Norwegian about to be sentenced in the US for aggravated assault... or?

[TiLT]

This story probably isn't getting much if any attention in the US, so allow me to rectify: The case as presented by the Norwegian newspaper VG (one of our two biggest) and translated to English.

Long story short: (again, this is as presented by this one newspaper. I have no other sources at this moment) A 33-year old Norwegian man (John Kristoffer Larsgard) was driving through Winslow, Arizona with his 68-year old mother in the passenger seat when he took a wrong turn and started accidentally driving down a one-way street without noticing. This was during a music festival in the town, so there was a crowd of people coming up that very street. The crowd was angry at him for driving the wrong way and hurled abuse and made threatening gestures. Confused, he attempted to turn the car into an auto shop where their real car was being fixed (they were driving a rental so they could pick up their stuff before getting their own car back), but the crowd followed. The mother panicked and told him to get out of there. While backing up, he burst a tire against the curb (driving slowly, supposedly), stopping a few meters away from a hot dog stand where a woman and her kids were standing. People think John is trying to kill this family and start chasing the car as it drives away.

John stops the car down the street and rolls down the window to talk to the people following him. A guy comes up to the window and, without warning, punches him in the face, breaking his nose and spraying blood across the dashboard. John now panics himself and starts driving off. One of the women surrounding the car had her toe run over while another woman was scratched while jumping out of the way. Those are the only injuries.

John calls 911, and right afterwards is surrounded by cops with their guns drawn. He is arrested and jailed, while the rest of the people get no charges against them. He is later found guilty by the court for 4 counts of attempted first degree murder and 8 counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (the car). As I am typing this, he's in court again to receive his sentence, which will be a minimum of 5 years, quite possibly 35.

I will not claim to know all the facts of this case, but these are the things I have heard:

• John and his mother were passing through the town. They had been there for just a few hours at most, perhaps less, and had never been there before.
• They knew none of the people from the crowd, and the crowd didn't know them.
• Supposedly everyone in the crowd is related to each other.
• The mother backs up John in every part of his story and has witnessed on his behalf (which doesn't count for much, admittedly. Family ties are strong and all).
• The honorary consul of Norway to Phoenix sat in on parts of the trial and calls it a farce and shameful to the United States. This in itself is highly unusual. He says a ticket for reckless driving would have been enough.
• John called 911 himself and told them where he was. Why would he do that if he was truly guilty?
• Based on behavior in court, the crowd has been very angry (the guy who landed the punch also showed the finger as he left the court just now) while John has been very calm and collected, even apologetic.

For those of us in Norway, this tickles us the wrong way. Breivik, the mass murderer who's currently on trial here can be sentenced to a maximum of 21 years (of ordinary prison), has a respectable cell with a desk, TV, bed, a small bathroom and a computer without Internet access. He has access to books, movies and games (carefully censored however). He does not wear handcuffs except during transport, and never foot chains. He gets to leave his cell regularly, for example to walk outside in the courtyard. Most Norwegians think this is fine, because he has been deprived of the most important thing he otherwise would have had: His freedom.

John on the other hand, wears heavy chains on both hands and feet. He is considered the most dangerous criminal in the prison he's in. He's allowed to leave his cell 3 times a week, one hour at a time. This is time he needs to spend doing basic things like showering. His cell consists of a toilet, a sink, and a mat he can sleep on. Nothing else.

The whole thing simply feels wrong. Based on the facts as presented (which may be wrong of course) this doesn't sound anything like justice.

What are your thoughts on this? Have any of you heard about this?

[CeeKay]

John calls 911, and right afterwards is surrounded by cops with their guns drawn. He is arrested and jailed, while the rest of the people get no charges against them. He is later found guilty by the court for 4 counts of attempted first degree murder and 8 counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (the car). As I am typing this, he's in court again to receive his sentence, which will be a minimum of 5 years, quite possibly 35.

here's a video showing this.  I kept waiting for the SWAT team to rappel in from a helicopter.  the car starts rolling back, not sure if that is him trying to take off while panicking or if it's just him taking his foot off the brake to get out.

[TiLT]

Aaaand he just got his sentence: 7.5 years in prison.

[Purge]

That's retarded.

[GargoyleBoy]

Is this:  http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20110718_0001813.NIL.htm/qx

The same guy?

[TiLT]

Is this:  http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20110718_0001813.NIL.htm/qx

The same guy?

Yes, I believe it is. In that particular case he was attacked by two people because he was supposedly stalking their daughter. His criminal record is clean, by the way. Well, until now anyway.

[GargoyleBoy]

Yeah, I wasn't trying to imply anything - I just found it in my Google search and thought it had to be more than a coincidence.

[kronovan]

It's Arizona, he did the wrong thing - you're supposed to pull out your revolver assault rifle and threaten to blow everyone's head off if they don't clear out.

[Crux]

They are saying he tried to attack 12 people with a car, and attempted to kill 4 of those and didn't get a single one? He's a very shitty driver.

[GargoyleBoy]

Google searching this guy is very interesting...  http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2001/dec/21/highereducation.internationaleducationnews

Again, disclaimer:  Not intending to imply anything.  Just sharing.  This was from an event just after 9/11, so tensions were high.

[TiLT]

Google searching this guy is very interesting...  http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2001/dec/21/highereducation.internationaleducationnews

Again, disclaimer:  Not intending to imply anything.  Just sharing.  This was from an event just after 9/11, so tensions were high.

This was actually brought up by the prosecutors tonight in an effort to damage his credibility. I didn't know the details, only that he had been accused of terrorism by the school. Sounds like the stupid experiments of youth to me. Very stupid experiments in this case though. I mean, cholera? Seriously?

[PR_GMR]

Best dramatic performance: To Kristoffer Larsgard, from Oslo, who, in September, was suspended from the University of South Alabama. The 22-year-old Norwegian student has said he intends to take legal action to get back onto his biochemistry course at the Alabama institution, where, he admitted to Norway's Aftenposten newspaper, he and a number of fellow students grew cholera, salmonella and several other harmful germs in the laboratory. Mr Larsgard said he feels he has been called a potential terrorist in all but name after a university official told him he believed the student was planning to contaminate the town's water system. Mr Larsgard said he didn't know what the university was referring to when it says he was involved in serious misconduct, although he has speculated it might have to do with a court case in the state of Illinois, in which he was acquitted, or another incident in which a teacher may have been upset when he missed classes to appear in court.

He's like the Mr. Bean of criminals. Poor guy. He just doesn't get it that he's doing wrong things.

[GargoyleBoy]

Best dramatic performance: To Kristoffer Larsgard, from Oslo, who, in September, was suspended from the University of South Alabama. The 22-year-old Norwegian student has said he intends to take legal action to get back onto his biochemistry course at the Alabama institution, where, he admitted to Norway's Aftenposten newspaper, he and a number of fellow students grew cholera, salmonella and several other harmful germs in the laboratory. Mr Larsgard said he feels he has been called a potential terrorist in all but name after a university official told him he believed the student was planning to contaminate the town's water system. Mr Larsgard said he didn't know what the university was referring to when it says he was involved in serious misconduct, although he has speculated it might have to do with a court case in the state of Illinois, in which he was acquitted, or another incident in which a teacher may have been upset when he missed classes to appear in court.

He's like the Mr. Bean of criminals. Poor guy. He just doesn't get it that he's doing wrong things.

And it was seriously bad timing.  We were dealing with 9/11 and the Anthrax attacks at the time.  NOT the best time to go whipping you up some home-grown cholera.

[CeeKay]

It's Arizona, he did the wrong thing - you're supposed to pull out your revolver assault rifle and threaten to blow everyone's head off if they don't clear out.

I thought yelling 'look, illegal immigrants!' and pointing in a random direction would be enough to draw the crowd away 

[hepcat]

One sided discussions are difficult to honestly assess.  I'd like to read more than just claims of innocence from the defendant's gallery of supporters.  The fact that the guy has been in trouble more than once in the past is enough to make me wonder.

[TiLT]

Still nothing new on this case on your side of the pond? There's a lot of anger over this case here in Norway right now, but even now the only newspaper to report anything about it is VG. I found another description of the events in English which probably reads a bit better, but it's still based on the original article.

There has been little in the way of new information. I've seen two people from Winslow talking about the case. One insists that the information we've got is wrong, but later revealed that he hasn't got any facts of his own that can in any way be verified, and he doesn't seem very trustworthy (he also says the broken nose John got was from smashing his face into the steering wheel when he bumped into the curb. This contradicts the information we have from the trial). The other person claims to have caught the guy who punched John in the face attempting to break into his apartment at one point. He claims to have beaten up the guy when that happened. Can't say I find this source trustworthy either.

I also heard that the judge in the trial is up for re-election soon, and that this could have influenced how he treated the situation. I don't know much about how this stuff works (the Norwegian justice system is a bit different), so I can't say what kind of impact this might have.

[TiLT]

Here's a much more in-depth and balanced article by an Arizonian news site. It seems to for the most part maintain the things we've already heard, but gives the witnesses a chance to explain themselves. A few choice quotes from the article and my thoughts on them:

"He floors it toward me," Mendoza said. "I jumped out of the way just barely."

Theda Curley told investigators she was struck by the car as she ran toward a nearby group of children she thought were in danger.

So which one is it? The two witnesses seem to be contradicting each other. More importantly, what's up with the focus on the children? In my (admittedly limited) experience, any time people jump to the "won't someone think of the children" argument, it indicates that they've got a weak case to begin with and are simply trying to use emotions (accompanied by a few tears on the witness stand) to influence the court.

Those incidents included threats, an alleged stalking of a young girl, an attempted suicide and a run-in with a Los Angeles bicyclist in which John was accused of running over the man's bicycle in a fit of anger. Not all the incidents resulted in charges, and none resulted in a conviction.

John sure manages to make himself unpopular. This is the first time I've heard of the bicycle incident, and it also sounds like the only case where anyone has accused him of anger issues before now. VG has an interview with him today (here's a Google Translate version of the article)where he is asked why he has had so many accusations against him over the years, but he kind of evades the question a bit. He implicates that his history of being bullied at school has made him introverted around strangers, causing them to much more easily react negatively towards him. I find that a bit strange, to be honest.

"I've been a prosecutor 23 years and a county attorney for two terms in Apache County, and never have I seen such indifference in the truth-finding process," Candelaria said.

This quote is the most disturbing part of the article. Should the attorney be considered trustworthy when he says this, or is he just using big words and numbers to build sympathy for the case?

Carlyon said that since the verdict, he has received e-mails threatening him and his family, most of them, he believes, from Norway.

I really hope that's not true. If anything, the Breivik case should have taught us to be kinder and more respectful, even with people we don't agree with or outright hate.

[Scuzz]

What bothers you the most in this case?

The fact that he was arrested charged and sentenced or the fact that they gave him 7 1/2 years for it?

[GargoyleBoy]

A few other points:

She (John's mother) got out and walked alongside, trying to explain to people why they just needed to go a little further.

but, somehow:

John, however, said Thursday during an interview with 12 News from Navajo County Jail in Holbrook, that he had no idea he was on a one-way street.

So, his mother knew enough to get out of the car, walk alongside, and try to explain, but he himself had no idea it was a one-way street?  Doubtful.

This, I think, is the crux of the problem: 

John put the car into reverse, intending to return to the one-way street and continue in the same direction. But as he backed up, he saw a car coming toward him. He "pressed the gas a little too hard," he said, and the Toyota jumped the opposite curb and popped a tire.

Defense attorney Candelaria said the rear of the car approached a food stand on the sidewalk, and "people went nuts." John pulled away, unaware, he said, that anything was amiss.

Witnesses, however, would later tell police and prosecutors that John was making threats, and when he backed across the curb, his bumper nudged a pole of the food tent, dangerously close to the woman and children operating the stand.

The other article you posted confirms this: 

Before making good his escape, Larsgard reversed into a store occupied by a woman and a child. Although he did not hit them, witnesses described the incident as threatening and potentially lethal.

Yeah, when you back into an area occupied by children, we take that seriously.

It's a little more than the "won't somebody please think of the children" argument when there's an actual car backing into where actual kids are.  That's literal danger to literal kids.

Moving on...

this bit:

In the interview with Channel 12, John said he never made threats and was not aware he'd almost backed into a food tent until days later when informed of the charges.

Seems to indicate he wasn't using his rear-view mirrors when he "pressed the gas a little too hard" while backing up.

Then, after the guy hits him in the face, he panics...

John said he panicked, pressing the gas and throwing the car into gear with only one thought on his mind -- escaping his attacker. He said it was difficult to drive in pain, blood pouring from his nose.

According to witnesses and police reports, John pulled away, swerving toward several people as he made a U-turn. Mendoza told investigators the driver tried to hit him.

"He floors it toward me," Mendoza said. "I jumped out of the way just barely."

Making it look like he's actually trying to hit more people.

From my point of view, this guy made a series of serious mistakes, and may or may not have been threatening people verbally at the time.  At a minimum, he's a really shitty driver (and he's been in the U.S. for at least 10 years, so... it's not as if he doesn't know how we drive here).  He's really lucky no one got seriously injured.

In my opinion, he seems like a guy who has a temper control problem (based on his previous behaviors), and he got seriously confused after depending on an unreliable GPS that led him astray, and lost his shit.

I think if Norway needs to point to someone unjustly imprisoned by crazy Americans, this may not be your guy.  I don't think he's blameless here.

Also, this:

"I've been a prosecutor 23 years and a county attorney for two terms in Apache County, and never have I seen such indifference in the truth-finding process," Candelaria said.

...is Larsgard's lawyer.  This is him trying to say the State prosecutor and police have messed up.  He's trying to help Larsgard.  Not sure why TiLT finds that disturbing.

[TiLT]

What bothers you the most in this case?

The fact that he was arrested charged and sentenced or the fact that they gave him 7 1/2 years for it?

The latter, if I were to choose between those options. But I'm also bothered by what seems to have been a very rushed trial where everything the accused said was dismissed and the crying witnesses were believed completely. According to the Norwegian consul present, there were no attempts to provide evidence or even a motive (why would a guy who's just passing through a town, with his 68-year old mother by his side, suddenly attempt to kill multiple people he has never met before? It makes no sense, and the court didn't make any serious attempts at shedding light on it from what I've heard). Judging by the stuff that has been written about the case, I believe John deserved some kind of punishment. He did after all drive in the wrong direction on a one-way street, and he did end up driving recklessly when he was punched (the witnesses claim he was reckless before being punched as well, but both sides at least agree that he was afterwards). Should he go to jail though? I can't imagine why anyone could find that appropriate if what we've heard are the facts. Either there's some extremely vital information missing, or this guy suffered injustice.

[TiLT]

I get the impression I must be really bad at getting my points across, because I keep having to repeat statements with different words, and the things I write are either skipped or misunderstood.

She (John's mother) got out and walked alongside, trying to explain to people why they just needed to go a little further.

but, somehow:

John, however, said Thursday during an interview with 12 News from Navajo County Jail in Holbrook, that he had no idea he was on a one-way street.

So, his mother knew enough to get out of the car, walk alongside, and try to explain, but he himself had no idea it was a one-way street?  Doubtful.

His mother got out because they were being surrounded by an angry mob. What she was trying to explain to them is unknown. John himself stayed inside the car with the windows rolled up and with music on the stereo. I don't think he talked with his mother again until later, ie. the point where he started backing up. I don't know if the two sides agree on that part of her explanation, but that's the extent of the situation. John apparently wasn't aware that he had been driving down a one-way street until after he was taken in by the police, and I don't think the prosecution attempted to dispute that. There are much better parts of the explanation to raise your eyebrows at, but you're getting to those...

This, I think, is the crux of the problem: 

John put the car into reverse, intending to return to the one-way street and continue in the same direction. But as he backed up, he saw a car coming toward him. He "pressed the gas a little too hard," he said, and the Toyota jumped the opposite curb and popped a tire.

Defense attorney Candelaria said the rear of the car approached a food stand on the sidewalk, and "people went nuts." John pulled away, unaware, he said, that anything was amiss.

Witnesses, however, would later tell police and prosecutors that John was making threats, and when he backed across the curb, his bumper nudged a pole of the food tent, dangerously close to the woman and children operating the stand.

The other article you posted confirms this: 

Before making good his escape, Larsgard reversed into a store occupied by a woman and a child. Although he did not hit them, witnesses described the incident as threatening and potentially lethal.

Yeah, when you back into an area occupied by children, we take that seriously.

It's a little more than the "won't somebody please think of the children" argument when there's an actual car backing into where actual kids are.  That's literal danger to literal kids.

That's not the "won't somebody please think of the children"-argument I was talking about. Nobody is disputing the fact that he backed up his car towards those children (and the mother). What they disagree about is the distance when he stopped, the speed the car was traveling at, and whether he aimed for them on purpose (why would anyone ever do that? It makes absolutely no sense). What is clear however is that John's testimony is untrustworthy regarding this point because he doesn't want to go to jail, while the witnesses' testimonies are untrustworthy because strong emotions and a mob mentality are involved on their side. This means evidence should be produced, which supposedly did not happen.

this bit:

In the interview with Channel 12, John said he never made threats and was not aware he'd almost backed into a food tent until days later when informed of the charges.

Seems to indicate he wasn't using his rear-view mirrors when he "pressed the gas a little too hard" while backing up.

Yup, he's clearly in the wrong here, even if he never was in danger of hurting the family behind the car. I can sympathize though. Being surrounded by angry people in a small town while trying to drive a car could get anyone's heart racing. He still has the burden of responsibility though, and should have stopped instead of driving unsafely. What I don't believe are the witness statements that say he deliberately aimed for the family behind him, yet that is what the court believed.

Then, after the guy hits him in the face, he panics...

Who wouldn't have? I can't imagine what I would have done at that point. You've got a broken nose and blood all over the dashboard, your mom is sitting by your side and is in a panicked state, and an angry mob is shouting at you outside the car and through the open window, where the guy who landed the punch conveniently stand? It's unlikely you'd be able to pull the window back up, and he had no weapon to attempt to drive them off with. The only viable option was to either get the heck out of dodge or to use the car to attack the crowd with. Which one did he do? Opinions differ. No evidence has been produced for either side, though if he did aim for the people around the car he must be a really horrible driver, for he hit none of them (except the toe of someone who quite likely stood at the car's side when he started driving. That seems most likely to me at least. Yet he was sentenced based on the assumption that he was trying to kill these people. How would they know? If he did shout threats it would be quite obvious, but we have no evidence of that either, nor has anything been presented to make it seem likely. [/quote]

From my point of view, this guy made a series of serious mistakes, and may or may not have been threatening people verbally at the time.  At a minimum, he's a really shitty driver (and he's been in the U.S. for at least 10 years, so... it's not as if he doesn't know how we drive here).  He's really lucky no one got seriously injured.

I agree with all of that.

In my opinion, he seems like a guy who has a temper control problem (based on his previous behaviors)

What behaviors would that be?

I think if Norway needs to point to someone unjustly imprisoned by crazy Americans, this may not be your guy.  I don't think he's blameless here.

Neither do I, but he seems to have been given a way, way, WAY too harsh sentence based on the known facts.

Also, this:

"I've been a prosecutor 23 years and a county attorney for two terms in Apache County, and never have I seen such indifference in the truth-finding process," Candelaria said.

...is Larsgard's lawyer.  This is him trying to say the State prosecutor and police have messed up.  He's trying to help Larsgard.  Not sure why TiLT finds that disturbing.

Then let me quote myself from the passage you left out of your quote:

This quote is the most disturbing part of the article. Should the attorney be considered trustworthy when he says this, or is he just using big words and numbers to build sympathy for the case?

I know he's Larsgard's lawyer, which is why I'm asking if it's reasonable to assume that he's exaggerating, or whether it's likely he's telling the truth. You seem to have answered that question while completely misinterpreting my motivation in asking it. It's disturbing only if he tells the truth, or even mostly the truth. Would this guy really be willing to put his credibility on the line for this particular client however?

[Scuzz]

What bothers you the most in this case?

The fact that he was arrested charged and sentenced or the fact that they gave him 7 1/2 years for it?

The latter, if I were to choose between those options. But I'm also bothered by what seems to have been a very rushed trial where everything the accused said was dismissed and the crying witnesses were believed completely. According to the Norwegian consul present, there were no attempts to provide evidence or even a motive (why would a guy who's just passing through a town, with his 68-year old mother by his side, suddenly attempt to kill multiple people he has never met before? It makes no sense, and the court didn't make any serious attempts at shedding light on it from what I've heard). Judging by the stuff that has been written about the case, I believe John deserved some kind of punishment. He did after all drive in the wrong direction on a one-way street, and he did end up driving recklessly when he was punched (the witnesses claim he was reckless before being punched as well, but both sides at least agree that he was afterwards). Should he go to jail though? I can't imagine why anyone could find that appropriate if what we've heard are the facts. Either there's some extremely vital information missing, or this guy suffered injustice.

I do think the 7 1/2 years is extreme, however that is also why I think something is missing from the stories, but maybe not. As for the case being handled quick, that is usually a good thing and most defendants who are locked up would prefer a fast trial. Often trials in America can be dragged out for years.

Sadly while the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" is great in theory, in practice  the fact is when you have multiple witnesses who dis-agree with a defendants story the jury/judge will tend to side with the side that has the preponderance of evidence on their side. The "weight" of evidence appears to support his having done something wrong. 

[GargoyleBoy]

Ultimately, if he had an incompetent lawyer, if there was no physical evidence, then those are both good grounds for an appeal. Though, if he jumped the curb and popped his tire, as the one article states, and hit a tent post, then there probably is physical evidence:  the blown tire, paint scrapings on the post, a dent to his car, etc.

7+ years does sound a bit egregious, unless he was actually threatening to kill folks.  Then it sounds just fine.

And for the record, the previous behaviors I referred to?  His reaction to being suspended from school for brewing up some cholera blew his punishment out of proportion (he said he was expelled, and said they called him a terrorist).  The university felt he was a danger to himself and others.  There are stalking allegations.  And there are a number of police reports (like a suicide attempt and running over a bicycle "in a fit of anger") that fit the narrative from which I formed my opinion.  Note that I didn't say previous convictions.  But it is strange to me that these kind of allegations seem to follow this guy around.  For the record, I don't believe in luck.

My whole point here is that people are painting him as either "innocent" or "murderous", and I think the truth lies somewhere in between.

He was - in my opinion - careless, stupid, quite angry, and rather confused.  Further, I don't know why if you're lost you would be listening to your radio so loudly that you cannot hear your own passenger.  A number of elements of his story just don't seem rational to me.

Again, this is not the guy you want to be rallying behind, in my opinion.