Acts of bullying, disturbing public peace and harming citizens resulted in imprisoning three people for a period of up to six years and three months, after the Amman Magistrate Court proved that they had committed several crimes, including firing bullets and breaking into citizens’ homes.

And the judicial body specialized in cases of bullying and royalties, headed by Judge Attia Saleh Al-Saud, decided to place a person in temporary work for a period of six years and three months, a second person for temporary work for a period of five years and three months, and a third person for temporary work for a period of 4 years, a decision subject to appeal before the competent court.

The Public Prosecution had assigned 9 counts to five people, which are carrying and possessing a firearm without a license, firing shots unnecessarily, minor harm, violating the sanctity of homes and threatening, carrying and possessing tools dangerous to public safety, causing damage to the money of others, and displaying force or threatening violence or violence. Threatening and disturbing public peace. The court proved that three of them had committed crimes of (bullying), acquitted the fourth, and that the fifth was not responsible.

The criminalization decision indicated that a citizen pretended to be dead after three people stormed his house due to financial disputes between them, and shot him, and they intended to fire more bullets at him, but he pretended to be dead and the Public Security men reached him in time, and he filed a complaint against the three persons, They ended up being convicted in the case.

The court indicated that the Jordanian legislator worked to address the phenomenon of intimidation and intimidation called (bullying), which has spread recently. The justification for this is that the Penal Code is considered a manifestation of social life that should keep pace with the spirit of the times and its requirements, and address by criminalizing and punishing every matter that reveals the reality of the situation and the need to address it. Therefore, this branch of the law was the most subject to development and in keeping with the requirements of the times and the demands of society.

The court found that the perpetrators, by extrapolating the text of Article 415/1 bis of the Penal Code, were aiming, through their stipulated actions, to make the place not subject to any law or order, but rather to the law of the jungle or its law, i.e. the perpetrator intended to disturb security and community order through the force or force he displayed. power or threatening violence, and when this is achieved, this crime is committed.

In this case, its circumstances, and the crimes committed in it, the court concluded that, pursuant to the provisions of Articles 177 and 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, two defendants in the case were convicted of the crime of carrying and possessing a firearm without a license, contrary to the provisions of Articles 3, 4, and 11/d of the Firearms and Ammunition Law, and sentencing each one of them And pursuant to the provisions of the same article, imprisonment for a period of one year and fees.

The court decided to convict them of the crime of firing shots unnecessarily, contrary to the provisions of Article 330/1 bis of the Penal Code, and sentencing each of them, pursuant to the provisions of the same article, to imprisonment for a period of three months.

The court convicted the three defendants of the crime of harm, contrary to the provisions of Article 334 of the Penal Code, and pursuant to the provisions of the same article, ruling each one of them to imprisonment for one year and fees, and convicting one of the accused of the crime of threatening in violation of the provisions of Article (351) of the Penal Code, and sentencing him, pursuant to the provisions of the same article, to imprisonment for one year. one.

The court decided to incriminate the defendants with the offense of displaying force or threatening violence or threatening, contrary to the provisions of Article 415/1/b bis of the Penal Code, and pursuant to the provisions of the same article, sentencing each one of them to imprisonment for a period of three years, and the fees are calculated for the defendant with the duration of the detention.

And the court decided, pursuant to the provisions of Article 72/2 of the Penal Code, to collect the penalties against the first convict in the case, so that the penalty that must be executed against him is imprisonment for a period of six years and three months, and for the right of the second convict, so that the penalty that must be executed against him is imprisonment for a period of five years and three months, and against the convict Third to become four years imprisonment and fees.

In its decision, and pursuant to the provisions of Articles 44/2 of the Penal Code and Article 11/d of the Firearms and Ammunition Law, all seized items were confiscated.

Petra