the Bell is a little five in the morning, when the sound of smashed glass awakens the 71-year-old Flemming Dahl Olsen and his wife.
Their dog growls, and out in the hallway he can see that the two masked men are breaking into the house.
One of them is armed with a shotgun. It is a hjemmerøveri. He unlocks the door to the utility room where they are on the way in, and goes in unto his wife, Jane, who is sitting half-naked in bed and calling for the police.
“My first thought was that I should have clothes on. If they tried to rape me, then it would make it more difficult for them,” she says.
A moment after going badeværelsesvinduet also in a thousand pieces.
“They might not come in for us in the bedroom, where they could shoot us,” says Flemming.
He hurries therefore going to keep stuck in the door, but one of the robbers when to put the gun in the clamp.
“It pointed straight up against my stomach. I took hold of geværløbet and pressed it up against the ceiling, but then went the shot of the.”
A øresønderrivende bang resonates throughout the house. And then there’s completely quiet.
“I thought that Flemming was dead when I heard the shot,” says Jane.
No one was hit by the shot that went close to flemming’s head. Shortly after took the masked men escape.
The Friday morning in October last year left off the married couple with the scare, but the robbery was still big consequences for them.
They have not had a single peaceful night’s sleep, and they have both of their krisepsykolog been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.
“I thought they would kill us,” said Jane Olsen, who still carries the fear in the body a year after.
Her husband, Flemming, also has been several health problems, which he linked to the robbery.
Anyway, thought the judges, not that they were entitled to the compensation, which they had hoped to get.
They had raised the claim at a little under a half a million dollars, but ended up with zero.
One of the reasons was that the robbery was not ‘rough’ enough, and another was, that no security could link the robbery to the health problems, as the pair have scored.
A majority of nævningene also thought that the shot from the shotgun was made by accident.
“Th’ hell was it deliberate, he shot,” says Flemming Dahl Olsen, who in no way share the judges ‘ views on the matter.
the Perpetrators was convicted in a jury trial in the district court of Lyngby, the 29th. October of this year and were, respectively, four-and-a-half and five years in prison.
Yet feel the two pensioners themselves left behind and let down by the system, as the first told to Frederiksborg Amtsavis. To B. T. they tell that they can’t afford more behandlingstimer with their krisepsykolog and had, therefore, hoped, that they as victims of violent crime would get a form of compensation, which could help them further.
“We cried, as we drove home from the court. We were speechless over the decision. They are indifferent to the victims,” says Jane.
the Matrimonial lawyer, Arne Skjoldorf, which led their case in court, wonders also over the outcome.
“I think it’s pitch black, that they may not get compensation,” he says.
“If not those who have been exposed to so terrible an experience, you can get compensation, who should then?”
According to professor of law at the University of Southern denmark Kristina Siig provides only compensation for infringement – also called tort – to the victims of serious violent crimes or sexual offences.
“As the practice is now, it will not be enough to experience someone breaking into his home with a weapon,” she says.
It is a ‘restrictive practice’, and Kristina Siig believes that the issue of the shot may have had an influence on the assessment of the gravity of the crime. In the court’s reasoning and decision is that, in fact, that there is no basis for reimbursement, because the shot was an accident.
“If the weapon had been fired at them, so it might have been a different outcome,” she says.
