There are 3 votes to STF to condemn Carla Zombelli, chasing the man in his hand | Method

Minister Gilmar Mendis, the Federal Supreme Court Dean (STF), on Friday, voted for illegal trouble with the illegal recovering of the weapon and the use of a firearm. She responds to the process of chasing a person with a pistol during the second round of the 2022 election.

As a reporter, Gilmar Mendis has opened the votes and suggested a sentence of 5 years to 3 months during the semi -open regime. He argued that the Supreme Court would decide to lose an MP’s mandate as a consequence of the crime. The vote already includes Carmen Losia and Alexander de Mores.

If this position is confirmed by the majority plenary, Carla Zambelli loses her command, but only after the final judgment of the case, that is, after all the appeals are over.

Gilmar Mendis deputy Daniel Silvira (PTB-RJ) has withdrawn the decision to withdraw the order. The trial recognizes the change in court law.

Prior to the punishment of Daniel Silvira, the Supreme Court felt that the loss of the mandate of the federal parliamentarians who was criminally convicted was based on the approval of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly. In the trial of Daniel Silvira, the court decided that the criminal offense was responsible for the loss of a parliamentary command, regardless of the punishment, the ruling of the house or the Senate, the rule of the ruling or subsequent decision.

“Therefore, in view of this court’s legal science, the Federal Deputy Carla Zambelli’s parliamentary command is to lose the impact of the crime.”

The inquiry of Carla Zombelli takes place at the STF virtual plenary. In this manner, ministers record votes on a virtual platform, without a real -time discussion. Voting will open until March 28.

Carla Zambelli’s defense tried to take up the Supreme Court process, which had nothing to do with the exercise of the command and therefore the first case should be analyzed. The strategy has not developed.

Last week, the deputy’s lawyer criminal Daniel Bealski had asked ministers to personally demonstrate defense arguments. After the provocation of Carla Zambelli, she said that she had acted and she was allowed to take a gun, and she thought she would exercise a right – after the episode.

Carla Zambelli accompanied a black man with his security guards in the vicinity of Sao Paulo and the second round of the election. Journalist Luan Arazo then ran to the restaurant in the area. She responded after hearing “Lula” and “return to the manhole you don’t go.”

In condemning the deputy, the Attorney General’s Office, although it had a weapon for personal use, was argued that it was not allowed to “visible maintenance” in public places. In the evaluation of the PGR, the behavior of the deputy is in danger of collective. The complaint stated that the journalist did not give “accident or real threat” to justify the use of weapon.

The Supreme Court received a complaint against the deputy in August. Only the complaint of Andre Mendonka and Cassio Noons Marx, appointed by former President Zair Bolsonoro to the Federal Supreme Court.

In his vote, Gilmar Mendis claims to have a gun for personal protection “does not cover permanent use of weapons or permanent in public places.”

Gilmar said, “Bearer has not authorized that the bearer has chased others on the open road with his gun for self -defense, although the criminals are in danger, even if she is in danger of physical integrity.”

Although the deputy was offended, the minister argued that Luan was “embarrassed” with a gun. “Criminal law provides specific mechanisms to cope with crimes against respect and threats and do not legitimize any kind of armed retaliation.”

Minister Carmen Losia also felt that the deputy Luan was “used with guns” by “the serious threat used with guns,” she said.

Alexander de Mores showed that the evidence of the case showed that “in a way, she was ashamed to be against the victim against her will, and that she had submitted an armed threatening situation, without any legal justification for such behavior.”

With this word, Daniel Bealsky representing Carla Zombelli

Unfortunately, despite the protection of the Federal Deputy Carla Zambelli (PL-SP), he mentioned his legitimate right to make oral protection, and this claim did not even analyze the prominent relations of the process in the STF. This is the best opportunity to show that the courtyard placed in a given vote is wrong. The right to this lawyer cannot be replaced by the video sent by the sentiment – the certainty of the visualization of the judges does not exist. Despite this protection reduction, monuments were sent and sent with ministers to inspire them to look at the case and inspect them.