Facts
Parties: The defendant L. against the Ministry of Public Affairs of the Canton of Vaud.
Facts: On May 9, 1993, L. threatened three police officers with a loaded pistol after attempting to escape arrest. The pistol was loaded, but the hammer had to be cocked with a force of 5.5 CartA before a shot could be fired. L. was convicted of endangering life (Art. 129 SCC) and other offenses. The cantonal court and the cantonal appellate court confirmed the judgment.
Main question: Whether the threat with the pistol under the conditions of Art. 129 SCC is to be qualified as "imminent danger to life," particularly in view of the force required to cock the hammer.
Considerations
The question of whether the threat with the pistol under the conditions of Art. 129 SCC is to be qualified as "imminent danger to life" was extensively addressed in the judgment. The lower court and the defendant assumed that the definition of "imminent danger to life" in Art. 129 SCC and Art. 139 para. 3 SCC (today Art. 140 para. 4 SCC) should be interpreted equally. The lower court relied on a dissenting opinion of the Higher Court of Zurich and concluded that a force of 5.5 CartA to cock the hammer could not be considered an obstacle to the assumption of "imminent danger to life."
The Federal Supreme Court decision examined the development of case law on Art. 129 SCC and Art. 139 para. 3 SCC. It was established that the definition of "imminent danger to life" in Art. 129 SCC could be interpreted more broadly than within the framework of the robbery offense (Art. 140 para. 4 SCC). The case law on Art. 129 SCC had developed independently of that on Art. 139 SCC. The Federal Supreme Court decision emphasized that "imminent danger to life" within the meaning of Art. 129 SCC already exists when there is a concrete and immediate danger situation, which does not necessarily require a probability of over 50%. The "imminent danger to…