The Public Prosecution Office (OM) asked the court this Wednesday to relieve all charges from a man from Arnhem who killed a robber in 2017.

According to the public prosecutor, the man acted out of fear when he killed the robber, by running him over with a van, reports NU.

What is the story of the incident?

The incident happened back in 2017, reports Volkskrant. The man, known as Albert K., an entrepreneur from Arnhem, killed 46-year-old John A. The two men were supposed to meet as A. made an appointment through Marktplaats to buy an expensive watch from K. At the time, K. was at home with his wife, two children, his sister-in-law and a friend.

Once A. arrived to supposedly buy the watch from K., he opened fire with a revolver, shattering a window. He then chased K. to his backyard, where he threatened him with a revolver. K. gave him the watch and some money, and while A. was taking them, K. managed to escape over the fence with his wife, who was then able to call 112.

Once outside, K. managed to get into a pizza delivery van and take over the wheel. A. emerged out from his home and fires another shot at the van, and K. runs him over. A. is thrown in some bushes, and K. runs over him a second time, the second collision probably being the fatal one.

OM: K. can’t be expected to think clearly

According to the Public Prosecution Office, K.’s actions can be justified by the severity and stress of the situation. After the first collision, the robber lay motionless on the ground. Despite running over him a second time, the OM considers that while it was extreme, it is understandable given the situation. He couldn’t have been expected to be “able to think clearly and realize that the danger had passed.” according to a prosecutor.

The court is expected to give a ruling on the case in two weeks.

Ad

Do you think it’s justified for K. to be let go for killing the robber? Let us know your thoughts in the comments!

Feature Image: DutchReview/Canva

 

 

3 COMMENTS

  1. Just because someone is acting in fear – especially real concern for their life – does not mean they are not thinking clearly. The evidence that K thought to evade A, call 112, and was able to control a vehicle sufficiently well to deliberately run over A a second time makes it obvious K was thinking clearly. A plea of self-defence seems reasonable, but given that K had done what even addled people do – run and call 112 – surely means the second impact was intended to do more harm, though perhaps not murder.

  2. If someone robs you, the law should give you the right to run them over AND to back up and run them over again.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.