It’s a painful lesson for a BMW driver who wants to show his speed at lightning speed.

Egidijus Raudonius, a 26-year-old resident of the Tauragė district, has lost his right to drive for 18 months and will have to pay a fine of 500 euros for driving in a hooligan manner and posing a threat not only to other drivers but also to drivers. pedestrians. .

“MI. The Reds severely violated the requirements of the Road Traffic Rules, their driving represented a real threat to road safety, their behavior sought to attract attention, to show off in front of others, they deliberately ignored any requirement for safe driving, for What only by chance could have serious consequences should be avoided, the court stated. “E. Raudonius demonstrated his uniqueness and lack of respect for other road users through dangerous road safety actions, satisfying their interests, filming Traffic Rules violations and uploading a post to a social website. Such actions provoked negative reactions and resentment from people. “

The man who was driving a hooligan was brought to administrative responsibility by Tauragė County Police Officers, to whom a resident applied; He sent them a video of a hooligan driving in Šidagiai village in Skaudvilė old town.

“MI. Raudonius, who lives in the Tauragė district, uploaded a story to Facebook this morning, in which he was filmed driving his BMW 5 around campus, according to a complaint sent to the police. – He is driving with one hand because he is filming with the other, driving in front of traffic on a curve and greatly exceeding the speed, the video is visible at almost 160 km / h. speed. This represents a danger for all pedestrians and, when exiting a side road, it is possible that a person does not notice a car flying at such speed, much less cyclists or pedestrians. These drivers should not have the right to participate in traffic. “

As the whistleblower provided details about the offender, the license plate numbers of the car he was driving, and where the hooligan’s driving was recorded, officers quickly identified the offender and brought him to administrative responsibility.

In the protocol written to E. Raudonis, officials indicated that the driver had been driving the car for approximately 8 hours. in the morning and in a place where a maximum of 50 km / h is allowed. speed: “The driver was driving well above the allowed speed (according to the car’s speedometer, he was driving at a speed of approximately 150 km / h), on a curve in the road, which violated the requirements of a road marking line narrow and continuous, in the opposite lane, where it is prohibited to do so; while driving, he was driving with one hand and holding a video recorder (mobile phone) in the other and filmed his serious violations of traffic regulations; in doing so, the driver posed a threat to road safety, posted a video of the violation posted on the social network Facebook, in order to show other people that it is not subject to the requirements of the Traffic Regulations. “

Demonstrating his uniqueness and courage on Facebook, E. Raudonius was not as brave in the police station as when posting a high-profile video on a social network: the offender categorically shook off responsibility and hired a lawyer in court to demonstrate that the police officers prosecuted the police. wrong person because the violation was recorded, he was at work, and explained that the person could not be punished because the video was not made by police officers but was sent to them anonymously.

“As the video was submitted anonymously and the video itself has been removed from the Facebook social network, it is not possible to verify the reliability of such evidence without identifying the person who reported the traffic violation and sent the video,” appealing the police decision. to punish E Red explained this by hiring a lawyer. – Officials in charge of collecting evidence did not collect any evidence to support the report. A police officer who inspected a BMW ruled that it was a car that was seen on an anonymous video and drafted a resolution that went far beyond his authority to punish the person at any cost, in violation of the constitutional presumption of innocence and the requirements of the authority. . (…) It cannot be categorically concluded that in the video the vehicle is driven by an administrative person, there is no conclusive evidence that the speedometer on the vehicle’s dashboard shows the correct data, there is no evidence in the case of excess speed where speed would be recorded in accordance with the requirements established by law, using appropriate speed measurement devices. “

The complaint also emphasized that the mere fact of sharing a video on social media does not in itself presuppose the fact that the person driving the vehicle in the video is the same person who shared the video on Facebook.

However, such arguments of the complaint did not convince the judges of the two-tier courts: it was declared by a provisional and unappealable order that E. Raudonius had been reasonably prosecuted and punished for driving hooligan.

The judges who heard the case pointed out that the police officers also reviewed video recordings of 4 cameras in different places during the investigation, which also captured a dark-colored BMW car, only that these records did not allow to see the license plate number and the license plate number. car driver.

However, according to the court, officials inspected the BMW driven by E. Raudonis: the interior of the car, the dashboard and other parts of the car (interior color, dashboard, shape and lighting of the information panel, control mechanisms of climate) matched, as well as the characteristics of the car. mileage figures.

As Judge Linas Pauliukėnas, who examined E. Raudonis’s complaint, emphasized, the offender admitted that he drove his father’s car to work that morning at the place where the serious traffic violations were recorded, and admitted that he had uploaded the video to Facebook. . Therefore, according to the court, the allegations of the offender attempting to deny driving a BMW car captured on video must be rejected as unfounded, especially since the police-reviewed videos of street cameras did not capture other BMW cars. what happened.

According to the court, E. Raudonius committed the hooligan incentive violation.

“Hooligan incentives are certain reasons for committing an act when the act is committed out of obvious disrespect for a person or society, basic disregard for morals and behavior, when a person’s behavior is an open defiance of order public to appear against others, to show Judge L. Pauliukėnas pointed out that in judicial practice, incentives for hooligans are generally recognized as cases in which a person, while participating in public traffic, on the road, in a parking lot or gathering place, you are dangerous to other people. Demonstrates your distinctive character and disrespect for others by deliberately emphasizing breaking the rules of the road and ignoring caution, safety and respect for the property and the person of other road users, acting in a manner detrimental to their own interests, road users.

There was no doubt that E. Raudonius was driving in a hooligan way: the driver was driving in the settlement significantly exceeding the 50 km / h allowed. speed, in the curves of the road and on a hill where the road is hardly visible, violating the requirements of a narrow and continuous road marking line, drove in the opposite traffic lane, where it is prohibited to do so.

“If E. Raudonius had exceeded the speed limit, he had not followed the road markings simply to rush to work, he would have had no reason to film these serious violations of the Road Traffic Rules (filming during such extreme driving made the driving out even more difficult and increased danger for others) and then post this footage on an online social network “, – according to the court, the offender sought to emphasize non-compliance with road safety regulations and caution, safety and Respect for the property of other road users and individuals.

Having evaluated all the data in the case, the court emphasized that there was no reasonable and reasonable doubt that it was E. Raudonius who filmed and posted on Facebook a video of the serious violations.