Stephan Turk

AmyS said:
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'.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the law doesn't allow for revenge, that's what the court issued punishments are supposed to be for.
It's just unfortunate that the punishments issued are normally a complete let down.

I'm not saying I totally agree with the law, sometimes a bit of rough justice is what the scum needs but if you remove emotion from the situation and look at the laws they're pretty clear cut.
 
Last edited:
AmyS said:
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'.
Click to expand...
Which is why we have a reasoned law as opposed to one dictated by the emotionally unbalanced.

You are speaking for emotion & understandable anger on the subject above, this is not the frame of mind required to contemplate the finer points of a retributive justice system.

Cosimo said:
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.
Click to expand...
I expected a more intelligent view based on a number of other excellent posts you have made on different subjects.
 
Last edited:
How do we know he wasn't "running away" to grab a weapon/backup, to come back and kill the guy? We don't, so he did the right thing...
 
Can't say I feel much sympathy for the robber considering the fact that he was armed and had already held the victim at gunpoint (so Mr. Turk was probably in fear of his life).

Dodgy ground legally but I won't say the scrote didn't deserve it.
 
Shooting someone in the back, while there is no immediate risk to yourself doesn't constitute a reasonable defence for defending yourself with lethal force because you think you life is in immediate danger.

Essentially shooting someone in the back while they are running away is revenge not set defence...does a modern and progressive society allow revenge killings? I wouldn't think so.
 
Haggisman said:
How do we know he wasn't "running away" to grab a weapon/backup, to come back and kill the guy? We don't, so he did the right thing...
Click to expand...
On the back of a scooter with the spoils of the robbery making a get away?.

It's about as far removed from self-defence as you get.
 
Haggisman said:
Would you be willing to take that risk? Your sig implies not ;)
Click to expand...

As I've already said I'm not saying I agree with the laws.
I've been in situations where people have been trying to strangle me, at that point reasoned thinking takes a back seat and your survival instinct takes over.
Although in that case my life is in immediate danger, this case is more akin to them trying to strangle me then for whatever reason letting go and walking away and me sucker punching them in the back of the head.
 
Narj said:
Can't say I feel much sympathy for the robber considering the fact that he was armed and had already held the victim at gunpoint (so Mr. Turk was probably in fear of his life).

Dodgy ground legally but I won't say the scrote didn't deserve it.
Click to expand...
 
tom_e said:
As I've already said I'm not saying I agree with the laws.
I've been in situations where people have been trying to strangle me, at that point reasoned thinking takes a back seat and your survival instinct takes over.
Click to expand...
Yes, but as we both know - that's actually self-defence, in those situations I fully support people going free who may kill somebody in genuine cases of self-defence (home invasions where the intentions of the invader are unknown for example).

The only areas pretty obviously it isn't self-defence is when either, 1. The person is incapacitated (knocked out for example), 2. The person is no longer presenting any direct danger to you or others (fleeing).

It's not hard, you can use force to defend yourself as long as they are not running away or unconscious.
 
Last edited:
Haggisman said:
How do we know he wasn't "running away" to grab a weapon/backup, to come back and kill the guy? We don't, so he did the right thing...
Click to expand...

On the balance of probability it s highly unlikely that a jewel thief will return to murder the person the owner of the store they robbed. In any case, if he did return and the owner then killed in self defence whilst in the act of being attacked or threatened then that would be a different scenario from what is reported to have actually happened and would potentially be classed as reasonable force in self defence. (Or indeed if he had killed one of the robbers whilst being attacked in his store)..the actual incident as it stands however does not.

It seems that some politicians are using Stephan Turk as a political pawn to attack the French governments crime record rather than actually debating the morality involved. Which is pretty typical.
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
Shooting someone in the back, while there is no immediate risk to yourself doesn't constitute a reasonable defence for defending yourself with lethal force because you think you life is in immediate danger.

Essentially shooting someone in the back while they are running away is revenge not set defence...does a modern and progressive society allow revenge killings? I wouldn't think so.
Click to expand...

This, how was his life in danger when the robbers were ridding away on a scooter?

Vigilante 'justice' and revenge killing is not something I would ever encourage.
 
Castiel said:
On the balance of probability it s highly unlikely that a jewel thief will return to murder the person the owner of the store they robbed. In any case, if he did return and the owner then killed in self defence whilst in the act of being attacked or threatened then that would be a different scenario from what is reported to have actually happened and would potentially be classed as reasonable force in self defence....the actual incident as it stands does not.
Click to expand...

The store owner is a key witness who could identify the thief. That's a pretty good reason to "dispose" of them...
 
elmarko said:
Yes, but as we both know - that's actually self-defence, in those situations I fully support people going free who may kill somebody in genuine cases of self-defence (home invasions where the intentions of the invader are unknown for example).

The only areas pretty obviously it isn't self-defence is when either, 1. The person is incapacitated (knocked out), 2. The person is no longer presenting any direct danger to you or others (fleeing).

It's not hard, you can use force to defend yourself as long as they are not running away or unconscious.
Click to expand...

I've clarified in my edit :)
 
tom_e said:
As I've already said I'm not saying I agree with the laws.
I've been in situations where people have been trying to strangle me, at that point reasoned thinking takes a back seat and your survival instinct takes over.
Although in that case my life is in immediate danger, this case is more akin to them trying to strangle me then for whatever reason letting go and walking away and me sucker punching them in the back of the head.
Click to expand...

Bonkers, had they been strangling him and he punched them once in the back of the head as they walked away even if he killed them he would almost certainly be cleared of any crime as his response was justifiable and proportional. Shooting someone in the back as they drive away on a scooter is hardly the same thing now is it?
 
Haggisman said:
The store owner is a key witness who could identify the thief. That's a pretty good reason to "dispose" of them...
Click to expand...
If you can't see how it being justifiable to "kill people for things they may do" may open up a few ethical & legal quagmires then maybe you should consider the situation a little further.
 
Haggisman said:
The store owner is a key witness who could identify the thief. That's a pretty good reason to "dispose" of them...
Click to expand...

No it isn't, if it were the robbers would have killed the store owner before they left the scene. The probability if them returning is very low. In any case, if they did return then he would potentially have a case for reasonable self defence....killing someone because they might threaten your life at some future point is pretty dodgy ground to be walking on.
 
Last edited:
a1ex2001 said:
Bonkers, had they been strangling him and he punched them once in the back of the head as they walked away even if he killed them he would almost certainly be cleared of any crime as his response was justifiable and proportional. Shooting someone in the back as they drive away on a scooter is hardly the same thing now is it?
Click to expand...

It wasn't a direct and literal comparison, but I think you'd struggle to argue if you had followed them down the street and hit them so hard they later died that it was reasonable force.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom