Here is an excerpt from a court decision, NJA 1998 s. 246, NJA 1998:39.
| H-G.L. har gjort gällande att han handlat i nödvärn. | HGL claimed to have acted in self defense. | |
| Det är uppenbart att, objektivt sett, H-G.L. inte har befunnit sig i någon nödvärnssituation. Polismännen har använt våld i tjänsten och ingenting tyder på att de skulle ha gjort sig skyldiga till något brott mot H-G.L.. | It's obvious, that, objectively, HGL was not in a situation of self defense. The police used force in the course of their duties and nothing shows they would have been guilty of any crime against HGL. | |
| Rätt till nödvärn finns dock inte bara när gärningsmannen faktiskt är i en nödvärnssituation utan även när han felaktigt tror att han befinner sig i en sådan. Straffbudens brottsbeskrivningar skall nämligen alltid läsas med förbehåll för de allmänna grunderna för brottslighetens uteslutande, exempelvis nödvärn. I fråga om uppsåtliga brott krävs att gärningsmannens uppsåt täcker de objektiva rekvisiten i brottsbeskrivningen. Att brottsbeskrivningen är korrigerad genom förbehåll innebär att uppsåtsrekvisitet inte är uppfyllt om gärningsmannen är övertygad om att förhållandena är sådana att ett förbehåll är tillämpligt. Om den som använder våld tror - oriktigt - att förhållandena är sådana som krävs för att våldet skall vara straffritt på grund av nödvärn, så kan han inte dömas för uppsåtligt brott. Detta brukar kallas för putativt nödvärn. (Jämför NJA 1995 s 661.) | But the right to self defense is not just there if the perpetrator factually is in a situation of self defense, but also when he wrongly thinks he is in such a one. The crime descriptions of the laws in the penal code must indeed always be read with reservations for common grounds of excluding crime, for instance self defense. In the case of intended crimes, it is required that the intent of the perpetrator cover the objective requisites in the crime description. That the crime description is corrected by reservations implies that the requisite of intent is not fulfilled if the perpetrator is convinced that the circumstances involve a reservation being applicable. If the one using force / violence — incorrectly — believes that the circumstances are such as required to the force being unpunished by self defense, he cannot be judged for an intentional crime. | |
| Fråga uppkommer då om H-G.L. varit övertygad om att han befunnit sig i en nödvärnssituation. | The question then becomes whether HGL was convinced to be in a situation of self defense. | |
| H-G.L. har när han berättat inför TR:n gett intryck av att berätta sanningen, så som han uppfattat den, och inte söka undanhålla några för honom besvärande omständigheter. | What HGL told before the district court / crown court gave the impression of telling the truth as he perceived it, and not to seek to hide any circumstance to his disadvantage. | |
| H-G.L:s inställning synes vara att han inte begått något brott, att han inte är psykiskt sjuk och att han endast vill leva sitt liv ifred. Han har uppgett att han uppfattat händelseförloppet på följande sätt. Efter olaga intrång i hans hem har han berövats friheten och bortförts med våld. Han har utsatts för misshandel och annan kränkande behandling och förts till doktor T som tidigare utan grund skrivit intyg för tvångsvård och orsakat honom fysisk och psykisk plåga i form av så kallad psykiatrisk vård. Han riskerade nu det som för honom var det värsta som kunde hända, nämligen intagning på psykiatrisk klinik med därav följande misshandel genom tvångsmedicinering. Han måste därför bli fri även om andra människor därvid kom till skada. Psykiatrin var hans huvudfiende och polisen dess hantlangare. | HGL's attitude seems to be, he has not committed a crime, he is not mentally ill, he only wants to live his life in peace. He stated to have perceived the course of events in the following way. After trespass into his home, he was deprived of liberty and violently abducted. He has been exposed to "misshandel" (assault / mistreatment / battery are degrees of the same crime description in Swedish law) and other abusive treatment and been brought to Dr. T. who previously with no good ground has written an assessment for compulsory (mental) care and caused him physical and mental torment in the form of so called mental care. He was now risking what was to him the worst thing that could happen, namely an internation into a mental clinic and thereon ensuing torment ("misshandel" again) through forced medication. Therefore, he had to get free, even if other people thereby could get hurt. Psychiatry was his main enemy and the police its henchmen. | |
| Mot bakgrund av läkarnas uttalanden och vad som i målet i övrigt framkommit om H-G.L:s levnadssätt, hans inställning till vård och hjälp i allmänhet och till psykiatrisk vård i synnerhet är hans verklighetsbeskrivning trovärdig, subjektivt sett. I hans sinnesvärld, som präglats av den psykiska störning som han enligt läkare vid tillfället led av, var han utsatt för en serie allvarliga brottsliga angrepp. Som H-G.L. uppfattade situationen, ägde han således rätt till nödvärn. | Against the background of the doctor's assessments and what otherwise emerged as to the way HGL was living, his view on care and help generally and to mental care specially, his description of reality is worthy of belief, subjectively. In his world, which has been characterised by his mental derangement, which according to the doctor he was temporarily suffering from, he was exposed to a series of serious criminal assaults. As HGL viewed the situation, he was in possession of the right to self defense. | |
| Det är viktigt att notera att H-G.L:s oriktiga uppfattning om verkligheten inte på något sätt var självförvållad utan endast berodde på psykisk sjukdom. | It is important to note that HGL's incorrect view of reality in no way was self causes and only was due to mental illness. |
This resumé is in many ways seriously deficient. It was also about whether I should go to a mental evaluation. I did. I did get to the court of appeal and a single exchange between me and a judge of appeal overturned lots of above. He asked whether I was aware that CA (the policeman) was a policeman. I said yes. To him that decided against even putative self defense. It involves a garbling of what my lawyer allowed me to answer in an exchange which little in my previous life experience had prepared me for. And each garbling is in favour of precisely psychiatry and also viewed through psychiatry. In other words, my enemy infiltrated even my legal defense.
But bad as above resumé is ...
... it blows a hole into the narrative of a man who got into trouble because he was never taught that acts get consequences.
The policeman had to be on leave for one month, because a wound in the hip stopped him from wearing the belt he was wearing on duty.
He was in the court of appeal reported to have felt severe doubts about his work. I hope that specifically means things like being henchmen of psychiatry. I am not sorry he got a month off duty and I am not sorry he felt doubts about the parts of his work that are objectively bad. If he felt badly treated by being shot at, I have paid it in 2/3 of 3 years and 6 months. Part of which in transfer to — again — forensic psychiatry. Note, transfer, not change of sentence. I was released on 2/3 of my sentence (remaining 1/3 can be added in case of relapse).
I have not left Sweden on the run from the law. I left Sweden to avoid more runins with Swedish psychiatry. And the Swedish society which is without a clue about Catholics, except routine information about run-of-the-mill such, which in Sweden are very adapted, I would say overadapted.
The attitude I had against "help" was due to the fact that I had loyally taken help, as foreseen by the Swedish welfare state, done what the social assistants asked of me, all the time between the death of my grandmother and my post as a temporary teacher of Swedish and German. It had been gruelling as to exhaustion, and it had led me to more and more isolation and to the difficulties heaping up around a village perceiving me as having gone mad.
After the sentence, there was even some doubt whether I would do 2/3 or, as is often, nearly routinely, the case with first time offenders, 1/2 of the time.
And how people with psychiatric interests in my case have been invited to pursue and repursue me even 28 years after my shot at their henchman, and what this has meant to me, amply justifies my assessment that psychiatry was a criminal assault on my freedoms. What the above resumé doesn't account for is, I didn't see one hospitalisation simply as a one time event, I saw it coming after lots less "provocation" on my side than the two previous times. Psychiatry was no longer "acts have consequences" but "even small things and even lack of action can have very huge consequences" ... And 28 years after a single shot that gave a man a month long leave and didn't hurt his head, well, that's as disproportionate as only psychiatry and Orientals can get.
Some want to see me as a "pedophile" ... because the runins with psychiatry started over my one-sided courtship to a girl of then 14 minus a few days. I was heard by the police and I obeyed the police over that affair. The sentence was 800 SEK in "dagsböter" — a fine. My acts don't speak on dangerosity, apart from if threatened by psychiatry. But to some the fact of an attraction which would have been legal if intended conjugal under good Christian rules, argued putting me on some very informal equivalent of a sex offenders watch list. And since I wasn't harshly punished for a sexual offense — the courtship was unwanted and unusual, but apart from that inoffensive — they have wanted mental care to step in, handicap me socially, so that I can never ever again hope for love, other than perhaps as a patient with a patient, with mental care being the fifth wheel in the date.
I have seen too much ruin done by mental care to take such a thing lightly.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Margaret of Scotland
10.VI.2026
[16 Novembris] Edimburgi, in Scotia, natalis sanctae Margaritae Viduae, Scotorum Reginae, amore in pauperes et voluntaria paupertate celebris. Ipsius tamen festivitas quarto Idus Junii celebratur.
[10 Junii] Sanctae Margaritae Viduae, Scotorum Reginae, quae sextodecimo Kalendas Decembris obdormivit in Domino.
No comments:
Post a Comment