Stephan Turk

scorza

scorza

scorza

Caporegime
Joined
22 Jun 2004
Posts
26,684
Location
Deep England
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...port-French-jeweller-who-shot-dead-thief.html

The case has reignited debate in France over what constitutes legitimate self-defence and sparked a massive outpouring of sympathy for jeweller Stephan Turk, from Nice.

Mr Turk was charged with murder on Friday for shooting the 18-year-old in the back as he and another robber escaped on a scooter.

A Facebook page set up anonymously and titled "Support the Nice jeweller" was getting hundreds of "likes" every minute and by Sunday had garnered a total of 1.45 million.
Click to expand...

Reminiscent of the Tony Martin case, and could have serious ramifications in the French elections. I know posters in GD are generally pro-criminal rights in cases like this, however the number of Facebook likes is interesting. Why is it do you think that so many people think that M. Turk shouldn't be prosecuted?

Oh and since the FN have got involved and are supporting M. Turk, I'll point out that M. Turk is an ethnic Lebanese. I don't know the ethnicity of Tony, the armed robber.
 
So what are the further details of this case?

Was Monsieur Turk hiding a gun under his counter which he simply whipped out to shoot the robber as they fled? I know France's gun laws are different to our own, but I thought they were still pretty strict enough that if that was the case, its not the done thing.
 
I can see GD imploding due to the contradictory emotions this thread will generate.

Let's examine the facts:

1. A bad 'un got done with a shooter, innit? GOOD.
2. He is French. BAD.
3. He's a Lesbian or Turkish or something. DOUBLE BAD.
4. Eye for an eye. GOOD.
5. Them foreigners though. BAD.

It's just the trickiest of pancakes :sigh:
 
scorza said:
Why is it do you think that so many people think that M. Turk shouldn't be prosecuted?
Click to expand...

The short answer is because its wrong to steal.

I agree that in principle it should be ok to shoot, stab or beat intruders, thiefs or attackers on your DOMESTIC property but not a commercial one.
However, i dont agree with shooting somebody in the back like this fellow did, that is not self defence.
Shooting somebody in the back is not justice. Also its debatable wether you should be allowed to shoot to kill or shoot to incapacitate. Should head and chest shot be banned and everything else allowed? That would be pretty hard to do if the proprietor was using a 12 guage.
They guy shot and killed somebody, the last time i checked theft was not a capital crime in france or the uk for that matter, yet the robber still paid with his life. Is that fair justice?
Its a tricky one, i mean if somebody broke into your house at night while you had your wife and kids inside, how far would you go to protect them? How far should you be allowed to go?
But in this instance it wasnt his house it was his jewelry store, which i have no doubts would be insured for events like armed robbery. I think this guy should be prosocuted, he is a business owner not Judge Dredd.
How is it fair that this guy can shoot somebody and kill them because he has a firearm but the shop 3 doors down cant because they dont have access to one?
 
nick.lidgett said:
But in this instance it wasnt his house it was his jewelry store, which i have no doubts would be insured for events like armed robbery.
Click to expand...

You could argue though that they are taking his livelihood away by robbing him.

As you say, of course he will be insured, but you need to bare in mind he is an independent jeweller and that is going to hurt him.

Just as an example, there is a small independent jewellers around the corner from where I live in North London that has been robbed six times in the last four years, all of which involved violence and weapons and the majority were ram raided.. The owner eventually had to call it a day this year because he can no longer afford the cost of insurance, plus he is even more worried about his family being seriously hurt in these robberies.

(I'm not taking a stance on the actual case of this French guy btw, I'm not actually sure on this one, as don't even know the full story).
 
Shooting someone in France is very, very serious, and the French Govt. take a very dim view on anyone who dares go against the French National mandate to immediately surrender in the face of any threat.

From the article the robbers threatened him at gunpoint, so they were armed, therefore fair game to be shot, even 'in the back'. IMHO
 
Shooting someone in the back while they're getting away is not self defence, it's more akin to revenge.
It's as simple as that.
 
He was defending his property which was being stolen. That qualifies as self-defence in my view. If you cannot defend what is yours, then what CAN you defend?

The thief deserved to die anyway, there is no real loss from his death.
 
nick.lidgett said:
Its a tricky one, i mean if somebody broke into your house at night while you had your wife and kids inside, how far would you go to protect them? How far should you be allowed to go?
Click to expand...


As far as necessary, in my opinion. My husband works away frequently and I would do all I possibly could to protect my daughter if someone broke into our home.
I couldn't possibly use my hands though, so would need a weapon of sorts.
I think if anyone enters somebody else's home it should be open season on them.
 
AmyS said:
As far as necessary, in my opinion. My husband works away frequently and I would do all I possibly could to protect my daughter if someone broke into our home.
I couldn't possibly use my hands though, so would need a weapon of sorts.
I think if anyone enters somebody else's home it should be open season on them.
Click to expand...

That's a completely different situation if someone is threatening you or your family or anyone else for that matter and you believe yourself or them to be in danger then you can use reasonable force, if you believe you are in mortal danger then it's fully acceptable to use lethal force.
If they're running away from you and therefore your life is not in danger it's not reasonable to kill them.
 
Skyfall said:
As in the Tony Martin case... How can 'in the back' be self defence.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

"Self defence" & "In the back while escaping on a scooter" seem to be slightly at odds.

Only an idiot with a pretty poor grasp as to what constitutes reasonable self-defence would try to justify it on those grounds - reasonable force for defence of property is a completely different debate & if people want to say they should be able to murder to defend property then argue for that, just don't have to idiocy to attempt such a clear bait & switch.
 
Last edited:
tom_e said:
That's a completely different situation if someone is threatening you or your family or anyone else for that matter and you believe yourself or them to be in danger then you can use reasonable force, if you believe you are in mortal danger then it's fully acceptable to use lethal force.
If they're running away from you and therefore your life is not in danger it's not reasonable to kill them.
Click to expand...

100% this. The situation has changed in the courts eye you're no longer under threat.
 
deuse said:
Well done Mr Turk. Glad someone has a back bone.'
Click to expand...

Shooting a scumbag during a robbery even though he might be getting away is perfectly justifiable in my opinion. He’s just defending himself and his property or in this case his livelihood. I’d most probably do the same in his position. The scumbag should have known better and ducked.
 
tom_e said:
That's a completely different situation if someone is threatening you or your family or anyone else for that matter and you believe yourself or them to be in danger then you can use reasonable force, if you believe you are in mortal danger then it's fully acceptable to use lethal force.
If they're running away from you and therefore your life is not in danger it's not reasonable to kill them.
Click to expand...


I work in a hospital in Manchester. This year we treated a 79 year old man, lovely old-school type gent, who had lived alone for 10 years. Two young men entered his home in the evening, and decided to knock him about and terrorise him before stealing his possessions.
His nose was broken, and his face was black from the bruising. Listening to him sobbing was heart breaking, and I would have paid to see the scum who did it shot in the back 'as they were running away'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom