Indeed, while it may be understandable - it would also be impossible to argue it was self-defence.
It would be classed as revenge.
Stephan Turk
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
It would be classed as revenge.
But it could be constituted as manslaughter (possibly even involuntary manslaughter)...rather than murder.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
I'd rather just shoot the thieves. Consider it a social abortion if you like. I am simply removing the unwanted life from the womb that is society!
Where do you draw the line though? If someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, they may be there just to steal the tv. Equally, they may be there to rape & murder your wife and kids, do you wait to find out, or take preventative measures?
If they are leaving the house with the TV I would think their intentions are pretty clear, wouldn't you?
Why some people think bumping into somebody in the house where the intentions are unknown & it resulting in the death of the intruder - is in any way comparable to shooting somebody in the back while they are running away with the intentions clearly known is beyond me....
Castiel> He didn't say they were leaving, he said if they break in you don't know their intentions.
Guy on back of the scooter gets shot... have to side with the law. Suspect emotions, fear/anger took over and just wanted to stop or get them back, but ended up killing them. I can't imagine most shop owners are skilled gun users either, and that's the problem IMO with the public having guns for self-defence.
If he got shot having just held up the guy and turned away, maybe he could have claimed to have shot the guy in fear, but this is not the case.
Also... I really wouldn't say that a criminals intentions are clear just because they seem to be running away. How do you know they aren't going to turn around before leaving and fire some shots etc, or even point the gun behind them and fire some off as they are running away. Every one is different and behaves in different way.
Guy on back of the scooter gets shot... have to side with the law. Suspect emotions, fear/anger took over and just wanted to stop or get them back, but ended up killing them. I can't imagine most shop owners are skilled gun users either, and that's the problem IMO with the public having guns for self-defence.
If he got shot having just held up the guy and turned away, maybe he could have claimed to have shot the guy in fear, but this is not the case.
Also... I really wouldn't say that a criminals intentions are clear just because they seem to be running away. How do you know they aren't going to turn around before leaving and fire some shots etc, or even point the gun behind them and fire some off as they are running away. Every one is different and behaves in different way.
Last edited:
I realise that, but the analogy goes toward the actual incident where the jewel thieves were in the process of leaving the store with the goods....I had already stated that if Stephan Turk had shot and killed someone whilst being attacked in his store then that would be a reasonable defence. So what I said illustrates the 'line' that is drawn...as others have already also pointed out.
It he was actually under fire, or the robbers were not actually in the process of leaving on a scooter and continuing to threaten Mr Turk then perhaps that might constitute some mitigation toward self defence. The issue being that the threat to his life would have been current (the same as if they were still in the store) their actual intentions are immaterial, it is the actual immediate threat to life that is important in determining these things and there doesn't appear to be such in this case as they were escaping, facing away from Mr Turk, and with no indication that their intention was to further injure or indeed, kill him. (They could have done that in the Store).
Last edited:
I was merely pointing out that you were twisting what he had said, and extended the time frame to the robbers leaving with a TV, and so not taking his comment at face value. (I took your comment wrong anyway, as I when I replied I didn't take it that you were using it in the same way as the Turk case.)
I think that's the limitation of law, in that a line has to be drawn somewhere as to what is and isn't acceptable, else how can we define crime. There may of course be exceptions where it isn't clear cut or has other supporting evidence to prove something possibly wasn't malicious (e.g. the owner wasn't looking and just fired the gun over the top of the counter irresponsibly (Blind firing) and a robber happened to be fleeing, and it is caught on camera).
I feel no sorrow for the guy that died, but I don't believe he deserved to die for robbery.
*Note: I used the word 'twisting' it's not really what I mean, I'm just tired and can't phrase it better soz.
Emotionally unbalanced? Quite certain that would render me useless in my job as a trauma nurse, a job which has in turn made me pretty jaded toward the usefulness of the 'dregs of society'.
I understand too what is ''required to contemplate the finer points of a retributive justice system''.
However the 'justice system' fails most people. Take the story today of five murderers given 'life' in prison yet all were released and murdered again, some within weeks of release.
I was taking his comment at face value within the context of what is being discussed, and that is whether killing someone after they have robbed you and are leaving your property is justifiable. He asked where do you draw the line, I answered him. There was no twisting of anything.
e: In response to your edit, I was making an analogy of what he said to illustrate where the line could be reasonably drawn in assuming self defence, it isn't twisting, as you stated, it is going to the logical conclusion.
Last edited:
He'd been burgled countless times... its was a defence against them coming back within weeks.
We don't live in the Minority Report, you can't punish someone for a crime they have not yet committed.
Do they have an equivalent for manslaughter in France? I wonder if there could be an argument for that. I imagine it would seriously go against him of course, just wondering if it could be argued inexperienced gun user + fear etc.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 2,545
- Location
- Leyland
absolutely ridiculous statement.
of course there is a loss from his death, his family have lost a loved one, the jeweller shop owner is likely to face a lengthy jail term so his family will suffer, the list goes on.
The wider impact of the thieves death is yet to be felt and probably wont until the end if the trial.
Thieving is not a capital crime!!!!
There was every chance that if the owner let the law and the justice system handle the matter, the offender could have been rehabilitated.
Instead he ran out onto the street and shot the guy in the back.
They do, however French Magistrates rejected the defence teams calls to be tried for Manslaughter as I can only assume the evidence put before them doesn't, in their view, support that, given that reports put before the courts say that Mr Turk ran after them as they were already leaving at high speed on a motor scooter. He fired three times as they sped away with an unlicensed semi-automatic firearm. The magistrates said that they do not believe his life was in immediate danger prior to his firing the gun at the robbers.
French law does however allow for legitimate self defence in Murder Charges, so he can still argue he acted in reasonable self defence, particularly if he can prove in court that the teenager threatened him with a rifle just before he fired the third shot (he said that the first two were an attempt to disable the scooter) and the jury accepts that the teenager was not simply pointing the rifle because he was under fire himself....(which would be ironic in the least)
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
Firstly, it was not 'thieving' it was armed robbery and assault. It's absolutely possible the shopkeeper could have died from the attack; men have died from much less after all. Most courts recognise that as being far more serious than petty theft. So although it may not count as a 'capital crime' in your view, most people would consider it to be pretty heinous.
Secondly, why should the offender HAVE the chance for rehabilitation? He is a violent offender, what value does he have to society? The cost to rehabilitate him will almost certainly outweigh any potential value he can return to society. Just string the swine up for the crows.
'Most people' and the law are not compatible unless it's converted into law. I think robbery and armed assault is pretty darned terrible as well, but being killed for it? We have to uphold the values of society in that killing someone isn't right, and if we lower the bar, then society degenerates.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 2,545
- Location
- Leyland
Well that's still not a capital crime, not just in my view, but in the view of the law and any sensible, rational human being, yet he still died for it.
You cant count the cost of justice the same way you cant put the price on a life, specifically, a life is not worth some jewellery.