The Third Shot at the Fleeing Robber
Dario, 61, owns a jewellery shop in a provincial town and legally holds a .38 Special revolver, reported and covered by a porto d'armi per difesa personale. One evening two masked men enter. One presses a pistol to the head of Dario's wife, who is working at the counter, and demands the safe be opened. Dario draws the revolver and fires twice; one robber is hit in the thigh and drops his pistol. Both robbers run out. Dario follows to the doorway and fires a third shot at the back of the fleeing man, hitting him in the shoulder; the man survives with permanent nerve damage. The robbers are later arrested. Dario says he fired the third shot because he was 'afraid they would come back'. The whole incident is captured on the shop's CCTV.
1. Were the first two shots justified under art. 52 c.p.?
Read the worked answer
The first two shots have strong grounds for justification. Art. 52 c.p. requires an actual and imminent danger of an unjust offence, necessity of defence and proportionality. A masked robber holding a pistol to his wife's head is an imminent threat to life, and Dario had no realistic alternative: he could not negotiate or retreat while she was at gunpoint. The reaction was proportionate: two shots at the armed robber, not at an unarmed bystander. The 2019 reform strengthened the position of a person lawfully present in a home or workplace who uses a legally held weapon to defend life or property, but the ordinary art. 52 test is already satisfied on these facts. The fact that the robber was hit in the thigh and dropped his pistol supports the account of a defensive response. Dario's licence, the reported revolver and the CCTV are relevant to credibility. The analysis would still examine whether he continued firing after the threat ceased, which is the key issue for the next question.
2. How should the third shot be assessed, and what are the likely criminal and civil consequences?
Read the worked answer
The third shot is the critical problem. By the time Dario fired at the back of a fleeing man, the robbers had desisted and were leaving. The danger was no longer actual and imminent; it had become a past offence and a future fear ('they might come back'). That fear does not satisfy the imminence requirement. Shooting at a fleeing person's back is also disproportionate and creates a risk to bystanders. The prosecution could frame it as excessive defence under art. 55 c.p. (eccesso colposo) if Dario genuinely believed he was still defending, or as intentional injury if he fired deliberately at a person who was no longer a threat. The permanent nerve damage aggravates the position. On the civil side, the robber can claim damages for the injury, and the court may find Dario liable even if the first two shots were justified. The 2019 home-defence presumption does not cover pursuit of a fleeing offender. Dario should not speak to the press, should preserve the CCTV, and should give a statement only with counsel.
3. What procedural steps must Dario take after the incident?
Read the worked answer
He must secure the scene and call the police immediately; the incident involves a firearm discharge and injuries. He should not move the revolver more than necessary, should place it down safely when officers arrive, and should identify the weapon, his licence and the ammunition. He should provide first aid to the wounded robber if it is safe and call an ambulance. He should preserve the CCTV footage and the names of witnesses. He will be asked to give a verbal account; in Italy he has the right to be assisted by counsel, and he should not make admissions about the third shot without legal advice. The Questura may suspend or revoke his porto d'armi pending the investigation. He should notify his insurer, because civil liability for the injury may be covered. Finally, he should expect a ballistics examination and a reconstruction of distances and angles; his account must be consistent with the CCTV and with the physical evidence.