The justice system only heard his cry for help when he resorted to a weapon

Wettswil – He likely lost all faith in the media when he was declared a "mad" shooter under the headline "Switzerland's Craziest Ex." He had already lost faith in state institutions before that. Tragically, his feeling of being abandoned by the state is well-founded. "Things should have been handled very differently here. This is not a shining example for the justice system," said Reinhold Schätzle, President of the Second Criminal Chamber of the High Court.

On September 18, 2008, the 41-year-old ex-girlfriend entered the property in Wettswil where the detached house of the 44-year-old engineer was located. To "scare" the woman off his property, he fired two shots into the evening sky from the first-floor bedroom window. "Frightened," as stated in the indictment, the 41-year-old fled to neighbors and alerted the police. Specialists negotiated with the man for seven hours; he threatened to use his weapon if the police intervened. Then, at 3:00 a.m., he placed the pistol on a windowsill, went outside, and surrendered without resistance.

The man spent 46 days in pretrial detention. He was then charged with coercion and sentenced by the single judge of the Affoltern District Court to a suspended fine of 90 daily rates of 30 Swiss francs each. He was ordered to pay court and investigation costs of almost 20,000 Swiss francs, but these were temporarily waived. The 44-year-old had indeed had the right to protect his property; however, the two shots fired were "disproportionate to the intended purpose." The judge reasoned that he could have "asked the woman face-to-face to leave the property.".

But precisely this "face-to-face" confrontation was simply impossible. Since their separation in 2004, there had been repeated serious conflicts. After months of harassment, the woman had previously forced her way into the house. She subsequently accused him of beating, sexually assaulting, and raping her.

The engineer was fully acquitted of the charges. However, the authorities did not pursue his complaint of false accusation. He contacted the police repeatedly, wrote letters, and issued a restraining order against the woman, prohibiting her from entering his property. He wanted to avoid direct contact with her at all costs. His fear of being falsely accused of some crime again was too great.

Her visit triggered panic

When the woman called him that September evening to announce she wanted to pick up reading glasses – four years after their separation – the 44-year-old panicked. He appealed to the High Court, seeking a restraining order. That evening, he darkened his apartment, lowering all the blinds. When the woman actually appeared on his property, he called the police. But they saw no reason to respond. Hoping to drive her away, he verbally abused her – without success. He tried to drive her off with a bucket of water – again, without success. When he saw no other option, he grabbed a gun – and fired.

The High Court, to which the 44-year-old appealed his conviction, acquitted him without reservation. He was entitled to invoke the defense of self-defense. Given the history between the "unfortunate pairing," he had every reason to keep the woman at a distance. It was not apparent what other measures he could have taken. He had warned the woman. Furthermore, he had not directly threatened her with the shots, but only frightened her. Had the two encountered each other directly, "the risk would have been very high" that he would have been falsely accused again.

The court described it as scandalous that his various criminal complaints for trespassing, false accusation, and telephone harassment had been ignored. "I just wonder how the justice system would have reacted," the presiding judge remarked, "if the same thing had happened to a woman instead of a man."

VeV comment

"This is no page for the justice system," says the president of the Second Criminal Chamber of the High Court.

And then, at the very end, he says, "I wonder how the justice system would have reacted if the same thing had happened to a woman instead of a man."

Presiding Judge Reinhold Schätzle deserves high praise here. He correctly recognized that, as so often happens, the justice system was blind to a problem in this case. He recognized it – and – he rectified it. For this, he deserves thanks and recognition.

It would be desirable to see more decisions like this made. Decisions should be guided by an unbiased view of the facts, rather than by the often noticeable prejudices and preconceived opinions.

Wherever the judge's question "What if the same thing had happened to a woman?" can be asked, this attitude must also be adopted; then our justice system will become fairer and our society a little more equal.