Outrage in France after jeweler charged for killing thief


Recommended Posts

PARIS ?  Outrage is growing in France over the decision to bring voluntary homicide charges against a jeweler who shot and killed an escaping robber, but the country's top security official on Tuesday urged fearful storekeepers to let justice take its course.

The 67-year-old jeweler, Stephan Turk, was confined at home with an electronic bracelet after the shooting last week that left a teenage robber dead in the street outside Turk's jewelry story in the French Riviera city of Nice. An accomplice escaped on a motorbike as the body lay in the street.

In a country where gun violence is rare but armed robbery is increasingly common, the shooting -- and the formal charges of voluntary homicide -- have placed the government in a difficult position.

"Even when faced with the unbearable, we have to let justice prevail," Interior Minister Manuel Valls said Tuesday in Nice, where he was sent by the president a day after a protest by hundreds of Turk's supporters.

Jewelers in southern France say they're being targeted as never before and lack the resources to protect themselves.

The robbery was carried out with a shotgun, he said. It wasn't clear whether Asli and the accomplice both had firearms.

The young man killed, 19-year-old Anthony Asli, had been in trouble as a juvenile and was freed about a month ago from his most recent stint in detention, shedding his own electronic bracelet and moving in with a longtime girlfriend who is pregnant with their child. Asli's family described him as impressionable and immature.

"The family's not condoning the robbery. They're not condoning it and they're not excusing it. It was Anthony's fault. But did he deserve to die in these conditions?" their lawyer, Olivier Castellacci, said Tuesday. "We don't have, in France, the notion of taking justice into your own hands. The family is revolted by that."

more

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hum... wasn't self defense?

If he was already in the street and fleeing from the scene it's not self defense. We had a similar case in belgium where a jeweler shot a thief that was running away in the back. Hard cases to judge, because people still are pretty much eye-for-an-eye kind of beings, but I agree that taking justice in our own hands should be discouraged. I believe he should be convicted of manslaughter without being sent to jail.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think all who say let justice run its course have no intelligence. What is the chance of justice being served when there are so many crimes? One less criminal on the street is better for society. People feel more bad and passionate about a piece of crap getting killed rather than the innocent trying to run a business. 

 

If you all believe to let justice run its course, let you get an ass beating and don't fight back, let your ###### be stolen, and most definitely don't bother locking your doors when you aren't home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The robber was running away, and no longer a threat. The charges against the shop owner are justified.

maybe not a threat to the store owner but possibly a threat to someone else.  He's already indicated he would be willing to point a weapon at someone to get what he wants.

 

 

Not saying he was fully justified without knowing the full details but here at least there are some laws that will still afford you some protection from prosecution, if you could articulate that the person is an immediate threat to someone else's life even if they aren't to yours.  Doesn't sound like this kid fired any shots though so might be hard for the store owner to make that argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The robber was running away, and no longer a threat. The charges against the shop owner are justified.

This. I can understand shooting somebody in the heat of the moment, especially if they pose a significant risk to somebody's livelihood, but it is another thing entirely to shoot somebody as they are fleeing the scene. Should they be charged with murder? Of course not, but they shouldn't escape without charge.

 

People have the right to defend themselves up to the point where the assailant is fleeing the scene.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liberalism at it's best, blame the victim 

 

Yeah, killing someone in a case like this isn't the answer.

 

That's not liberalism, it's common decency.  Yeah the teen is a pos, but there was zero reason to shoot him and plenty of better ways to handle the situation.  It's not about blaming the victim, its about there being appropriate ways to handle situations and bat**** insane ways to handle situations that shouldn't be allowed in modern society. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it is morally permissible to shoot a crook in the back as they're running away, then I think it is equally permissible to shoot them if they were just walking down the sidewalk. If you take away the necessity of imminent threat and replace it with "well, he or she might commit a crime at some point in the future", then maybe we should be arresting people for crimes that they may commit in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess none of you have ever been in an armed robbery. Let me tell you its not great. They intimidate and threaten you, sometimes harm you and use abusive language and act like its their right to just go ahead and grab anything that you earned with your sweat and blood. Its a traumatic experience and once the adrenaline wears off you are left feeling enraged and wondering what you could have done to prevent it. You often fantasize about blowing the ****ers head off if you only had a gun on you at the time. Calling the cops is more of a hassle than its worth because we all know there's zero chance of the culprit being caught afterwards. These scums don't hesitate hurting you the moment they smell foul of feel threatened. They deserve to die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The robber was running away, and no longer a threat. The charges against the shop owner are justified.

 

Screw that.  He should have never been there to get killed. They said escaping not running away btw.  Nice twist on the words.  He could be trying to escape with his life because the shopkeeper had the balls to pull a weapon and fight back.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AsherGZ, on 17 Sept 2013 - 20:57, said:AsherGZ, on 17 Sept 2013 - 20:57, said:

I guess none of you have ever been in an armed robbery. Let me tell you its not great. They intimidate and threaten you, sometimes harm you and use abusive language and act like its their right to just go ahead and grab anything that you earned with your sweat and blood. Its a traumatic experience and once the adrenaline wears off you are left feeling enraged and wondering what you could have done to prevent it. You often fantasize about blowing the ****ers head off if you only had a gun on you at the time. Calling the cops is more of a hassle than its worth because we all know there's zero chance of the culprit being caught afterwards. These scums don't hesitate hurting you the moment they smell foul of feel threatened. They deserve to die.

 

Armed robbers deserve to die? Yeah, that's way too harsh of a punishment. I'm glad I don't live in Pakistan. Sounds like the police are rather useless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The robber was running away, and no longer a threat. The charges against the shop owner are justified.

Bullish*t. This is why Michigan has a fleeing felon rule.

He may not have been an immediate threat to the jeweler but he was a threat to his NEXT victim. Criminals being creatures of need, opportunity & habit that next victim would likely have been soon. Probably that night before an investigation even got started. Better to stop him NOW than pray he didn't hurt / kill someone on the next try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.