A Swedish man who saved a woman from assault has been sentenced to prison rather than being applauded for performing a civic duty.
In a case which has provoked outrage across the country, Per-Anders Pettersson was found guilty of aggravated assault despite the would-be Samaritan’s claims he was acting in self-defence on behalf of 66-year-old Gard Forsgren who was being attacked in her car.
Forsgren, now 69, was assailed in 2006 while inside her vehicle near Nas in the central Swedish county of Dalarna when Pettersson intervened. He dragged the woman’s attacker from the car and hit him two times with a jack reports The Local. The two men were known to each other from a previous court case.
Peterrsson was sentenced to 12 months in a Norrkoping jail in a move which shocked Forsgren. “He has been treated dreadfully and unjustly. Would it have been better if this other man had strangled me?” she told reporters. “He is the biggest angel that I have met,” Forsgren added.
In the summer of 2006 Forsgren’s vehicle was stopped by the drunken man who then forced himself into the car and placed her in a stranglehold which left her fearing for her life. In spite of her screams and the flashing hazard lights around 20 cars passed without stopping to assist.
Pettersson came to Forsgren’s rescue by initially yelling at the attacked before striking him on the shoulder with the car jack he was wielding. A second blow to the head caused the 26-year-old to suffer a fractured a skull. This second strike rendered the self-defence claim inadmissible by law and Pettersson was fined SEK 50,000 in addition to the one year prison term.
Forsberg’s assailant was placed on probation and ordered to pay SEK 8,000 in compensation.
Fisy said
>But I do hope that your will not let fact that at for all us old men at some point in you life it will be likely that Cancer might be rising in Uranus depress you. :)
Hopefully not. Asteroids have been enough of a problem :[
Looks like another of your assumptions about me that’s incorrect Fisy :) . Never voted Labour, was around before New Labour; I’m not particularily young, although perhaps younger than you. Next?
Thanks for the wiki advice, but it won’t surprise you to hear that I’ve already read that. It didn’t really answer my question. For example, the CPS in the UK decides whether or not to proceed with a case and I assume a similar agency acts in a similar manner in Sweden. I can’t see why this couldn’t be covered by internal guidelines to allow flexibility in situations like this.
Oh, and I like the reference to cheap shots. I’m not old enough to prevent me saying, “you started it” :D .
And here is some nice written piece that will explain to you Brumley what the New labour project was all about as i was writing about above .
He does not think the New Labour project has been bad at what it has set out to achieve but in fact wildly successful :
http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc187.htm
Brumely :
>@Robert. Not everything that you read should be taken literally. Perhaps I should have asked you to read and understand? I’ll translate: I agree with you.
In the defence of Brumley I read it that he though this was not punishment at all.
He did mix in a question that I did answer for him but I did read it the way others here did, which was not the way you did Robert.
Brumley did write :
>@Fisy. So you’ve fallen foul of the law? Banking violations? :) . What’s double jeopardy got to do with the question that I asked?
I will of course ignore that cheap shot as I am in what I gave as two examples in the OR part which is that I have done a little bit of the reading into law and history of law ( of which English have very much to be proud of ).
It apper you are typical of generation that has known only life under New Labour in UK, a project that had as its aim to over turn many of the old things of England .
Only one that does not understand own history ( of development of English justice and law ) would go on to ask this kind of the question about double jeopardy.
Go and read up a little on the history of UK common law and these things, trial by jury, double jeopardy, statute of limitations.
As there is plenty on these in you favourite source, wikipedia this appear to be an example of selective lazyness again on your part. But I am happy as usual to help you.
>>Only young inxeperinced would talk like this, one who has never been caught up in the wheels of state legal system or has not studided the law a little .
Terry wrote :
>You’ll be doing horoscopes next Fisy! :)
I do hope that you know a little more about English law history than young Brumely.
I would guess so — as you know of Citizen Smith,something that must have been made before Brumley was born — which makes you at least 40s.
But I do hope that your will not let fact that at for all us old men at some point in you life it will be likely that Cancer might be rising in Uranus depress you. :)
“TAKE CRAZY PEOPLE AND GIVE THEM STRONG DRUGS AND ELECTRIC SHOCKS TO MAKE THEM TAKE IT EASY” but they still write only in capitals.
THEY TAKE CRAZY PEOPLE AND GIVE THEM STRONG DRUGS AND ELECTRIC SHOCKS TO MAKE THEM TAKE IT EASY… BUT THOSE CRIMINALS, THEY JUST LET THEM KEEP KILLING AND ASSAULTING… LAW NEEDS TO CHANGE…
LAWS ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH, PEOPLE RAPING, KILLING AND GOIGN TO THE STREETS TO KEEP DOING THE SAME AFTER A FEW YEARS… AS IF A PERSONS LIFE WASN´T WORTH A THING…
NO WONDER WHY IS THERE MORE AND MORE CORRUPTION AS PEOPLE WOULD PREFER TO GO THEIR WAY THAN TO FOLLOW A JUSTICE THAT IS NOT RIGHTFUL AND A LAWS THAT DOES NOT PROTECT THEM..
WHY THE CONTRACT OF PRIVAT SECURITY HAS INCREASED A 40% IN EUROPE DURING THE LAST 5 YEARS?? ARE THEY ALSO MAKING BUSSINESS OF PEOPLES SECURITY, IS THAT ALL WHAT IS ABOUT?’
PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO WAKE UP SOONER OR LATER, BEFORE THIS PUNCH OF EGOIST AND CORRUPT POLITICIANS TURN OUR SOCIETIES INTO A MIDDLE AGE CIRCUS… WHERE EVERYONE COULD BE SUBJECT OF ROBBERIES AND ASSAULTS..
>Only young inxeperinced would talk like this, one who has never been caught up in the wheels of state legal system or has not studided the law a little .
You’ll be doing horoscopes next Fisy! :)
Good one Jim; I fell for that :) . Mind you, it should be no suprise that I’m literal myself after all those arguments with Fisy over the state guarantee letters and the Darling-Mathiesen transcript :D .
Jim, you are absolutely correct. When writing in the English language and one wishes to express sarcasm, the correct way to do this would be to use italics to express a deviation from the norm.
And Bromley, your original statement does not express sarcasm in any way. You expressed a clear and direct thought. That is not sarcasm.
Robert & Bromley – Maybe sarcasm should be banned from IceNews, unless the text it’s presented in a manner that clearly identifies it as being sarcastic (eg italics). I remember someone’s similar thoughts on sarcastic YouTube videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPgkZfaA_K8
It would seem that your proficiency does not extend as far as non-literal interpretations. Don’t worry Rob, you’ll get there in the end.
My friend if I was foaming at the mouth I would not be writing messages. Seriously, when you are wrong you should admit it. Otherwise, yes, you are a fool. I did not create the English language, though I use it quite proficiently. Maybe a dictionary and some schooling would help you. Though it seems you are not interested in learning from your mistakes.
That’s right Rob, I’m the fool ;) . No need to foam at the mouth.
@Bromley86
Apparently you do not understand the meaning of the word literally. When you write something it is defining thought and has a definition. If you cannot use the language correctly, DO NOT COMMENT, YOU MAKE YOURSELF LOOK LIKE A FOOL.
Jesus, it gets worse. This sentence was not quite correct:
Instead, it should have read that he was ordered to pay SEK 50k in compensation!
http://www.thelocal.se/23092/20091105/
So the attacker effectively had his fine paid for him. I imagine he probably got some sort of legal aid as well, but that’s a total guess.
No point in contributing to a legal fund for Peterrsson as he’s had his attempt to appeal the case quashed:
“jail a man who save a person’s life”
He was found guilty of smashing someone’s skull after that person had already been incapacitated. From the tone of your comment, you seem to condone such behaviour. However, unnecessary violence should be punished.
While some of you have a love affair arguing about pedophiles, someone needs to find out if there is a legal fund for this poor man Per-Anders Pettersson.
He is being heavily fined and going to jail for beating a drunk schmuck who was strangling a woman.
(personally, I think he showed great restraint – if this happened to me at that age I think I may have said “F*ck it” and the judge and/or the prosecutor right in the *ss.)
I can’t believe someone would be stupid enough to jail a man who save a person’s life and give probation and a fine to the criminal. What kind of idiot would do something like that. Doesn’t anyone have any common sense anymore?
@Robert. Not everything that you read should be taken literally. Perhaps I should have asked you to read and understand? I’ll translate: I agree with you.
@Fisy. So you’ve fallen foul of the law? Banking violations? :) . What’s double jeopardy got to do with the question that I asked?
So, distilling out all the bull****, your answer to my question is . . . something about the state not being able to hound someone forever. However, the state hasn’t tried this guy once. He fled.
@Bromley86
I read your post several times before commenting.
YOU should reconsider what you wrote and realize you are showing sympathy for this guy.
You told me that what I wrote was not fair. That he did pay because he had to leave home until the statute of limitations expired. That is not payment for his act. You wrote that you think statute of limitations are insane, but you still said he had paid.
If you actually think he has paid anything you have some serious problems with your morality.
Brumely ask :
>“Statutes of limitations seem insane to me. Anyone got a good reason for them?”
Only young inxeperinced would talk like this, one who has never been caught up in the wheels of state legal system or has not studided the law a little .
Reason for statue of limitation like the double jeorpardy and having juries is so that the state does not hound individuals forever. Also do not forget that as time goes on memories of the witnesses fade, and also does the impact of the crime.
Makes sense not to have statue of lmitations on such ” ultimate crime ” as murder and treason ( historically ) but point is that there should be double jeorpardy on those. Yes DNA evidence later might aquit someone but that is not the same as trying a person again and again for the same crime which double jeopardy is meant to prevent.
Whole point of these concepts os protection of individauls from abuse by agent of state, i.e. the procecutors magistrates.
If they can prosecute same person again and again for same crime they will get lazy and not bother to make a strong case as they know they can do it again and again until they get it ” right “. This is unacceptable to any free people that they will be harrases and deprived of liberty again again just because of the prosecutors.
Jim’s reply:
>Well, they allow the legal system to focus on more relevant/recent crimes. >Remember that statute of limitations don’t apply to really bad crimes, so it appears that Sweden didn’t classify his crime as really bad…
Legal system basic things should be focus on justice.
But as politicans can pass laws ( the statutes ) that means many legal system are no longer operating based on justice but political principals and democratic principals in the most literal senses.
Robert said :
>OK, just to clarify Swedish Law. You can film children inappropriately at a camp, and get away with it, no penalty. However, you defend an innocent old lady and you are sentenced to jail.
>I am stunned that this is considered acceptable law. There are good people in Sweden, but the government and legal system disgust me.
This is malaise of many ” liberal ” country — that they have forgetten about justice since all this left wing political correctness has been bought in.
All it guarnetees is eventually people will take matters into their own hands in a more extreme way and ignore the police.
i.e. they get jumped in alley by mugger and instead of just fighting back and subduing the assaulter they will keep on going until they are dead and then bury them somewhere.
This is exactly what happens when judicial and police systems do not focus on basic natural ideas of justice between people.
That the strong picking on the weak is to punish the strong in that case. That the self defense against a bigger is to be accepted with reasonable force. ( That the idea of reasonable force is weiged against the agressor not the defendor more, etc. )
@Robert. You might want to re-read my post ;) .
The whole story of this man charged with child abuse escaping punishment by fleeing to Thailand is a joke of the rule of law. Why on earth should he not be arrested as soon as he comes back to Sweden? In the first place, why did they allow him to come back to Sweden? People like this man are a curse to humanity and dignity and should be put in prison so that they can not abuse more children.
@Bromley86
What is not fair is the children that this sick f#@k will continue to prey on will suffer from his actions. DO NOT TELL ME THAT HE PAID BECAUSE HE LEFT HOME. BOO HOO.
This ******* went to a country where, you are correct, he had the opportunity to continue his behavior. Then he comes to Sweden and gets his gear back and then leaves to continue ruining children’s lives. HE PAID NOTHING.
Jim made great point. Apparently the Swedish government does not feel this is a crime worthy of pursuing or the statute of limitations would not have worked in his favor.
AND AGAIN, HE PAID NOTHING!!! Predators like this constantly move around to satisfy their sickness. There are very few sexual deviants of this nature that stay in one location for a long duration. Unless they find a place that is SAFE for them to carry out this type of behavior. There is a reason they are classified as predators.
“Statutes of limitations seem insane to me. Anyone got a good reason for them?”
Well, they allow the legal system to focus on more relevant/recent crimes. Remember that statute of limitations don’t apply to really bad crimes, so it appears that Sweden didn’t classify his crime as really bad…
>OK, just to clarify Swedish Law. You can film children inappropriately at a camp, and get away with it, no penalty.
That’s not fair. He paid. He had to live in Thailand until the statute of limitations expired. Child sex may be more easily available there, but it’s not home.
Statutes of limitations seem insane to me. Anyone got a good reason for them?
OK, just to clarify Swedish Law. You can film children inappropriately at a camp, and get away with it, no penalty. However, you defend an innocent old lady and you are sentenced to jail.
I am stunned that this is considered acceptable law. There are good people in Sweden, but the government and legal system disgust me.
Stories like this make me seriously rethink that I ever thought of moving to Sweden. The Swedish people should demand some reforms of these laws.
Reminds me of the following story.
When I was a kid my father went to work. In a small alley behind our house he was attacked by the son of the neighbours, a drug addict wo always caused trouble in the neigbourhood.
My father is a small man but he knows how to defend himself.
He hit the guy under the chin and when he fell down he kicked him in the face several times and went to work.
When he came home in the evening we got a phone call form the police.
The neighbour had made a complaint against my father for ‘severe misstreatment’ and my father was told he had to come to the police station.
My father told that in fact it had been the neighbour who had attacked, that he had acted in self-defence and that he did not intend to come down to the police station.
The police threatened to come and pick him up so he did go to the main police station.
There the officers on duty were surprised to see how small he is. They told him that they had expected a tall guy.
My father had to give a statement. He noticed that the police took the case very seriously. They had made a lot of photo’s of the face of the neigbour, in order to document the wounds which had been inflicted.
My father almost had to laugh at the whole procedure.
He asked the officer: What was I supposed to do? This guy attacks me in a dark alley. Don’t I have the right to defend myself?
The officer berated him: It is only allowed to HOLD the attacker and restrain him untill the police arrives.
My father replied that this is nonsense. How should a man wo is 160 cm tall restrain a guy of 190 cm in a dark side street where nobody sees them?
The officer was not impressed and said that both statements would be send to court and that they would decide how to continue.
I remember that my father commented the visit to the police as follows:”I do not know what will happen next but at least I had the pleasure to see the injured face of this idiot.”
Weeks went by and then we received a letter from the court. In it there was only one short sentence:
“Even though there is evidence that you have been guilty of severely misstreating mr. **** the court has decided to dismiss the case since we are very busy.”
Even though this outcome was good for him my father was not satisfied since he did not agree with the fact that he was guilty of something.
He made an appointment with the state attorney who had written this statement.
This man turned out to be a polite person. He showed my father the legal text showing that, according to dutch law, this indeed had been ‘severe misstreatment’.
“I am sorry”, the attorney said: I cannot make anything else of this. However we do know this guy and therefore I have decided to use an excuse to dismiss the case.”
Sentences like that explain why 20 cars passed without stopping to assist. Help anyone and you’re at risk of both criminal charges and civil lawsuits.