Stephan Turk

[MooMoo444]

'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.

Sure it's fine saying that here and now if it's you who arent involved, but if you're that guy, you've just had your livelyhood stolen, it might cost you your business, your welfare, anything.

Do you let them go, and risk never seeing them again or getting anything back?

Not to mention the emotional impact/adrenaline of the moment. You clearly don't have time to stop and think things through in the heat of the moment like that, so to punish someone for it seems a little contrived. If he had shot that guy and just injured him, and that led to arrest and for example, taking down of a large robbery gang, then he would be praised.

a life is not worth some jewellery.

Funny, the robber was willing to put his life on the line for this jewellery.

 

[elmarko]

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.

Ok, let's deconstruct this mess.

"Emotionally unbalanced? Quite certain that would render me useless in my job as a trauma nurse" - Dealing with victims isn't the same as dealing with criminals, simply this statement gives you no green card for ignorance on this subject.

"a job which has in turn made me pretty jaded toward the usefulness of the 'dregs of society'" - Another emotive charged meaningless statement, so you are jaded.. - so what?, it gives you no excuse to be ignorant.

"I understand too what is ''required to contemplate the finer points of a retributive justice system'' - evidently not.

"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." - Explain what this has to do with killing people in response to property theft.

I'll hazard a guess at absolutely nothing, also if you could please expand upon "fails most people" - most, that implies above 50%?, do you have any data to back up this daily mail style headline, or is this more emotionally charged hot air?.

If you want to have a discussion on issues regarding risk assessment on the release of people incarcerated for murder then perhaps you should make a thread about that, but don't you see how dropping in completely unrelated story's gives you impression you are lacking in the brains department?.

 

[Fred]

edit: nm already posted.

 

[Efour]

It can never be self defense to shoot a fleeing criminal in the back. Hind sight is nearly always 20/20 though.

Its nothing more than revenge, which is understandable but wrong.

 

[gary996]

As in the Tony Martin case... How can 'in the back' be self defence.

Who cares. The scumbag deserved it

 

[Castiel]

Sure it's fine saying that here and now if it's you who arent involved, but if you're that guy, you've just had your livelyhood stolen, it might cost you your business, your welfare, anything.

I can't really think that any respectable jeweller would not have adequate insurance to cover such eventualities. His welfare (physical) was at risk during the robbery, not after it and any mental impact can also be dealt with, without the need to kill someone. (Which will have its own mental impact)

Do you let them go, and risk never seeing them again or getting anything back?

This is why we have a justice and law enforcement system. If we allowed vigilantism based on nothing more than emotion, we would quickly descend into an anarchic form of law enforcement. If his life is no longer in immediate danger then subsequently killing someone simply because they stole property from you is not legitimate self defence, it is revenge.

Not to mention the emotional impact/adrenaline of the moment. You clearly don't have time to stop and think things through in the heat of the moment like that, so to punish someone for it seems a little contrived. If he had shot that guy and just injured him, and that led to arrest and for example, taking down of a large robbery gang, then he would be praised.

Those are mitigating circumstances rather than reasonable self defence, and should be taken into consideration in a court of law...the point being that the courts decide on the balance of evidence, not by arbitrary judgement based on emotion.

Funny, the robber was willing to put his life on the line for this jewellery.

As did the jeweller when he retaliated after the fact...each bares the consequences of their actions to one degree or another.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

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.

Whether it's currently a capital crime in France currently or not is moot, as I am not arguing the legal merits of him shooting the armed robbers who assaulted him. My argument is that the armed robbers who assaulted him deserved to die and that therefore the shopkeeper killing one of them is acceptable to me. It should also be acceptable to the law.

Your suggestion that I am not sensible or rational is unsupported. I would content that it's you who is irrational and lacking in common sense. You're allowing your bleeding heart tendencies to overwhelm your rational mind.

And finally, the life of an armed robber is not worth anything to me. He has broken the social contract of civility by attacking an innocent shopkeeper. I am glad he's dead.

 

[Scougar]

MooMoo> Read some of the other posts I put about inexperienced gun users, fear, anger etc. You'll see we are not that far apart. What happens in the moment is the reason we don't make law changes based on emotion etc, at least hopefully not!

Having yourself threatened and robbed is going to affect different people in different ways. At the time, I'm sure he probably felt justified in shooting the guy.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

As did the jeweller when he retaliated after the fact...each bares the consequences of their actions to one degree or another.

He had just been assaulted. After such a trauma, it's possible he was not thinking his actions through. At least, that would be my argument if I was his lawyer.

 

[Castiel]

He had just been assaulted. After such a trauma, it's possible he was not thinking his actions through. At least, that would be my argument if I was his lawyer.

Indeed, and as I stated they are mitigating circumstances when it comes to assessing his guilt and/or sentencing, it is not however an example of reasonable self defence.

The same may be true of the reasons why a teenager robs a jewellery store in the first place, we do not know his motivations or whether there were mitigating circumstances, he is now dead.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

Indeed, and as I stated they are mitigating circumstances when it comes to assessing his guilt and/or sentencing, it is not however an example of reasonable self defence.

The same may be true of the reasons why a teenager robs a jewellery store in the first place, we do not know his motivations or whether there were mitigating circumstances, he is now dead.

Whatever they were, they didn't mitigate a bullet.

There would need to be some extreme circumstance in order to justify robbing a jewellery store. I.e. someone had a gun to the head of my partner and said 'rob the store or she dies'. But even then, I'd know what I was doing was very wrong and I'd expect to be punished for it.

 

[Castiel]

But even then, I'd know what I was doing was very wrong and I'd expect to be punished for it.

Then the same would apply to Mr Turk.

 

[elmarko]

Then the same would apply to Mr Turk.

 

[pitchfork]

As in the Tony Martin case... How can 'in the back' be self defence.

Precisely, he's using the wrong defense.

He should be appealing to common sense

"Some little ***** was robbing my store, no doubt looking to rob other stores and with that endanger at the very least the mental wellbeing, if not the physical wellbeing (including life or death) of others" would be the better defense, in the name of societal good and protection of society as a whole.

I don't think it's wrong he shot him but I do think you can't by any stretch of the reasonable mans imagination consider that self defense.

 

[pitchfork]

...

 

[Schlong&Stable]

Then the same would apply to Mr Turk.

I have a three pronged response to that, a sort of argument trident if you will -

1. I have already acknowledged that under current laws, he is probably guilty.
2. However I have also stated that I believe morally/ethically he was in the right.
3. And I also believe that because he was violently assaulted, he can argue he was not able to think his actions through. Unlike his attackers, who obviously did think them through.

 

[nick.lidgett]

Whether it's currently a capital crime in France currently or not is moot, as I am not arguing the legal merits of him shooting the armed robbers who assaulted him. My argument is that the armed robbers who assaulted him deserved to die and that therefore the shopkeeper killing one of them is acceptable to me. It should also be acceptable to the law.

Your suggestion that I am not sensible or rational is unsupported. I would content that it's you who is irrational and lacking in common sense. You're allowing your bleeding heart tendencies to overwhelm your rational mind.

And finally, the life of an armed robber is not worth anything to me. He has broken the social contract of civility by attacking an innocent shopkeeper. I am glad he's dead.

so In your view, not the legalities, they deserved to die because they broke the contract of civility.
Well lots of other things break the contract of civility, letting your dog mess on the pavement is not very civil, playing loud music and swearing and shouting is not very civil, do these warrant a shooting?
its funny that you describe it as a contract, ive never signed one... instead I obey the law, which brings us round to the legalities you don't want to talk about because you know you have no leg to stand on.

 

[Castiel]

I have a three pronged response to that, a sort of argument trident if you will -

1. I have already acknowledged that under current laws, he is probably guilty.
2. However I have also stated that I believe morally/ethically he was in the right.
3. And I also believe that because he was violently assaulted, he can argue he was not able to think his actions through. Unlike his attackers, who obviously did think them through.

None of which are unreasonable, and all of which are what are termed mitigating circumstances, not a valid reason for self defence. As you said yourself, he is probably guilty, what is also to be decided is what circumstances would mitigate the crime committed and what a fair and reasonable punishment would be having considered those circumstances...this is known as the balance of justice.

The same should have been given to the teenage robber, however his ability to face a fair and balanced justice was removed from the equation when Mr Turk took such action into his own hands and killed him.

You cannot reasonably assume the state of mind of the attackers, again this is a matter for the courts not a vigilante action biased by personal emotion.

 

[Scougar]

Maybe you could write some of this Civil Contract down that you speak of Thompson? Just because you believe it was a justified kill, doesn't make it right.

Let's be clear: Going on this one incident, Mr. Turks sentence would be much harsher than that of the robber (hypothetically speaking). Ask yourself why this is.

 

[nick.lidgett]

Maybe you could write some of this Civil Contract down that you speak of Thompson? Just because you believe it was a justified kill, doesn't make it right.

Let's be clear: Going on this one incident, Mr. Turks sentence would be much harsher than that of the robber (hypothetically speaking). Ask yourself why this is.

I think the fact the gun was unlicensed is only going to make his case of self defence harder to justify.
im sure the prosecution will use this to outline the fact he was prepared to shoot and kill somebody well in advance of the robbery.