Supreme Court upheld a decision seven and a half years imprisonment for a Villarrobledo resident (albacete) for multiplication with an industrial vehicle weighing more than 11 tons and a loader, a Frac collector’s carWho demanded payment of a debt and who was badly injured.
It happened on March 4, 2014. The Frac Collector has been demanding payment of a debt for some time now. and when he took the prisoner’s car that day, he noticed a car with the logo of the famous company approaching.
Convicted, according to the sentence now upheld by the Supreme Court, He went to the industrial warehouse and got on a bull lift type vehicle that weighed 11.22 tons and was 2.55 meters high, with the intention of “attempting life and causing death”. The victim entered the oncoming lane and headed straight for the victim’s car.
The tailless collector was standing on the pavement, and the convicted man was driving with the shovel’s arms extended and raised to a height of about 46 centimeters. “Surprisingly and recognizing that the worker will not be “likely to react”, crashed into his vehicle and thrust the shovel arms through the right-hand doors of the car; crushed the seats and hood, lifted it to the pavement and pushed it against the wall.
The collector got stuck between the bars of the car body and the wall.and sustained serious injuries that kept him in the hospital for 28 days, which could have resulted in his death, the sentence says.
The Albacete Provincial Court sentenced the defendant to 7 and a half years in prison for attempted murder with a sentence approved by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court.
The court rejected the defense’s argument that there was no intent to kill the victim and that it was just a car accident.
According to the Chamber, the proven facts of the sentence indicated that the prisoner was “aware of the presence” of the victim and moved to the opposite lane “in order to have a better look at the injured person’s vehicle”; When he reached the intersection, he didn’t try to brake and didn’t take any evasive maneuvers to avoid the collision.”
To establish intent to murder, it is sufficient to prove that “He knew his driver was between the vehicle and the very close wall of the building when he crashed into the vehicle.and this will very likely crush him against him, again very likely causing injuries that could lead to his death,” the court emphasizes.
According to the Supreme Court, the manner in which the attack was carried out was clearly treacherous, as the attack was carried out “with an instrument capable of inflicting enormous damage, and in an utterly astonishing manner.”
He also refuses to apply the extenuating confession condition given that the convicted person did not recognize the integrity of the facts, because, despite calling it Emergency Situations, “he always maintained a lack of intent in his conduct, attributing what had happened to an incident only an accident.”