Trial in Innsbruck

Shot at three per mille on balcony

Symbol photo

(Bild: stock.adobe.com)

On New Year's Day, a 38-year-old German probably gave his neighbors quite a scare. The man fired several shots with a blank-firing pistol from an apartment in Innsbruck. Now he was in court.

The incident took place on the afternoon of January 1st at around 4 p.m. and resulted in a Cobra operation: the German - who lives near a large Innsbruck cinema - reached for his gun on the balcony of his apartment and pulled the trigger. "I had the gun above my head and shot upwards," he explained, also assuring that he did not want to frighten or even threaten anyone.

"I just wanted to shoot again on New Year's Day," he justified, also explaining that he had been drinking heavily since having lunch with a friend.

I just wanted to shoot again on New Year's Day.

Der Angeklagte vor Gericht

Almost three per mille alcohol in his blood
The man, who pleaded "partially guilty" at the beginning of the trial, finally admitted that firing the alarm gun was "a big mistake overall". "Normally, I'm a rational person," he added, blaming his actions on his considerable level of alcoholization.

"It was almost three per mille," said Judge Helga Moser in his direction when he could no longer remember this figure.

Exact weapon position remained unclear
Two police officers, who were questioned as witnesses, were finally asked to clarify how the man had actually held the weapon. "I think he was holding the gun horizontally," said one police officer, while the other assumed that he had fired the gun upwards above his head.

"But in the end, that doesn't matter," the judge intervened when the defendant directed questions about this to the second police officer. "You did something wrong," she stated. "Shooting" was not permitted in the city anyway and the man had already been sanctioned for it: The weapon was taken from him as well as a weapons ban imposed on him.

Acquittal due to lack of "intent"
 Nevertheless, Judge Moser decided in favor of an acquittal. "The dangerous threat charged requires intent," she said, explaining the already legally binding acquittal. Said "intent" could not be established in this case, which is why "in case of doubt" a decision had to be made in favor of the previously blameless defendant.