fine of EUR.
A suspect had fled abroad. Only he was given a real custodial sentence, but while in custody and awaiting extradition to Lithuania, he served that sentence. Therefore, he was released immediately after sentencing.
Fatal shots in a recon car
The Peugeot, which he was driving unloaded, was stopped by border guards to stop firing.
Giedrius Vilčinskas, the organizer of this crime, was behind the wheel of the car. 15 minutes She had already written that she had been extremely brutally murdered this year when robbers broke into her home and set her husband on fire.
VIDEO: Commissioner A. Jurgelevičius on the Lazdijai crime: “Very cruel”
There were 5 people in the car in total. Three people were sitting in the back, 18-year-old Edgar in the middle. It was he who died from the bullet fired by the officer.
When the shots were heard, Peugeot driver G. Vilčinskas only increased his speed.
Soon, the men sitting next to Edgar saw the guy faint and his back was bleeding. They realized that the young man had been shot.
“We yelled at Giedrius to stand up. Edgar also asked him to stop, saying he was shot. But the driver didn’t pay attention, the passenger recalled.” He drove very fast, ran all the way, threw the car aside “.
The driver drove about 5 kilometers. He then stopped at the graveyard and the entire crew drove away, leaving the guy distraught.
Experts have determined that if Edgar had received help in time, he could have survived. When the border guards found the young man, he was still conscious, but his life was in the hands of the doctors.
It turned out that just before the tragic events, Edgar himself spoke with his friends to join the smuggling of smokers, promising them a salary of 100-150 euros.
“There will be nothing terrible there, you will have to carry four boxes,” Edgar told a friend the day before he died. “It is not even a crime here, there will only be administrative responsibility, nothing terrible, even if it is detected.”
Fatal shot test
A pre-trial investigation into the negligent deprivation of life was launched, but ultimately ended without finding an officer’s intent.
The mother of the deceased appealed the decision in court, but the investigation was not resumed.
The pre-trial investigation found that before pointing the gun at the car, the border guard first fired two warning shots into the air. The SACL decision indicates a slightly different circumstance. It says the warning shots were not fired upward, but “in the circle away from the driver’s car.”
“It has been proven in the case that officer JB also fired at the car without warning shots,” the decision was made by the SACL.
The SACL representative could not explain why the court established such circumstances in the decision. After contacting the prosecutor Rolandas Stankevičius, who was controlling the investigation, he confirmed the information previously publicly available.
“During the judicial investigation it was established that at least two warning shots were fired into the air, and the driver disobeyed the stop request, two shots were fired at the rear wheel of the car,” the prosecutor reported.
The officer himself claimed that he decided to shoot because conditions seemed good to him: the asphalt was smooth, there was no dust and the distance between the cars was only about 5 meters. However, it did not hit the tire it was aiming for.
Mug shot / Associative illustration: weapon
A deadly bullet went through the trunk lid, the back seat of the car and got stuck in the young man’s back.
“Such violations of the order prove that the weapon was used in a reckless manner, such sporadic shots as in this case do not correspond to what the public expects from a professional official,” the SACL decided.
The decision to shoot – in violation of the law.
The decision to shoot was also made in violation of the laws in force at the time. It was stipulated that it was not possible to use a weapon against a car with passengers.
However, it has been established that the border guard could not know anything about the passengers: Peugeot’s chase windows were darkened and then experiments were confirmed to see if there was someone sitting in the rear, impossible. However, in the court’s opinion, this is a poor argument.
The panel of judges does not consider that the legislator, when formulating this legal norm, took into account what the accused seeks to prove in this case, that is, a firearm can be used against vehicles with passengers if the officer does not know and does not you can know that there are passengers. Such an interpretation of the expansive law provided by the accused is incompatible with the aims of the legislator and the Constitution, which clearly defines human life as the highest value, ”the sentence reads.
Also, the officer had not attempted to shoot from a moving car until then, such training was not organized by the border patrol team until the accident.
“In the opinion of the panel of judges, an officer who did not have adequate practical experience to shoot at high speeds without knowing whether there were passengers in the car was at high risk of being shot and should have reasonably anticipated such danger,” the court said .
Ultimately, it was discovered that the driver who crashed did not pose a fatal threat to anyone, even though he was driving through town. According to the court, the use of the weapon was inappropriate.
“Considering that the driver’s actions were potentially dangerous, the court does not consider that due to the threat it was necessary to immediately arrest him using a firearm,” announces the SACL. “In these circumstances, the appeals court must conclude that the plaintiff’s son died as a result of the use of force that was not strictly necessary for the legal arrest of the person within the meaning of Article 2 (2) (b) of the Convention European Human Rights “.
Furthermore, the court of first instance, after examining the case, dismissed the grieving mother’s action and ruled that she was not entitled to the benefit.
However, the SACL granted everything requested by the applicant. 30 thousand. EUR 1,352 for damages as well as EUR 1,352 for funeral expenses.
This judgment is final and is not subject to appeal.
[ad_2]
