Homeowner M.A. notices a thief entering his house late at night and heads to the living room with his licensed pistol taken from the bedroom. Encountering the thief B.K., M.A. sees that the thief has a screwdriver in his hand. When the thief makes a move towards M.A., M.A. fires in panic.

The first shot hits the thief’s leg, and the thief falls to the ground. After the thief B.K. falls and the danger of attack has disappeared, M.A. walks over to the thief in anger and fires two more shots, causing the thief to be severely injured. Thief B.K. is taken to the hospital, but his life-threatening condition continues. M.A. is detained on charges of “intentional injury.”

Legal Evaluation In this case, “legitimate defense” and the situation of “exceeding the limits of legitimate defense,” which are among the most controversial topics of Criminal Law, are in question.

1. Have the Conditions for Legitimate Defense Met? According to Turkish Penal Code (TCK) Article 25/1, the following conditions are sought for legitimate defense to be accepted:

  • An Unjust Attack: The thief violating the immunity of residence and heading towards the homeowner with a screwdriver constitutes an “unjust attack.”

  • Continuation of the Attack: The thief making a move towards the homeowner shows that the attack is “occurring” or “certain to occur.”

  • Proportional Defense: The defense must be of a measure to repel the attack.

In the first stage of the incident, that is, M.A. firing and wounding the thief in the leg in response to the thief’s move, can be evaluated as a proportional defense aimed at stopping the attack. This first shot may remain within the scope of legitimate defense.

2. The Moment the Limit was Exceeded The problem begins at the moment when thief B.K. is shot in the leg, falls to the ground, and the danger of attack disappears.

  • When the thief falls, there is no longer an attack “occurring or certain to recur” directed at homeowner M.A. The attack has ended.

  • M.A. continuing to fire two more shots at the wounded thief after the attack ended transformed the aim from “defense” to “punishment” or “anger.”

  • At this point, the situation of “exceeding the limits of legitimate defense” specified in TCK Article 27 comes to the agenda.

Legal Result If the limit in legitimate defense is exceeded due to “excusable excitement, fear, or panic” (TCK 27/2), no penalty may be imposed on the perpetrator.

However, in this case, M.A.’s conscious continuation of firing at the wounded thief after the danger passed indicates that he exceeded the limit “intentionally” rather than out of simple fear or panic. In this case, M.A. cannot benefit from legitimate defense.

However, since the beginning of the event was an unjust attack (theft), M.A.’s penalty can be significantly reduced by applying “unjust provocation” (TCK Article 29) provisions. M.A. will be tried for “intentional injury,” but an unjust provocation reduction will be applied to the sentence he receives.

Conclusion and Advice Legitimate defense is a right, but its use is subject to a very sensitive balance. The defense must be simultaneous with the attack and must remain at a measure to stop the attack. Any action taken after the attack ends falls out of the scope of legitimate defense and confronts the perpetrator with criminal liability. When faced with such vital situations, avoiding intervening with the attacker as soon as the danger is eliminated and notifying law enforcement immediately is the only assurance of staying within legal limits.