Hvad er en trussel i juridisk perspektiv?
Senioranklager Søren Harbo fra Københavns Politi fortæller her, hvordan man fra et juridisk perspektiv definerer trusler, og om de primære paragrafer i straffeloven som omhandler trusler mod almindelige borgere og offentligt ansatte – deriblandt politikere og politibetjente.
Install Tubelator On Chrome
Video Summary & Chapters
No chapters for this video generated yet.
Video Transcript
The legal perspective of threats is a bit different.
There are primarily three paragraphs that deal with threats.
They are paragraph 119, paragraph 123 and paragraph 266.
In paragraph 266 of the Criminal Code it says that particularly severe threats are punishable.
And with that, one believes that it is threats to life, that is, death threats, but it is also threats against salvation, that is, grave violence, threats of grave violence.
And the last thing that regulates the decision is one's own will.
For example, I would burn your house down.
That would be a threat that is about threats against welfare.
But we are talking about severe threats.
That means that there are some threats that are not included.
An example would be that I walk down the street, and I see a random person walking by.
I say to the person, I'm going to cut your throat.
It is a threat that is included in Penal Code 266, and it can be punished for.
But if I, on the other hand, say, now I am committing a looting,
then it will not be included, because it is not intended to create serious fear for the health or life or welfare.
So it would be punishable to do so.
On the other hand, it would be punishable if you were a police officer, I said that to.
Because in the Penal Code, paragraph 119, it doesn't say that it should be serious fear of life, health or welfare.
It just says that it should be a threat of violence.
And if I say to a police officer, I want to beat you or I want to give you a beating,
then it is a threat of violence and I can be punished.
So it is any form of public employee, whether you are a doctor or a gardener or a person who has a public reputation, for example a politician.
If you are attacked with threats because you are a public employee,
then you have already protected this decision.
And then there is a somewhat severe punishment for the volunteer,
provided that the volunteer did the same to an ordinary citizen.
And it's about the fact that the public employee should be allowed to go to work in peace and order,
and that you should not be attacked or threatened because you are a public employee.
Another threat determination we often use is the Penal Code 123.
It protects the knowledge of the perpetrator.
in criminal cases, from when you are a witness until you have given the explanation to the police,
and after you have given the explanation to the police, up until you go to court,
but also after you have been in court and given the explanation to a judge,
then you have protected that decision.
And if you are somehow humiliated because you are a witness in a case,
then there is an extra severe punishment awaiting you.
I have had a case once with someone who shouted at another person.
Vices, the one who shouted, was a gang member, and the one who received the threats,
he had just testified against one of the gang members' friends.
And he was gang-arrested for shouting Vices.
An example of a threat could also be a person pointing their fingers at the police
and pretending to shoot.
This would also be a prison sentence for committing such an act against a police officer,
because it is perhaps indirect, but it clearly appears to be a threat to the police officer,
and thus an extension of the Penal Code, paragraph 119.
In addition to the Penal Code, paragraph 119, 123 and 266, which deal with threats against all of us,
against experts and against public servants.
There are also two other decisions about threats.
One of them is called Parf 260.
It's about illegal coercion.
