fbpx
Published On: Fri, May 18th, 2018

Not a futile exercise

Hilbert HaarBy Hilbert Haar

The court story about the youngster who fired a flare gun at a guy who came at him with a two by four has triggered some questions, in particular this one: why was this case even brought to court if the prosecutor acknowledged that this was self-defense and that all charges should be dropped?

Some may see this as a futile exercise – wasting time and money on lawyers, prosecutors and judges. But that is not so.

Imagine that you are charged with, say, attempted manslaughter. That is a serious accusation and people around you will start thinking that – potentially – you’re a murderous bastard they ought to eliminate from their circle of friends. A conviction has all kinds of consequences: you’re unable to travel to the United States and you could even lose you job or experience trouble finding one.

In such a case there is also a victim – someone who has been attacked and – in the flare gun case – even slightly injured.

Victims want justice – understandably so.

When you attack somebody with a big piece of wood and the guy comes back at you with a flare gun there is little chance that the participants in such an event will get together and sort out their differences in an amicable way. Most people are not made that way.

It is the task of the prosecutor’s office to have such incidents investigated. If there is no proof for any wrongdoing, the prosecutor’s office will not bring a case to court. Generally speaking, it will only go to court if the prosecutor is convinced that she or he will get a conviction.

While all this makes a lot of sense, there are exceptions to this rule. The flare gun case is one of those exceptions and I think the prosecutor’s office was right to take the case to court.

What then, you may ask, was the objective? Firstly, the public prosecutor wants to take a good hard look at all aspects of an event. And sure, when you fire a flare gun you could potentially kill someone. But what if the one who fired the flare gun was within his rights?

That is obviously hard to believe for anyone at the receiving end of that shot. I know, because the man who wielded the two by four and who sustained slight injuries from the flare gun shot was in court on Wednesday; and when the judge had pronounced her verdict, he asked whether he could appeal the ruling.

The judge was so kind to explain that this is not possible, because the ‘victim’ was not a party to the court proceedings. But his question shows that he is of the opinion that the shooter ought to be punished.

This is exactly the reason why the public prosecutor brought the case to court: to get an independent opinion about the incident.

The court dropped all charges against the defendant because, considering all circumstances, the young man was entitled to defend himself. The court also ruled that the violence he used – by firing the flare gun – was proportionate. There was immediate danger because his attacker came at him with a big stick and he had nowhere to go.

The court ruling therefore justifies the actions of the defendant. That this is important for the young man’s future needs no explanation.

That his attacker is dissatisfied with the outcome of the court case is up to a point understandable, but this is also where this story should end.

The independent judge has spoken. The defendant has been cleared. And the prosecutor’s office brought this case to court for one reason only: to establish what really happened and why.

###

Related article: Court drops charges for firing flare gun