In 2015, a Syrian man, now 18 years old, made his way to Tyrol with his older brother. Since then, he has only attracted positive attention under the care of the child and youth welfare services in the Hall area. He quickly learned the German language and showed an eagerness to learn. Similar to his brother, who was already on his way to independence. Then one evening in September. With a friend, they wanted to buy some marijuana from a Pakistani. When the trio was already walking along, however, the Syrian, who was charged with attempted murder yesterday, grabbed the Pakistani’s mobile phone and made no effort to return it. The then 17-year-old is said to have laughed at attempts to grab the phone from his pocket.
The statements differ. The Pakistani said that during the argument about the mobile phone, the Syrian suddenly and without warning stabbed him seven times with the knife. Because of the bleeding, the Syrian then fled.
The defendant again claimed that he had acted in self-defence. He gave the jury many reasons for this. The physically superior Pakistani first pulled something shiny out of his trousers and repeatedly hindered the Syrian from fleeing. Finally, he pushed him against the wall with the object in his hand and clenched his fist – only then did he take his little knife in his hand and hit the Pakistani. He did not know anything about the stabbing, nor did he know why the Pakistani had been stabbed in the back – including the one that had opened the victim’s chest and thus caused a life-threatening injury.
Possible end of an offence that for public prosecutor Florian Oberhofer was by no means justified self-defence: “All the variants discussed are of an academic nature – there is none in this case!” Self-defence must be a reaction to a present or imminent attack and still be appropriate. Oberhofer: “As soon as the victim turns his back on you, there is no longer a self-defence situation. But three of the stabs were in the back!” Moreover, according to settled case law, the instrument of self-defence does not exist in the course of a scuffle. Finally, the Pakistani could also have been in self-defence because of his mobile phone – and self-defence against self-defence is also not covered by the law.Legally, it was a tough nut to crack for the jury. Their verdict was differentiated. For example, self-defence had been unjustifiably exceeded with intent to injure. What remained was a case of negligent grievous bodily harm of a juvenile (up to three months imprisonment).Legally, it was a tough nut to crack for the jury. Their verdict was differentiated. For example, self-defence had been unjustifiably exceeded with intent to injure. What remained was a case of negligent grievous bodily harm of a juvenile (up to three months imprisonment). One month’s imprisonment was given. The 18-year-old was thus released yesterday evening. Defence lawyer Renner is now considering compensation for the detention.