The judiciary only heard his cry for help when he reached for the weapon

Wettswil – He must have lost faith in the media at the latest when he was declared a “wild” shooter with the headline “The craziest ex in Switzerland”. He had already lost faith in state institutions. What is tragic is that the feeling of having been abandoned by the state is true. “Something should have gone differently here. This is not a glory for the judiciary,” said Reinhold Schätzle, President of the Second Criminal Chamber of the Higher Court.

On September 18, 2008, the 41-year-old ex-girlfriend entered the property in Wettswil on which the 44-year-old engineer's single-family home was located. In order to “scare” the woman off his floor, he fired two shots into the evening sky from the bedroom window on the first floor. “Frightened,” as the indictment says, the 41-year-old fled to neighbors and alerted the police. Specialists spent seven hours negotiating with the man who threatened to use the weapon if the police attacked him. Then, at three o'clock in the morning, he placed the pistol on a window ledge, stepped outside and allowed himself to be arrested without resistance.

The man was in custody for 46 days. He was then charged with coercion and sentenced by the single judge of the Affoltern district court to a conditional fine of 90 daily rates of 30 francs each. The court and investigation costs of almost 20,000 francs were imposed on him, but were temporarily written off. The 44-year-old had the right to protect his house rights; But the two shots were “out of proportion to the intended purpose”. According to the single judge, he could have “asked the woman face to face to leave the property”.

But exactly this, this “face to face”, was simply not possible. Since the separation in 2004, there have been repeated serious conflicts. After months of harassment, the woman had previously forced her way into the house. She then accused him of beating her, sexually assaulting her and raping her.

The engineer was completely acquitted of the allegations. However, the authorities did not respond to his complaint about false accusations. He contacted the police several times, wrote letters and banned the woman from entering his property. He wanted to avoid coming into direct contact with her at all costs. His fear of being wrongly accused of some crime again was too great.

Her visit caused panic

When the woman announced by phone before that September evening that she wanted to get reading glasses - four years after the separation - the 44-year-old panicked. He turned to the higher court because he wanted a ban on contact. That evening he darkened the apartment and pulled down the shutters on all the windows. When the woman actually showed up on the property, he alerted the police. But she saw no reason to move out. In the hope of driving the woman away, he insulted her violently - to no avail. He tried to drive them away with a bucket of water - without success. When he saw no other option, he grabbed the gun - and fired.

The higher court, to which the 44-year-old referred his conviction, acquitted him without reservation. He could claim justifiable self-defense. Given the history of the “unhappy couple,” he had every reason to keep the woman at a distance. It is not clear what other measures he could have taken. He warned the woman. In addition, he did not threaten her directly with the shots, but rather just frightened her. If the two had met directly, “the risk would have been very great” that he would have been falsely accused again.

The court described it as scandalous that his various criminal complaints for trespassing, false accusations and telephone terrorism had gone unheeded. “I just wonder how the judiciary would have reacted,” said the court chairman, “if the same thing had happened not to a man but to a woman.”

VeV comment

“This is not a reassurance for the judiciary,” says the President of the Second Criminal Chamber of the Higher Court.

And then at the very end he says "I wonder how the justice system would have reacted if the same thing had happened not to a man but to a woman"

Court President Reinhold Schätzle deserves great praise at this point. He correctly recognized that in this case, as is so often the case, the justice system was blind in one eye. He recognized it – and – he corrected it. He deserves thanks and recognition for this.

It would be desirable that such decisions were made more often. That an unbiased view of the facts guides decisions, instead of 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 be fairer and our society a little more equal.