In the night of December 10-11, 2023, a 31-year-old man died. He was shot in the leg, causing fatal blood loss. This occurred on the street in the Arnhem district of Presikhaaf, at the Amerstraat-Scheldestraat intersection. Two suspects, aged 24 and 21, face 12 years in prison. The prosecution suspects them of murder in concert. The exact cause of the shooting remains vague, possibly jealousy over a WhatsApp conversation with a woman or a dispute over a watch. The prosecutor is clear: This led to a very foolish confrontation, with testosterone flying high, ending in a tragedy no one wanted.
The two suspects want to portray the victim as an aggressor, claiming he approached one of them swinging a machete, forcing the other to shoot in self-defense. However, the evidence suggests otherwise. One of the suspects had previously made threats towards the victim. Although the victim had a knife during the confrontation, the prosecutor argues this does not establish him as a violent attacker. This perspective does not align with the evidence.
The two suspects, whose statements differ, drove through the neighborhood that evening looking for the victim. When they found him, they both exited the car and approached him. Almost immediately, the 24-year-old suspect fired shots. The victim was standing on a raised area, and the forensic investigation showed the shots were fired upwards, contradicting the suspects claim that the victim attacked them. Additionally, there is a witness statement that contradicts the suspects version. The suspects were intent on confronting the victim and had the firearm to use it. Therefore, the prosecution does not accept the suspects self-defense scenario.
While the prosecution believes the suspects did not intend to kill the victim, they argue that intent in a legal sense is proven. It is necessary to establish that the suspects knowingly accepted a significant risk of the victims death. This is evident, as an inexperienced shooter fired a loaded firearm at a moving person. The prosecutor requested the court to impose the same sentence on both suspects. Although not both fired, they were in close cooperation when they made the plan and confronted the victim. There is a close and conscious collaboration here.
The prosecutor justified the sentence request as follows: The suspects took away the victims most important possession, his life. That this was done on a public road, in front of a witness, makes the act even more serious. Even if it was done without the intent to kill, there is no consequence greater than the death of a person. This is so severe that only a lengthy unconditional prison sentence is appropriate.