Tag: Torell

3 Oct. – Torell tragedy court outcome

“The violence used was not manifestly unjustifiable.”

With these words, SvD reports, the Stockholm county court decided that the three police officers charged in the Eric Torell case (see this blog post) were not guilty. Two officers had been charged with misconduct, one for shooting after Eric Torell had allegedly already started turning away, and the other for the way in which the response was handled. The third officer, whose bullet was the one which allegedly killed Eric Torell, had been charged with involuntary manslaughter. The case centered on how the police understood the situation, and if their actions were motivated. The prosecutor argued in court that the police officers ought to have stopped to see what effect their shooting had had after the first 23 bullets had been fired, before firing the two others, of which one killed Eric Torell.

The court decided that it was not sufficiently determined in what order the shots were fired, what exactly Eric Torell’s movements were in the inner courtyard where he was shot and what his movements had been when he was shot. The court also determined that the sequence of events on that tragic night were not as the prosecutor had presented: “It is not reasonable to ask that the police stop and check the effect of their shooting in the manner the prosecutor contended.” The court also denied the request for compensation (skadestånd).

The court’s decision was not unanimous: one of the three lay judges (nämdemän) said that the violence used against Eric Torell was “clearly indefensible. It is obvious that Eric didn’t fire a single shot. With that in mind, it is indefensible that two more shots were fired, when Eric had turned his back to the police, without finding out what impact their intensive fire had already had” (DNEricTorell). It was also obvious that the police panicked, wrote the lay judge, in that only one of the total 25 bullets fired hit Eric Torell in the front.

Eric Torell’s mother, Katarina Söderberg, said afterwards that the result didn’t change anything. “Eric’s not coming back. The outcome was pretty expected. When we were following the case it felt like it was going to be this way” (SvdEricTorrell).

DN’s commentator described it as unlikely that the case will be appealed (DNEricTorell).

On a side note: As with other court cases at this level, judgement is rendered by three lay judges (nämdemän) and one lawyer-judge (juristdomare). Even if being a lay judge is not a political position, they are sponsored for the position by a local political party. They are not required to be a member of that political party to be nominated, but if someone is interested in being a lay judge they must apply to a party to be sponsored. If accepted, they are given a course on jurisprudence, and are expected to drop their private political views when judging a case.

3 sep. – Torell trial

pic: black ribbon publicdomainvectors.org

Trial began today in a tragic case of police shooting. For those who weren’t around, 20-year old Eric Torell was shot to death by three police responding to a middle-of-the-night call about an armed gunman. Eric Torell was autistic and had Downs syndrome. He was holding a plastic shotgun, and was shot at 25 times, of which three bullets hit him.

According to the prosecution, the first shots could be considered self-defense because the plastic weapon could easily be mistaken for an actual gun. However, Eric Torell was clearly turning in or after those first seconds, and two bullets hit him in the back. Those bullets, say the prosecutor, were not self-defense. The court will have to decide if, in that brief interval, the police ought to have stopped and are therefore guilty as charged.

The officer who hit Torell in the back is charged with misconduct, and the police whose bullet was the killing shot is charged with involuntary manslaughter. The officer in charge of the response is charged with misconduct as well, in that the police response was poorly led. All three officers are pleading innocent. That shots were fired at all, or that the victim had an intellectual disability is not relevant to the case at hand. Instead, the case centers on how the police understood the situation and if their actions were motivated (bit.ly/SvDTorell1).

Whatever the outcome, there is no happy ending to this story, nothing that will change the events of that August night. Perhaps the best that can be decided is a clearer understanding of responsibilities – on the part of the police, and, on the part of the general public.