Lappalainen has, among other things, recounted the following. He does not know if he was wearing his security guard’s badge at the time of the incident. He understood that there was something “going on” in the men’s bathroom. When he entered it, he saw Joakim Berggren lying on the floor. There was blood on the wall and on Joakim Berggren’s face. There were a number of people in the bathroom. He yelled at everyone to stay in the bathroom. One man ran past him out the door. Another man, Mrado Slovovic, grabbed hold of his leg, so that he lost his balance. Mrado Slovovic then put his foot in a lock. It hurt a great deal. He thought that Mrado Slovovic would break off his foot. Then Mrado Slovovic told him that “Kvarnen would be visited again” and that “Joakim Berggren had messed with the wrong guys.” After that, Mrado Slovovic and Patrick Sjöquist left the venue.
The security guard Peter Hallén’s version of events is the same as under Count 1.
In response to the charges, the defendant, Mrado Slovovic, has made the following statement. The security guard Joakim Berggren had been very unpleasant to his friend Patrik Sjöquist earlier during the night. When Mrado Slovovic came into the men’s bathroom, he saw that the situation was generally tumultuous and that a fight was going on between Joakim Berggren and Patrik Sjöquist. He was on his way to break up the scuffle when two men entered the bathroom. Mrado Slovovic did not realize that they were security guards. One of the men, Daniel Lappalainen, must have thought that Mrado Slovovic was involved in the fight, because he tried to “wrestle” him to the floor. At that point, Mrado Slovovic became very frightened. Mrado Slovovic succeeded in freeing himself from Daniel Lappalainen’s grasp. He may have grabbed Daniel Lappalainen’s foot in order to tear himself away, but it was not hard. Daniel Lappalainen was not wearing a security guard’s badge and Mrado did not realize that he was a security guard.
DISTRICT COURT’S JUDGMENT
Daniel Lappalainen and Mrado Slovovic’s versions of events differ when it comes to who attacked whom and whether or not Mrado Slovovic injured Daniel Lappalainen’s foot in self-defense. Both have given believable accounts. Daniel Lappalainen’s version is supported by the security guard Peter Hallén’s testimony regarding the fact that it was Mrado Slovovic who “wrestled” Daniel Lappalainen to the ground. Mrado Slovovic’s version is supported by Patrik Sjöquist’s account that it was the security guard who began to fight with Mrado Slovovic.
According to Swedish law, the defendant’s claims shall form the basis of the Court’s judgment unless they are refuted by the prosecutor. In instant case, this is a situation of one man’s word against another’s, and both versions have certain support in the observations of others. It should also be noted that there is no medical record that supports the claim that Daniel Lappalainen’s leg was injured. However, it shall be regarded as irrefutable that the general conditions in the bathroom at Kvarnen were tumultuous. A scuffle had arisen in this situation, and it is possible that it was unclear who attacked whom. It will be considered confirmed that Mrado Slovovic entered the bathroom at a later point than Patrik Sjöquist and therefore may have interpreted the situation differently. Even if Mrado Slovovic did, in fact, injure Daniel Lappalainen’s leg in the alleged way, this may have been defensible if Mrado Slovovic did indeed perceive that he was attacked and therefore acted in so-called putative self-defense; in other words, he believed he was in danger of becoming the victim of a criminal act. It is also not clear whether or not Daniel Lappalainen was wearing his security guard’s badge. Mrado Slovovic’s claim that he did not realize that Daniel Lappalainen was a security guard should therefore be given due consideration. In conclusion, the District Court
The security guard Peter Hallén’s version of events is the same as under Count 1.
In response to the charges, the defendant, Mrado Slovovic, has made the following statement. The security guard Joakim Berggren had been very unpleasant to his friend Patrik Sjöquist earlier during the night. When Mrado Slovovic came into the men’s bathroom, he saw that the situation was generally tumultuous and that a fight was going on between Joakim Berggren and Patrik Sjöquist. He was on his way to break up the scuffle when two men entered the bathroom. Mrado Slovovic did not realize that they were security guards. One of the men, Daniel Lappalainen, must have thought that Mrado Slovovic was involved in the fight, because he tried to “wrestle” him to the floor. At that point, Mrado Slovovic became very frightened. Mrado Slovovic succeeded in freeing himself from Daniel Lappalainen’s grasp. He may have grabbed Daniel Lappalainen’s foot in order to tear himself away, but it was not hard. Daniel Lappalainen was not wearing a security guard’s badge and Mrado did not realize that he was a security guard.
DISTRICT COURT’S JUDGMENT
Daniel Lappalainen and Mrado Slovovic’s versions of events differ when it comes to who attacked whom and whether or not Mrado Slovovic injured Daniel Lappalainen’s foot in self-defense. Both have given believable accounts. Daniel Lappalainen’s version is supported by the security guard Peter Hallén’s testimony regarding the fact that it was Mrado Slovovic who “wrestled” Daniel Lappalainen to the ground. Mrado Slovovic’s version is supported by Patrik Sjöquist’s account that it was the security guard who began to fight with Mrado Slovovic.
According to Swedish law, the defendant’s claims shall form the basis of the Court’s judgment unless they are refuted by the prosecutor. In instant case, this is a situation of one man’s word against another’s, and both versions have certain support in the observations of others. It should also be noted that there is no medical record that supports the claim that Daniel Lappalainen’s leg was injured. However, it shall be regarded as irrefutable that the general conditions in the bathroom at Kvarnen were tumultuous. A scuffle had arisen in this situation, and it is possible that it was unclear who attacked whom. It will be considered confirmed that Mrado Slovovic entered the bathroom at a later point than Patrik Sjöquist and therefore may have interpreted the situation differently. Even if Mrado Slovovic did, in fact, injure Daniel Lappalainen’s leg in the alleged way, this may have been defensible if Mrado Slovovic did indeed perceive that he was attacked and therefore acted in so-called putative self-defense; in other words, he believed he was in danger of becoming the victim of a criminal act. It is also not clear whether or not Daniel Lappalainen was wearing his security guard’s badge. Mrado Slovovic’s claim that he did not realize that Daniel Lappalainen was a security guard should therefore be given due consideration. In conclusion, the District Court
Similar Books
