Facts
On October 5, 1973, X. was involved in a traffic accident with A. in Basel. A. followed X. to his workplace, a currency exchange office, and confronted him about his driving behavior. The discussion escalated and X. repeatedly asked A. to leave the premises. A. refused and X. eventually fired a warning shot with his revolver to make him leave.
The cantonal court convicted X. of coercion, illegal shooting, and reckless behavior. X. appealed and the federal court was seized.
Considerations
The federal court examined whether X. had acted in self-defense against a violation of domicile. It considered that the fact of remaining illegally in a place assimilated to a domicile constitutes an attack on the protected interest that represents the owner's control over their domicile.
The court also examined whether the warning shot fired by X. constituted excessive defense against the violation of domicile. It considered that X.'s defense had exceeded the limits of self-defense, as A. had not threatened X. and that firing a warning shot with a loaded and unlocked revolver was disproportionate.
F…