The Hanau assassin contacted the prosecutor months before the murders. Should the authorities have intervened? t-online.de spoke to arms law expert Dietmar Heubrock.
The racist act of terrorism by Hanau raises serious questions. Tobias R., who apparently killed ten people on Wednesday and then committed suicide, spread right-wing extremist ideas and felt persecuted by dark forces. Nevertheless, as a sports shooter, he legally owned firearms and was a member of the shooting club. You can see his reaction the day after the crime above in the video,
As first learned on Thursday t-online.de, Tobias R. wrote in November 2019 to the Federal Prosecutor’s Office to report alleged surveillance and interference by dark powers. The letter is largely identical to R.’s later confession to the deeds in Hanau. However, the authority did not initiate an investigation.
Should the Federal Prosecutor have tried to prevent Tobias R. from losing his weapon authorization card or would a tightening of weapons law in Germany prevent such acts? T-online.de talks to Prof. Dr. Dietmar Heubrock. The leading legal psychologist and weapons law expert deals with the prevention of assassinations.
t-online.de: Mr. Heubrock, Tobias R., the suspected perpetrator of Hanau, had extremely racist ideas and was at the same time a legal gun owner. Could tighter gun controls have prevented the crime?
Dietmar Heubrock: A stricter gun law would change little. The proportion of legal weapon owners in dangerous crimes has been around three percent in recent years. Most firearms offenses are carried out with illegally held weapons. But there are also isolated cases of legal weapon owners, as in Hanau.
Hanau is an isolated case that is difficult to prevent?
I see it that way. I have to deal with many cases where the weapon control mechanism works in Germany. The weapon law assessments usually work well.
The alleged perpetrator was a marksman. How often are you checked by the authorities as such?
Target shooters must regularly demonstrate that they are active as target shooters at all. You must also take part in competitions registered by the respective clubs. If you do not do this, you will lose the right to use your weapons.
Prof. Dr. Dietmar Heubrock works as a professor at the Institute for Psychology and Cognitive Research (IPK) in Bremen, and since 2007 he has been the managing director of the Bremen Institute for Legal Psychology. (Source: imago images)
But even an active sports shooter can become mentally ill.
I agree. Of course, we can never rule out mental illnesses.
Don’t we need regular psychiatric reports, even for long-time gun owners?
You could seriously think about it, but we hardly have any experts in Germany. A weapon law assessment provides for more than a casual conversation, the experts must be psychologically trained. There are currently 23 names in the nationwide register of experts, perhaps half of them are no longer active. That is why gun owners have to drive across the country in search of an appraiser.
Generally asked: How will I be checked if I legally want to take possession of a weapon?
Before the age of 25, you must have a certificate of personal maturity if you want to have a gun, hunting license or gun ownership card (WBK). There is a regular check for older people. The public prosecutor’s office and the Federal Central Register are used and the local police and the Office for the Protection of the Constitution are also requested. So there is a control, but without a psychological examination.
So are younger people under more control?
People who have not reached the age of 25 must pass a psychological aptitude test. Otherwise they will not be granted the right to use a weapon.
Why does age determine the ability to use a weapon?
This regulation was introduced after Robert Steinhäuser’s rampage in Erfurt in 2002. Steinhäuser, then 19 years old, managed to get firearms for his crime, partly legally and partly illegally.
Legislation has been tightened, but only for younger people?
It has been thought that adolescents and adolescents pose a particular danger. That is why in 2002 there was a “Lex Steinhäuser”, a law that was knitted with a very hot needle. Within a year, the legislative process came through the Bundestag and Bundesrat, and that was extremely fast by German standards. The manual errors were only noticed later.
Why did the legislature choose this age limit?
The age limit of 25 years can be justified neurobiologically, because by this age the frontal brain, which is responsible for cognitive functions such as planning and maturity, has matured. And we also know this age limit from criminal law: up to the age of 25, defendants can still be sentenced under juvenile justice.
The day after the attack, more and more details about the victims and the alleged death gunner are known. (Source: AP / dpa)
Now Tobias R. was 43 years old. Do the authorities have to intervene with older people, for example if they become mentally ill?
It usually happens. If the federal prosecutor or the police become aware of this, they will automatically contact the weapons authorities and the gun license will be withdrawn or a psychiatric assessment will be arranged.
t-online.de there is a letter, which the alleged perpetrator sent to the federal prosecutor’s office in November 2019. Should the authority have intervened?
Then the flow of information between the authorities did not work well. But with the help of the National Arms Register, which was put into operation in Germany in 2013, such things should be checked.
Does that only work on paper or does it actually work in practice?
The paths between the authorities may still be too slow. They should actually work, but in practice it seems to be failing. I do weapons law assessments myself and the authorities actually react very quickly to possible dangerous situations such as suicide threats, alcohol or drug abuse.
Accordingly, you were personally for expert opinions with people whose mental health no longer allowed to use a weapon.
Of course.
How long does it take before a suspect’s weapons are removed?
Going fast. The weapons are seized the moment there is a connection. Example: A man threatens a woman with suicide if she gets divorced. When the woman reports this to the authorities, a special task force (SEC) is at the door and collects the weapons. If he wants her back, he has to provide a psychological report.
Can a suspect’s weapons be taken away if he becomes noticeable through right-wing statements on the Internet?
At the moment that this is reported to the police or the regulatory authority, this would be a connecting act in the sense of weapons law. Then the authority must already act.
And would that also apply to the federal prosecutor?
Naturally.
How could a possible lack of response from the authority be explained?
For example, the authorities could introduce a delay due to tactical investigations. The federal prosecutor’s office might have believed that it was not a single offender but a network. It could have been of overriding interest not to send the SEK straight to his apartment.
Now it turns out, however, that the alleged perpetrator was not in any network. So the authority should have reacted?
We would then have to see which information channels would not have worked in the case. But that would be a classic case in which the police would have informed the regulatory authority immediately and vice versa.
Then what would have happened?
Then his weapons would have been immediately collected and stored.
Thank you for the interview, Mr. Heubrock.
– ,
