Annoyed by the noise, he takes out his rifle.
On 26 February, the Marigot court heard a case involving violence with a weapon: a man, annoyed by work being carried out at his neighbours' house, decided to confront them on a Sunday, pointing a shotgun at their chests.
On 21 December 2025, F.M., his wife and their son were busy working in two flats they owned. The noise disturbed R.M., their neighbour, who lived and worked on the site as the residence manager. He came out of his flat and approached them bare-chested, with a long gun pressed against his chest. To the couple's astonishment, he points the rifle into the air and pulls the trigger, but no shot is fired. The defendant describes this gesture as a safety demonstration. He then returns to his home to put the weapon away and attempts to return to discuss the matter. The neighbours, in shock, refuse to talk to him. The next day, F.M. files a complaint. The forensic unit diagnosed him with reactive anxiety. A search of the defendant's home led to the seizure of a legally owned arsenal: five long guns, two handguns and ammunition.
Intent at the heart of the debate
In the dock, R.M. admitted to an "error of judgement". As a holder of a sporting shooting and clay pigeon shooting licence, he claimed that he was cleaning his weapon when the noise disturbance prompted him to intervene. His daughter was asleep in the flat and he did not want to leave the weapon within her reach. "I have been handling weapons since I was sixteen, and I didn't immediately realise that it was a mistake to take it out," he explained, emphasising his usual good relations with the complainants.
This argument was vigorously refuted by the civil parties' lawyer, who argued that it was a deliberate act intended to intimidate his neighbours. "Whether the cartridge was blank or not does not change how the victims felt," she argued. The deputy prosecutor agreed, highlighting the incongruity of the defence: a man who claims to be an expert in the handling of weapons cannot claim inadvertence.
Acquittal or conviction: the court will decide on 5 March
The public prosecutor has requested a one-year suspended prison sentence, the confiscation of the entire arsenal seized and a ten-year ban on owning or carrying weapons. "Weapons are not toys. This is how tragedies happen," the prosecution pointed out. The civil parties are claiming €2,000 in moral damages for F.M. and €1,500 each for his wife and son, plus an additional €1,500 per victim for legal costs. The defence, for its part, argued for acquittal, contesting both the material element — the weapon was never pointed at anyone — and the criminal intent, claiming that the "false shot" was only intended to reassure. The lawyer also pointed out that the couple's wife and son had explicitly refused to be examined by a doctor during their hearing, stating that they did not feel the need to do so — a factor that he considered likely to weaken the demonstration of emotional shock constituting the offence. The court handed down its decision on 5 March. Finding that the acts of violence with a weapon did not result in total incapacity to work for more than eight days, it found R.M. guilty and sentenced him to a six-month suspended prison term. The court also prohibited him from possessing or carrying a weapon for three years and ordered the confiscation of all the weapons seized. In civil proceedings, each of the three civil parties was awarded €500 in compensation for moral damages, as well as €700 under Article 475 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
