Self-defence: how the Roggero case would have ended in the US
In the United States, the laws on self-defence vary significantly from state to state, influencing judicial outcomes in cases involving armed resistance against fleeing robbers.
Take the case of Mario Roggero, the Piedmontese jeweller convicted of chasing and killing two fleeing robbers outside his shop; had the incident taken place in the United States, the judicial outcome would have varied significantly from state to state. In the US, criminal justice is administered at state level. The decisive factor in the Roggero case – having fired shots outside the premises at robbers who were fleeing – would have led to a conviction for murder in the vast majority of states (as happened in Italia and as would probably also have happened in France and Spain), whilst only in a few states (with Texas leading the way) would the case have resulted in a full acquittal without even reaching trial.
Countries where Roggero would have been CONVICTED
In California, New York, Illinois, Oklahoma, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Washington, a strict legal principle applies: the Castle Doctrine (the right to use lethal force to defend one’s home or business) ceases the moment the suspect flees. Self-defence requires the presence of an imminent danger of death or serious injury. If the robbers run towards the street, the immediate threat is legally over. Chasing them outside and shooting them in the back transforms the act from self-defence into revenge or vigilante justice.
The Jerome Ersland case
In Oklahoma, in 2009, Jerome Ersland, a 59-year-old chemist, was the victim of an armed robbery. He reacted by shooting one of the robbers and incapacitating him, then chased the second robber out onto the street. Upon returning to the shop, he took a second gun and fired further shots at the wounded robber lying on the ground. Despite initial support from sections of the public, the jury sentenced him to life imprisonment for first-degree murder, as the use of lethal force continued after the threat had ceased.
Countries where Roggero would NOT even have been UNDER INVESTIGATION or CHARGED
In Texas, and to some extent in Louisiana or rural areas of Florida and Alabama, there are US jurisdictions that apply exceptional rules on the defence of property or where the Grand Jury (the jury of citizens that decides whether to indict a person) systematically refuses to indict victims of violent crimes who fight back against criminals. Texas is thethe only US state to have an explicit law authorising the use of lethal force not only to protect life, but also to prevent the escape of a perpetrator with stolen goods during a robbery or a night-time burglary, provided the owner believes there are no other reasonable means of recovering the stolen goods.
The case of the ‘Taco Shop Shooter’ in Houston (2023 / judgement 2024)
In 2023 in Houston, an armed robber (carrying a gun that later turned out to be a toy) entered a taqueria and robbed the customers. As the robber made his way towards the exit, a 46-year-old customer drew a gun and fired nine shots at him, including a coup de grâce to the head whilst the robber was already lying helpless on the ground. The customer then retrieved the stolen money, returned it to those present and left. The case was referred to a grand jury in Harris County, Texas. In January 2024, the grand jury issued a ‘No Bill’* (refusal to indict). The customer was not charged with any offence and was fully exonerated.
