Imagine walking home from work on a perfectly ordinary afternoon, the kind of day when nothing feels out of place, until suddenly a complete stranger grabs you from behind and starts plunging a knife into your back. Four times in the back, twice in the thigh. Six deep wounds in total. You scream. He stops, lets go, and simply runs away.
Most of us would call that attempted murder. A court in Stuttgart, however, decided the attacker showed restraint. Yes, you read that right. Because he didn’t keep stabbing once the victim screamed, the judges ruled he had voluntarily withdrawn from finishing the job. Attempted murder charge dropped. Instead he got six years for grievous bodily harm.
Welcome to the strange new world of German criminal sentencing in 2025.
When Stopping a Murder Attempt Becomes “Restraint”
The incident happened earlier this year in the quiet town of Kirchheim unter Teck, southwest Germany. A 27-year-old teacher was heading home in broad daylight when a 29-year-old Afghan man she had never met walked up behind her, wrapped one arm around her neck, and began stabbing her with a 9.5 cm blade.
Four stabs to the back. Two to the thigh. Deep, deliberate thrusts meant to kill or at least cause catastrophic injury. Only when she managed to scream did he release her and flee the scene. Medics later described her injuries as serious but, miraculously, not immediately life-threatening. She spent three days in hospital and physically recovered without permanent damage.
The psychological scars, however, are another story entirely.
“I can no longer leave the house alone, I have no stamina, and my mobility is limited. My life has been turned upside down.”
– The victim, speaking after the attack
Yet the regional court in Stuttgart focused on a single detail: the perpetrator stopped. In German law there exists something called “voluntary withdrawal” from an attempted crime. If the attacker genuinely abandons the intent to kill and this abandonment is the reason the victim survives, the charge of attempted murder can be dismissed.
In plain language: if you try to murder someone but change your mind at the last second for your own reasons, the law can treat it as if the murder attempt never really happened.
How Does “Voluntary Withdrawal” Actually Work?
The idea behind the clause is to incentivize criminals to stop before it’s too late. Classic example: a burglar points a gun at a homeowner, finger on the trigger, then suddenly lowers the weapon and runs away. The law rewards that moment of hesitation by reducing or dropping the more serious charge.
But applying the same logic to a frenzied six-stab knife attack feels, to many observers, like a grotesque distortion of the original intent.
- The attacker had already delivered six potentially lethal blows.
- He only stopped when the victim screamed, possibly because he feared being caught.
- He fled the scene instead of rendering aid.
- No effort was made to undo the harm already inflicted.
Legal scholars point out that true “genuine” withdrawal normally requires active steps to prevent death, such as calling an ambulance or applying pressure to wounds. Running away rarely qualifies.
And yet, in this case, it did.
This Isn’t the First Time
Disturbingly, the same legal reasoning has surfaced in other high-profile cases recently. A mayor in eastern Germany was tortured and stabbed dozens of times by a family member; the perpetrator also “stopped” before the victim bled out and received an astonishingly light outcome, again citing voluntary withdrawal.
Critics, including senior prosecutors and victim-rights advocates, have begun speaking out, warning that courts are stretching the withdrawal clause beyond recognition. Some even suggest the rulings reflect an unspoken reluctance to impose harsh sentences in cases involving certain defendant backgrounds.
Whether that’s true or not, the pattern is hard to ignore.
Who Is the Attacker?
Court documents paint a familiar picture. The 29-year-old Afghan man arrived in Europe years ago, moved between several countries, and eventually applied for asylum in Germany. He has no high-school diploma, no vocational training, and no recorded employment. While receiving social benefits, he broke into a bank at night and stole a small amount of cash, an offense that ultimately led police to match his DNA to the stabbing.
During trial he denied everything, despite overwhelming forensic evidence, blood on the victim’s clothes, the knife in his possession, the whole nine yards.
In the end he received six years for the stabbing plus another 18 months for the burglary. With Germany’s customary early-release rules, he could be back on the streets in four or five years.
The Human Cost Nobody Talks About
We focus on the legal gymnastics, but spare a thought for the woman whose ordinary Tuesday afternoon turned into a horror movie. She did absolutely nothing wrong, just walked home from teaching children, and now she can’t cross the street without panic attacks.
Think about that for a second. Six stab wounds weren’t enough to convince a panel of professional judges that the man tried to kill her. The message sent to victims is chilling: even repeated, savage knife attacks in daylight may be downgraded if the attacker decides, for whatever reason, to stop short of the final blow.
How are ordinary citizens supposed to feel safe?
A Wider Trend Across Europe?
Germany is not alone. Similar debates rage in Sweden, France, and the UK whenever violent crimes by recently arrived migrants receive what many perceive as inexplicably lenient treatment. Prosecutors cite overcrowded prisons, defense attorneys cite cultural misunderstanding or mental-health issues, and judges, under intense political pressure from all sides, sometimes reach for technical loopholes that keep sentences low.
The public reaction is predictable: anger, disbelief, and a growing conviction that the justice system no longer prioritizes victim protection.
In my view, and I suspect in the view of most people who read this story, six deep knife wounds in a random woman on the street is attempted murder, full stop. Motive doesn’t even matter at that point. The act itself screams intent. To rule otherwise feels like legal sophistry dressed up as mercy.
What Happens Next?
The prosecution has already signaled it may appeal the dropping of the attempted-murder charge. Victim-support organizations are mobilizing. Politicians from several parties have called for legislative review of the “voluntary withdrawal” in violent crimes.
Whether anything changes remains to be seen. In the meantime, a young teacher looks over her shoulder every day, and a man who stabbed her six times prepares to serve what many consider a shockingly short sentence.
If this is “restraint,” then the word has lost all meaning.
Sometimes the law is forced to draw impossibly fine lines. But when those lines start looking like gaping chasms to everyone standing on the outside, perhaps it’s time to admit the map no longer matches the territory.
One thing is certain: the woman walking home that afternoon deserved better from the system sworn to protect her.
