“We acknowledge with the notification of the notice of conclusion of the investigations that, following the outcome of an articulated and serene work carried out by the Public Prosecutor, despite the attempts of conditioning with the raving assumptions without legal value supported by a part of the press, that the challenge is that of a culpable excess of self-defense “. This was stated by Adriatici’s lawyer, determined to defend him as an “attacked person who defended himself”.
The outcome of the investigations –
According to the investigators,
Adriatici was attacked by the immigrant with a violent slap to the face that made him fall to the ground and lose his glasses. He was forced to defend himself “from the danger of the unjust offense caused by the aggression in progress” by the victim who, bending down towards him, was about to strike him again. It was at that point that the gunshot fired that killed EL Bossettaoui.
Disproportion between the offense suffered and the reaction –
Massimo Adriatici would have made an error of assessment that would have led him to the culpable excess of self-defense. Given his past as a policeman, perhaps Adriatici could have more easily understood the real danger he was running than others. When the investigating magistrate validated his house arrest by evaluating his disproportionate reaction to the offense, in fact, he wrote that from a professional profile like his one was expected to conduct “proportionately the opposite of that held”. The judge also pointed out how the councilor used to walk with a pistol with a shot in the barrel in his pocket or holster.
Adriatici could negotiate
– The victim’s family lawyer recalls instead that reacting with weapons “must be the only possible way” to defend himself, while El Bossettaoui was killed “in a square, with people around who could intervene”. There are other elements that the immigrant’s lawyers are ready to assert “if there is a trial”, since, with this hypothesis of crime, the former councilor could also negotiate.
