Jeweller shoots dead two robbers, injures a third, gets jailed, sparking protests

Jippy

Sleeps with tramps, bangs jacuzzis, dirty shoes
Staff
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
61,783
Interesting case with a jeweller in Italy shooting three crooks who were brandishing what turned out to be a replica weapon, tied his wife and kid up then robbed him.
He shot them in their car, killing two and maiming a third. Complicated by the fact they were fleeing and he also booted one in the head repeatedly.
He's been jailed for 14 years+, sparking a political outcry.

Vid is quite something.

https://www.thetimes.com/world/euro...an-jeweller-jailed-shooting-robbers-bgts7sx33

No paywall, but no vid.
https://www.reuters.com/world/italys-coalition-seeks-pardon-jeweller-who-killed-robbers-2026-07-16/
 
I mean, if he's shot them as they were fleeing then it's not self-defence and he's also assaulted one while down. It's a shame his family and he were in that situation.
 
Yeah shooting them wasn't great, but 14 years for that? He had just been robbed and had his family tied up?

One of those that need to stay illegal but I'd prefer to see him fined.
 
Thats not self defence. Its straight up murder. Even in the US it would br considered murder.
 
So he basically got angry and killed someone. "They had it coming" isn't really much of a defence.

If you start justifying certain anger induced murders then that's a very grey area. He was too angry he couldn't help it covers a lot.
 
He went too far, but sucks he's supposed to just stand there and wave them off.
 
I can't see the video so I can't pass judgment. Are they shot whilst trying to leave the scene with his property?
 
If you turn to a life of crime and tie people up, and rob them you will get a bullet in the head eventually. They know what kind of life they live and what the risks are.
 
As far as I'm aware even in America, only Texas would allow someone to defend property with deadly force so definitely not in Europe :lol:
 
Absolutely deserved sentence. A fleeing robber is no threat anymore, can't rule that as defending himself or somebody else. At that point it's vigilantism and vengefulness, the later part of which really gets highlighted when you kick someone in the head multiple times after they are already downed.
 
I remember the case.

To be honest, proportionality of his reaction was way off. Not only the thieves had already left, he also had a scuffle with one of them, after the initial shooting, that was already injured before shooting him again, fatally this time.

But of course, questions must be raised about why citizens feel like they have to take matters into their own hands. Police treats crime in a logistical manner, so shopkeepers feel like the social contract is broken for them. That needs to be addressed too.
 
I don't really have an issue with what he did given the circumstances or the sentence because of his actions. Feel like the application of the law is fair.
 
Eplel said:
I remember the case.

To be honest, proportionality of his reaction was way off. Not only the thieves had already left, he also had a scuffle with one of them, after the initial shooting, that was already injured before shooting him again, fatally this time.

But of course, questions must be raised about why citizens feel like they have to take matters into their own hands. Police treats crime in a logistical manner, so shopkeepers feel like the social contract is broken for them. That needs to be addressed too.
Click to expand...
What is that supposed to mean? How does one treat crime "in a logistical manner"? And why does the treatment of crime by the police necessitate murdering people who have ceased to be a threat?
 
What is the data like in Italy. Do the police have a track record of catching 50-60% of all reported violent crime perpetuators.

Pogue Mahone said:
Call the police, get in his car and tail them. He has options. I don’t think it sucks that he’s not supposed to execute them.
Click to expand...

He believed they had a weapon. They could have stopped and shot him in his car.
 
G3079 said:
Absolutely deserved sentence. A fleeing robber is no threat anymore, can't rule that as defending himself or somebody else. At that point it's vigilantism and vengefulness, the later part of which really gets highlighted when you kick someone in the head multiple times after they are already downed.
Click to expand...

If someone tied up your kid, held a gun to them, stole a lot of your property and were getting away, what would you do?
 
G3079 said:
What is that supposed to mean? How does one treat crime "in a logistical manner"?
Click to expand...

For example, in the UK, theft and shoplifting under £200 is not prosecuted. If your bike is stolen, the police will not even investigate. This has led to bike theft being organised crime in the UK, with entire crime operations thriving under the state's indifference. Police always say they don't have the manpower to deal with all these thefts. Government doesn't allocate more resources, because it comes with a cost. So these crimes are not prosecuted because they're not crimes, they're not prosecuted for logistical reasons.
 
Just seen the video. It's pretty wild. Definitely at least one execution.

The whole tied up his kid thing is a bit of an exaggeration too. Looks like they used a zip tie to tie his (grown up) daughter's hand behind her back but left her free to walk around. And they legged it a few seconds later.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Call the police, get in his car and tail them. He has options. I don’t think it sucks that he’s not supposed to execute them.
Click to expand...

Not sure tailing people he thinks are armed is a smart move.
He obviously shouldn’t “execute” them but they were armed and he was in a mental position he’d never been put into before in his life, terrified for the life of his wife and kids.
That doesn’t excuse him, but let’s not pretend he was acting with the logical part of his brain.
 
Tallis said:
If someone tied up your kid, held a gun to them, stole a lot of your property and were getting away, what would you do?
Click to expand...
Definitely not shoot them and kick them in the head after the situation was already over, I can tell you that much. Like any other sane person.

Especially the "property" part. It's just things, things that are insured and can be replaced. I can understand killing someone over the last piece of bread when you're starving, but over jewelry? Gotta be mighty fecked in the head in that case.
 
G3079 said:
Definitely not shoot them and kick them in the head after the situation was already over, I can tell you that much. Like any other sane person.
Click to expand...

I was just curious what you would do. Do you have kids ?
 
Eplel said:
For example, in the UK, theft and shoplifting under £200 is not prosecuted. If your bike is stolen, the police will not even investigate. This has led to bike theft being organised crime in the UK, with entire crime operations thriving under the state's indifference. Police always say they don't have the manpower to deal with all these thefts. Government doesn't allocate more resources, because it comes with a cost. So these crimes are not prosecuted because they're not crimes, they're not prosecuted for logistical reasons.
Click to expand...
OK, I understand how that is an issue. I however fail to see the application in a case of an armed robbery at a jeweler's. Certainly that will get prosecuted seriously? I doubt the Italian police will shrug that off, though I'm ready to be told better.
 
G3079 said:
OK, I understand how that is an issue. I however fail to see the application in a case of an armed robbery at a jeweler's. Certainly that will get prosecuted seriously? I doubt the Italian police will shrug that off, though I'm ready to be told better.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if you read my first post you quoted I did say that the shooter acted out of proportion, and will rightly face justice.
But we have to look into the root causes of issues, not just take them at face value. If vigilantism is on the rise, it won't stop just by jailing the vigilantes, it will stop if the citizens don't feel that they have to take matters into their own hands.
 
G3079 said:
Definitely not shoot them and kick them in the head after the situation was already over, I can tell you that much. Like any other sane person.

Especially the "property" part. It's just things, things that are insured and can be replaced. I can understand killing someone over the last piece of bread when you're starving, but over jewelry? Gotta be mighty fecked in the head in that case.
Click to expand...
It's not just jewelry though. This is someone hard earned property. He worked for it honestly. It's his family that was threatened. His child, his wife. There's a lot of emotions at play here so it's not fair to say it's just jewelry.
 
Tallis said:
I was just curious what you would do. Do you have kids ?
Click to expand...
Not that I'd know of. And now you're going to tell me how I could never possibly understand the love and emotional reaction involved when a 72y/o guy murders people who had threatened his daughter and how that would be a totally understandable reaction if only was in their shoes, right? Or at least think it to yourself.

I'll happily admit that nobody can say how they'd react to a given situation unless they've experienced it. With that I don't just mean "have a kid and imagine the situation", but actually having been in that guy's shoes. But I will say that I think I'd be a better, more principled person than that. And even if I wasn't, and I reacted the same as he, I'd say the punishment for that reaction was correct.
 
Scarlett Dracarys said:
It's not just jewelry though. This is someone hard earned property. He worked for it honestly. It's his family that was threatened. His child, his wife. There's a lot of emotions at play here so it's not fair to say it's just jewelry.
Click to expand...
It is exactly that, just jewelry, though. Your "hard earned property" will be reimbursed to you by your insurance. And even if it wasn't, it's not worth murdering people over.

Emotions are "at play" most times people kill each other. Doesn't mean you can shoot a guy that's running away.
 
G3079 said:
It is exactly that, just jewelry, though. Your "hard earned property" will be reimbursed to you by your insurance. And even if it wasn't, it's not worth murdering people over.

Emotions are "at play" most times people kill each other. Doesn't mean you can shoot a guy that's running away.
Click to expand...
Has anyone ever stolen your hard earned property? Maybe he wasn't insured. I'm not saying he should have I'm just giving reasons why it might have escalated. People do things instinctively in the heat of the moment and being attacked and holding someone's family at gunpoint will trigger a person. Not everyone is capable of being a level headed saint. A person making the decision to go rob a place has to be ready for the consequences.
 
G3079 said:
Not that I'd know of. And now you're going to tell me how I could never possibly understand the love and emotional reaction involved when a 72y/o guy murders people who had threatened his daughter and how that would be a totally understandable reaction if only was in their shoes, right? Or at least think it to yourself.

I'll happily admit that nobody can say how they'd react to a given situation unless they've experienced it. With that I don't just mean "have a kid and imagine the situation", but actually having been in that guy's shoes. But I will say that I think I'd be a better, more principled person than that. And even if I wasn't, and I reacted the same as he, I'd say the punishment for that reaction was correct.
Click to expand...

Yeah I don’t think it’s right to have shot those robbers. But who knows what one of us may have done in that situation. If someone pulls a gun on your kid, who knows what someone is capable of.

He deserves punishment but 12 years is too much imo. If the criminal justice system is about reform, I don’t think the guy is a threat to law abiding citizens. I don’t think he is crazy.
 
Poor guy, hope he and his family are ok

I hope the third robber has at least been suitably punished
 
You must log in or register to reply here.