BUSKERUD DISTRICT, KONGSBERG (Dagbladet): The case is being updated.
– For the Bureau, it is completely incomprehensible why Simensen ended up on the ground. (…) Although Simensen appeared aggressive, and there was a verbal conflict, the police were outnumbered. (…) I think this must be characterized as a completely ordinary police mission.
That’s what prosecutor Marit Oliver Storeng said in the Bureau’s procedure, i.e. the closing statement, in court on Friday morning.
She believes that the punishment for the police officer accused of violence should be set to unconditional imprisonment for 60 days.
PROSECUTOR: Marit Storeng in the Bureau of Police Affairs believes that the policeman should be sentenced to 60 days in prison. Photo: Kristian Ridder-Nielsen/Dagbladet Show more
She believes that it speaks in a mitigating way that the defendant, if he is convicted, can be dismissed from his job. On the other hand, she does not believe that media interest in the case should be given weight.
– Sudden and excessive use of force
Over the course of three days, the police violence case has been illuminated through explanations from the accused and the victim, from police witnesses, experts and friends of the victim.
The policeman is charged with serious violence and grossly negligent breach of duty, but denies criminal guilt for this. He is adamant that the use of force against the victims, Kevin Simensen (26) and Kristian Teigen (26), was necessary, proportionate and justifiable.
The police officer: – Hit with full force
The prosecution, represented by Storeng, therefore disagrees.
– In this case, in the prosecutor’s view, we are far above the limit of what we as a society can consider to be misjudgments. The use of force the defendant subjected Simensen to was extensive, unrestrained and came as a result of a situation the defendant himself created.
The prosecutor elaborates:
– The defendant’s sudden and excessive use of force contributed to the situation getting out of control so quickly. (…) The use of force could have been avoided if he had chosen a different approach.
– Felt the need to get out
Morten Kjensli, Simensen’s legal counsel, acknowledges in his closing lecture that the resistance his client exerted may have appeared to be quite strong.
– But I understand that when you are laid on the ground, and beaten with a clenched fist, I understand that he felt the need to get out of the situation by kicking and kicking his legs.
Kjensli supports Storeng’s description of why the situation got out of control.
Together with Teigen’s legal counsel, Ida Kristine Kolstad, he has asked for compensation for Simensen and Teigen.
– The compensation must compensate for physical and mental suffering, she says in her procedure.
DEMANDS RESTITUTION: Legal aid attorney Ida Kristine Kolstad, here with Kevin Simensen, in court. .Photo: Terje Bendiksby / NTB Show more
– Couldn’t have been more unnecessary
The prosecutor believes that the fear that the defendant has described in court, of what the victim could think of doing, is not justified.
Storeng points out that at the time the violence took place, he was not aware that Simensen had a knife and baton on him.
– Simensen had his hands in his pockets, he appeared calm, and was neither about to fly on the guard nor turn on his heel.
There has also been no evidence in court that Simensen tried to evade the police, Storeng said further.
– The defendant did not even attempt to use his authority to deal with the situation on a verbal level. He did not tell Simensen that he wanted to talk to him, the prosecutor continued.
She is therefore clear that the assignment should have been solved in a less intrusive way:
– The defendant went far beyond the limits of legal power when he put Simensen on the ground (…) It could not have been more unnecessary. (…)
The testimony of policeman Arne Guddal became a dramatic affair in the courtroom in Kongsberg. view more
Storeng also addressed how the incident, and the video showing the police violence, have had consequences beyond the specific case.
– It is not only Simensen and Teigen who are offended, but also the general public, the police force, society as such. The incident has caused unrest and insecurity, trust in the police has been put to the test.
Argument over expert witness
– Everyone was surprised
Several of the police officers who were present that evening have explained to the Bureau that they reacted to the defendant’s quick jump up the power pyramid. In other words, he skipped weaker means of force in his handling of the assignment, and instead went straight to stronger means of force such as blows, pepper spray and finally a baton.
– Everyone has explained that they were surprised that the situation suddenly escalated, Storeng points out.
She further points out that it took six seconds from the defendant putting Simensen on the ground until he started hitting.
Storeng believes little on the video shows that he took the time to assess the effect of the blows.
– He continued to hit Stormo (Marius Stormo, Simensen’s friend, editor’s note) commented on the use of violence. (…)
The police witnesses: – Collective amnesia
– No danger to life and health
This was not an emergency guardianship situation, emphasizes Storeng.
– Punches can only be used in situations where there is a danger to one’s own life and the health of others. It wasn’t here. (…) The fact that he resisted did not make him a perpetrator who should be apprehended at all costs.
Storeng believes the court must rely on Simensen’s explanation that the resistance he exerted was done in an attempt to get away.
Found knife and baton: – Not the intention
The use of the baton was also not justified, the prosecutor believes. She points out that the police, at the time the defendant took out the baton, had sufficient control over Simensen, and that assistance was on the way.
– Repeated baton strikes could not possibly have been necessary. (…) The defendant also had no control over the use of force, as he hit his colleague (with the baton, editor’s note)
2023-06-30 10:07:30
#Prosecutor #control
