[ad_1]
The Kaunas Regional Court issued its verdict on Vidas Anuprevičius, a retiree who tried to express himself in politics a few years ago, accused of shooting a 26-year-old competitor who had been illegally considered a weapon last year, saying he had threatened him in a fight with a woman.
Adult games
The bloody incident that led to the trial of V. Anuprevičius, 72, and which was undoubtedly influenced by the amount of alcohol consumed by both participants in this futile duel that day, took place on September 28 in Kaišiadorys.
That fateful Saturday, V. Anuprevičius, who had been actively involved in politics a few years ago, was a member of the district electoral commission in the Kaišiadorys district government election in 2015, nominated by the Labor Party, visited his friend 53-year-old who lives in the neighborhood. V. Anuprevičius described her to law enforcement officers as the lady of her heart. Although these officials did not tend to exaggerate the relationship with him. The woman’s husband had gone to the village that day and she had had V. Anuprevičius coffee that morning.
When the guest left, the supposed lady of his heart soon found another company. However, V. Anuprevičius after a while started looking for her again, making an obsessive phone call. Unhappy with his calls, the woman’s phone was answered by the participants at his new table. One of them was not too old to divorce his second wife at the age of 44 S.Ž.
The best defense when attacking?
From that fateful S.Ž. V. Anuprevičius, who was detained behind bars at night, said that a stranger who answered his son’s phone started threatening him. Finally, they decided to establish a face-to-face relationship. However, as law enforcement found, both were not sure of his safety.
As a result, V. Anuprevičius went to his farm near Kaišiadorys, which is even ten kilometers away, to collect a rifle from a closet there, which he admitted to having illegally bought from a hunter already dead. For self defense purposes, if someone with malicious intent is in a remote home.
O S.Ž. He called a friend who told law enforcement that the caller had asked to be accompanied to a meeting with an aggressive elder “from the phone.” Arriving at the agreed meeting place in the garage set, an Audi car parked there with the windows fogged up. However, S.Ž. a friend said he could see that a stranger behind the wheel of an Audi had a gun in his hand. A shot was fired by them as they approached. A friend managed to dodge a shot and S.Ž. sukniubo. The shooter then started the Audi engine and drove off. However, S.Ž. a friend managed to memorize his license plates. V. Anuprevičius, identified according to them, was arrested at his home an hour later. It was set at 1.16 avg. drunkenness.
Shooting – consequence of duplication?
S.Ž. V. Anuprevičius, accused of murder, told a different story about the incident that left him on the bench. He claimed that he had shot through the open window of his car when S.Ž., who had previously called him a rooster, had already set out to kill him. The shot and the sound of the window breaking were said to have been heard almost at the same time.
Anuprevičius Lives / Photo by Laimis Steponavičius
Forensic experts claimed that S.Ž. the cause of death was a gunshot wound to the throat. However, broken glass was also found in his hand.
According to V. Anuprevičius, after the shooting, S.Ž. friends, whom he had seen twice, who approached him menacingly on all fours, fled. As a result, to leave, he still had to get the victim off the road.
The psychiatrists to whom V. Anuprevičius was shown stated that it was inappropriate to assign him an expert examination to determine whether he was charged.
Eloquent prehistory
V. Anuprevičius was also involved in a similar story, which did not have such a tragic continuation, in the spring of 2014. Then, as he said six years ago, he would be approached by the police by another woman who had not responded to his love, and also threatened that the woman could remain disabled for life and end her days in prison.
However, the pre-trial investigation into the murder threat was terminated without V. Anuprevičius proving these allegations. She managed to convince him that she had written threatening SMS messages to this woman about her unpayable debt. And although a revolver in illegal possession was found in his home, which it was decided to confiscate, V. Anuprevičius also avoided criminal responsibility for that reason. Intentional is also not seen here in his actions.
This time V. Anuprevičius is accused not only of S.Ž. murder, but also the illegal possession of two firearms and at least six rounds. When he was arrested due to an incident in a series of garages, not only the severed pipe with which S.Ž. was shot was found, but also the same illegally held revolver. V. Anuprevičius justified acquiring this even when he did not need a permit to possess such a weapon.
S.Ž. he was recognized as a victim in his criminal case. parents who are pairs of V. Anuprevičius. Both demanded a sentence of 30,000 each from the son’s murderer. EUR moral consideration. The macabre coincidence is that his daughter also died 10 years ago the same day his son was shot.
He reacted calmly to the verdict.
The prosecutor Virginijus Mizaras proposed to isolate V. Anuprevičius, who only partially admitted his guilt, which had been provoked, from society for thirteen years. And this is almost the maximum punishment according to the accusation against V. Anuprevičius. For the crime he is charged with, the Penal Code provides prison sentences of seven to fifteen years.
Judge Jurga Vasiliauskienė, who examined the case, announced today that for S.Ž. grants V. Anuprevičius eleven years in prison for murder and one and a half years in prison for illegal possession of weapons and ammunition. However, summarizing these sentences, the sentence of eleven years in prison was declared final.
Anuprevičius Lives / Photo by Laimis Steponavičius
S.Ž. parents’ claims for moral compensation are only partially satisfied. Both were sentenced to 17,000 each for the murder of their son. and funeral expenses exceeding four thousand euros.
V. Anuprevičius, who can still appeal this sentence after hearing the punishment imposed on him, this time refrained from commenting. Perhaps because, at the time of sentencing him, S.Ž. the parents were not present.
Photo by Laimis Steponavičius
[ad_2]
