A St. Petersburg court issued a six‑month prison sentence to a man after convicting him of stealing an air pistol from a Mercedes‑Benz C‑Class and subsequently firing at the same vehicle. The court’s ruling, announced via the Telegram channel used by the joint press service of the city courts, marks a clear consequence for breaking into a vehicle and for the violent actions that followed. The case underscores how authorities address property crimes coupled with assault, and it provides a concrete example of how penalties are calculated when mechanical damage and potential danger to others are involved.
The事件 occurred on the night of July 2, 2022, when the offender observed that the rear door window of a Mercedes C180, parked along Oktyabrskaya Embankment, stood slightly ajar. He took advantage of the moment, opening the window fully, entering the cabin, and locating a Gletcher air pistol along with bullets. In a calculated act, he then fired at the windshield at least six times, while also causing extensive interior damage. The assault damaged the Mercedes‑Benz emblem, the glove compartment lid, the center console, the air vents, the seat adjustment controls, and several switches. The right rear door sustained damage as well, and the total material damage was quantified at 402,600 rubles, reflecting the severity of the vandalism and the potential risk posed to occupants or passersby. The incident illustrates how a theft can quickly escalate into a violent confrontation, with tangible consequences for the victim and a broader impact on public safety expectations for urban areas where high‑end vehicles are parked and monitored by security systems and bystanders alike.
Beyond the prison sentence, the offender was also subjected to a monetary penalty of 30,000 rubles, and the court ordered restitution to cover the full amount of the damage suffered by the car owner. This combination of imprisonment and fines demonstrates the dual approach used by courts in cases where theft, illegal possession of a weapon, and deliberate damage intersect. The decision serves as a reminder that financial accountability accompanies criminal penalties in instances where property destruction creates a direct and measurable loss for victims, and it reflects the careful consideration courts give to the circumstances surrounding the offense, including the offender’s intent and the level of threat posed by the weapon involved.
Separately, there were reports of danger to parked vehicles in another area, where bricks reportedly fell from a building as cars stood nearby. This detail points to the variety of hazards that can affect vehicles in urban settings, though it is unrelated to the criminal actions in this case. It serves to illustrate the broader context of vehicle security and urban safety, highlighting the importance of building maintenance, careful street surveillance, and personal vigilance when parking in densely populated city sections. The juxtaposition of a deliberate act of violence against a theft with an unrelated environmental risk emphasizes how multiple risk factors can influence the experience of vehicle owners in metropolitan environments.