The court establishes that Jan-Einar Borgerud acted in a situation of self-defence, but considers that the use of force went too far.
– If we do not have the right to defend our own and ourselves, we might as well lie down and simply give up, and let criminals run riot, Borgerud tells Document.
The case of Jan-Einar Borgerud has provoked strong reactions. He has now been sentenced to community service after intervening in self-defence against an immigrant gang that attacked his stepson’s friend by Kjennerudvannet in Kongsberg. This despite the fact that the court considers that he acted in self-defence.
It was in May 2024 that an immigrant gang attacked two Norwegian boys, whom Document calls «Jakob» and «Emil». Respectively the stepson and his friend.
This is not the first time there has been a conflict in which the immigrant gang has deliberately gone after other youths. Several of them have been convicted of violent incidents, and one of the participants in the gang is 19-year-old Amed Salman Mohammed Ameen, who was convicted of assaulting Runar Magnussen in Vikersund.
«Went too far»
In the judgment, to which Document has access, it appears that if the violence had been unprovoked, the starting point for sentence would have been 90 days’ imprisonment.
Borgerud has maintained throughout that he acted out of necessity to protect his stepson’s friend, who was attacked by a gang that struck and kicked him.
But the court concludes that the use of violence exceeded what was acceptable.
«On the basis of the defendant’s account of his perception of the situation, the court proceeds on the basis that the defendant exceeded the limits of self-defence, primarily as a result of fear of what would happen to “Emil” if he did not intervene immediately. The court nevertheless considers that there are no “special grounds” arguing in favour of acquittal.»
The court places particular weight on the potential for injury inherent in several blows with an «iron bar», and on the fact that the police were present. Even though they did not intervene immediately.
The judges nevertheless agree that the attack on «Emil» was serious.
Borgerud tells Document that it is not the case that he drives around with an iron bar in the car. What he used was a so-called breaker bar, which he kept in the car in order to change tyres.
– I do not drive around with an iron bar to hit people, it is a breaker bar that I use on the car, he says.
«In the view of the court, the attack on “Emil” was serious. He was subjected to blows and kicks from several youths while he was lying on the ground. The court also proceeds on the basis that the defendant picked up the threat from the youth gang about weapons beforehand, as the defendant himself has explained. The threat of weapons underpins the seriousness of the unlawful attack».
«Given the seriousness of the attack and the danger to “Emil”, the court considers that an intervention by the use of physical force can be justified as necessary and proportionate. Even though the police were present, the court proceeds on the basis that they did not act on the defendant’s shouts immediately, because they spent some time arming themselves. How much time passed before the police intervened is uncertain. The court nevertheless considers that it is of some significance that the defendant experienced receiving no response from the police while “Jakob” was lying down and being subjected to violence. As the court understands the defendant’s account, he experienced an urgent need to avert the attack on “Jakob”.
Then comes the court’s reasoning:
«Even though the defendant is to be afforded some latitude, the court considers that the intensity of the defendant’s use of force went beyond what was necessary, and that the use of force manifestly went beyond what was proportionate. In its assessment, the court has placed particular weight on the injury potential of the act of prevention …
the defendant struck at least twice with moderate force against the upper part of the injured party’s body in a chaotic and confused situation. The court considers that the risk of hitting the injured party’s head or otherwise seriously injuring him was present.»
A central point in the judgment is that the police were present, but did not intervene immediately. Police officer Hov explained in court that he and his colleague had to arm themselves after a report that someone in the youth gang had a firearm. Hov explained that he was out of the car and very close to the attack when Borgerud struck Ahmed.
The court proceeds on the basis that it is significant that Borgerud experienced receiving no response from the police while «Jakob» was lying down and being subjected to violence.
– I do not think this makes sense. It sends entirely the wrong signals. And why are none of the five charged with assault against «Emil»? Why is that? Is it because they are busy going after me?
In this video, one of the sons is subjected to humiliation by the same person against whom Borgerud has now been convicted of assault. Photo: Private
The gang had troubled the family for a long time
The judgment gives a picture of a long-running conflict. Borgerud explained that he and Marianne Brandtzæg have reported violence by the youth gang against Jakob, Emil and Arne on a number of occasions, but that almost all the cases have been discontinued.
Ahmed himself explained in court that there has been an ongoing conflict between the youth gang and the adults, inter alia on social media. He acknowledged that in January 2024 he struck Jakob several times with the flat of his hand, and said that he regrets it.
In court, four videos from the incident were played. In one of them, the immigrant gang can be heard shouting «Look at that motherfucker» and «you fat piece of shit» repeatedly at the adults, while one of them spits and shouts «fucking whore».
– Far too little weight is given in the assessment to the fact that this involved five people going for one person. In the judgment they make it about one person. But he was the one on top. That is unfortunate for him, but it was not targeted at him in any way, Borgerud tells Document.
The judgment clearly states that moderate force was used, but according to Borgerud the prosecutor maintained that he had «struck with all his might». To that he says the following:
– Had I struck with all my might, he would have been dead. I obviously did not do that. I was only trying to avert the attack, and I was afraid for the lad who was lying under there getting a savage beating, he says.
The court finds that Ahmed was involved in the unlawful attack on Emil, and that he must therefore be deemed to have contributed, by his own fault, to the assault to which he himself was subjected. The compensation for non-pecuniary damage was therefore reduced from a starting point of NOK 20,000 to NOK 10,000.
Ahmed, who now lives in an institution, is a Syrian citizen. As Document has reported, he has a long record of violence, threats and attacks. After Document published the first article about Borgerud, Ahmed began threatening sources who had spoken with us – quite openly on Instagram.
The sentence
Borgerud has been sentenced to 75 hours of community service, with an implementation period of 120 days, subsidiarily 75 days’ imprisonment. The iron bar has been confiscated. Borgerud disagreed with this confiscation, as he uses it for work on the car.
The court proceeded on the basis that, if one disregards the self-defence situation and the unlawful attack, the proper starting point would have been unconditional imprisonment for around 90 days. But the self-defence situation, combined with a long processing time of almost two years (of which ten months were spent lying with the police), pulled the sentence down considerably.
It is also aggravating that Borgerud has previously been convicted of violence. By the judgment of Buskerud District Court of 25 May 2023, he was convicted of assault and grievous assault against two minor boys. These cases are connected to the same youth gang.
In addition, he must pay NOK 10,000 in compensation to Ahmed.
– Have you decided to appeal the judgment?
– I have not spoken with the lawyer yet, but there is a good chance that I am going to appeal. I can readily do those days of community service, that is no problem. But I am not paying NOK 10,000 to a little brat who has inflicted so much fucking trauma on my children. That is totally wrong. Is he to receive compensation for threatening people with a knife, robbing and beating people? That is wrong in my head, he says.