Telling words echoed in a Perm courtroom when Timur Bekmansurov spoke his final words on Tuesday. He openly admitted his guilt, saying he was responsible for a crime and accepting the consequences that follow.
He expressed remorse for his actions. He pledged to make amends by using part of his disability pension to cover the damage caused, showing a readiness to take responsibility for the harm done. He urged the judge to weigh mercy and humanity in the punishment process, asking for a sentence that reflects both accountability and the individual circumstances of his case.
In the courtroom, Bekmansurov also requested that the court consider the unique aspects of his situation. He asked that the penalty not be the harshest possible, hoping the final decision would balance justice with humanity, and he appealed for a measured response rather than a maximum sentence.
During sentencing, media coverage noted that the court should take into account extenuating circumstances such as a recent third degree disability, positive testimonials, and cooperation with authorities during the investigation. These factors, it was suggested, could influence the scale and nature of the punishment in a way that recognizes both fault and efforts toward rehabilitation.
Bekmansurov stated that the court had retired to deliberate and that the final decision would be announced later, on December 28. The moment carried heavy significance for all involved as the legal process moved toward its resolution.
prosecutor’s request
During the previous day’s court session, Bekmansurov acknowledged that those affected by the incident, including victims and their families, had demanded more than 25 million rubles in compensation. He also agreed to compensate Perm State University with 275,000 rubles for damages to furniture, walls and other property. These admissions highlighted the full scope of the financial claims tied to the tragedy, as reported by RIA Novosti.
The public prosecutor urged the court to impose a life sentence. The argument emphasized that the gravity of the crimes and the resulting losses justified a severe punishment. The prosecutor pressed for a verdict that would reflect the total sum of the offenses committed and the harm caused.
The prosecutor described the required response as one that would reflect both the nature of a mass killing and the impact on the community. The recommendation called for a five-year minimum period in a standard prison setting, followed by consideration of a more restrictive regime given the severity of the acts. The prosecution also accepted that Bekmansurov’s admission of guilt and health status could be mitigating factors, though they did not outweigh the overall severity of the crimes.
According to the state’s attorney’s office, the killer was believed to have a schizoid personality disorder. Yet the office maintained that the person was aware of the seriousness and danger of his actions. The agency asserted that a life sentence would be appropriate to prevent the dangerous offender from influencing the world with further acts of violence. The words of a parent who lost a child in the incident were cited to underline the need to protect the community from such individuals.
At the same hearing, Bekmansurov’s defense attorney, Viktor Pankov, asked the court to avoid a life sentence. He argued that Bekmansurov was relatively young at the time of the incident and had only recently reached adulthood, suggesting the potential for rehabilitation. The lawyer also pointed to Bekmansurov’s interests, including a passion for computer games, and highlighted the recent disability incurred during the arrest, noting the amputation of his left leg following gunshot injuries sustained during apprehension as a factor in consideration of punishment.
Pankov reminded the court that Bekmansurov disagreed with the outcome of the forensic psychiatric evaluation, which deemed him sane. He suggested that repentance, lack of alignment with the legal objectors on certain charges, and the defense’s support for a lighter sentence could be grounds for commuting or reducing the punishment. The defense also noted that the prosecution did not object to some classifications of the crimes described by Bekmansurov.
Shooting at a Perm university
On the morning of September 20, 2021, Bekmansurov arrived on the campus of Perm State University wearing dark clothing and began firing with a Turkish shotgun he had previously acquired. The assault moved through the checkpoint and into training facilities, with the shooter traversing hallways and targeting individuals at close range. The attack left six people dead and forty injured before authorities were able to control the scene. A law enforcement officer intervened, using a service weapon to stop the assailant. Reports from the state prosecutor’s office indicated that Bekmansurov started contemplating mass violence during his school years due to underlying personal turmoil and a sense of hostility toward others and himself. This context framed the incident as a culmination of long simmering factors that the authorities sought to address within the legal process and broader societal safeguards.