this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2026
379 points (99.2% liked)

World News

53971 readers
2837 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

More than a year after a 33-year-old woman froze to death on Austria's highest mountain, her boyfriend goes on trial on Thursday accused of gross negligent manslaughter.

Kerstin G died of hypothermia on a mountain climbing trip to the Grossglockner that went horribly wrong. Her boyfriend is accused of leaving her unprotected and exhausted close to the summit in stormy conditions in the early hours of 19 January 2025, while he went to get help.

The trial has sparked interest and debate, not just in Austria but in mountain climbing communities far beyond its borders.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Derpenheim@lemmy.zip 103 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think the combination of his refusing to continue communication with emergency services and waiting nearly 3 hours before requesting emergency aid is what makes this criminal negligence.

The stupidity on display, while impressive, I dont think is criminal in and of itself. A certain amount of risk and consequence can be expected of such an excursion.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 11 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

That "refusing to continue communication" might have even just been "couldn't hear or feel vibrations from incoming calls". It's also possible he thought they weren't being helpful and decided it was a waste of time to rely on them (all depends on how that initial call went, though the fact that they say he didn't ask for help but he says he did could suggest a communication breakdown or tone mismatch).

It did sound like he was unprepared for how to handle such an emergency if they didn't even use the warming gear they had. But the question is at what point does unpreparedness become criminal and did he really have extra responsibility for her safety even if he thought they were equally experienced, or that she was at least experienced enough to handle her own safety? Unless the defense is lying completely, it sounds like the prosecution isn't approaching this in good faith and might be seeking revenge instead of justice.

[–] Derpenheim@lemmy.zip 4 points 8 hours ago

I dont really have a good argument one way or the other. Im just glad I'm not part of deciding it