The Prosecutor General's Office returned to Pashinsky the pistol from which he shot a civilian in the leg
The General Prosecutor's Office returned to the notorious people's deputy and comrade-in-arms of Arseniy Yatsenyuk in the Popular Front, Sergei Pashinsky, the pistol seized from him, from which he shot at a resident of the Kiev region, Vyacheslav Khimikus, during a high-profile incident on December 31 last year.
Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at Telegram, Facebook, Classmates or In contact with
This is stated in the response of the Prosecutor General’s Office to a request from the Kyiv publication “Ukrainian News”.
“In accordance with the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code, Pashinsky S.V. The Glock pistol belonging to him, which was seized during the pre-trial investigation, was returned,” the statement says.
It is noted that the pistol was returned due to the fact that the criminal proceedings against the deputy were closed on July 26.
Let us remind you that on the eve of the New Year, Pashinsky got into a fight, which ended with him shooting the leg of the 38-year-old local resident Khimikus who attacked him. According to Pashinsky, he and his wife were returning home from the cinema to the village of Khlepcha by car. On an unlit part of the road, their car almost crashed into a minibus that was standing on the roadway without side lights. The deputy came out of the car to find out what was going on. As a result, he got into a quarrel with Khimicus, who allegedly hit Pashinsky on the head with a bottle and knocked him down. While lying on the ground, the deputy shot his attacker in the leg.
According to Khimicus, Pashinsky took out a pistol from the very beginning of the conflict, began threatening him with it, and it was for this that he was hit in the head with a bottle. The victim also claims that Pashinsky did not shoot in the air as a warning, but immediately aimed to kill.
On July 26, the case against Pashinsky was closed - the GPU came to the conclusion that the people's deputy acted within the framework of necessary defense, which excludes his criminal liability. At the same time, the investigation established that Khimikus’ actions did not constitute a criminal offense under Part 2. Article 296 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (hooliganism), however, there may be an administrative violation in the form of obscene language.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.