The reasoned decision has been announced in the case of Şahin Öner, who lost his life on February 10, 2013, in the Şehitlik neighborhood of Amed (Diyarbakır) after being struck by an armored police vehicle driven by officer Selahattin Korkmaz. In the trial, which was overturned twice by a higher court on the grounds of “excessive sentencing” and concluded again after 13 years, a sentence reduction was granted to the defendant officer with consideration given to his future. The court, which prepared the justification for the 2 years and 6 months prison sentence given on the charge of “causing death by negligence,” cited “the duty performed by the defendant, the crowd present at the scene, and the use of a crowd-control vehicle in a narrow street” as reasons for the decision. While witness testimonies stating that the incident was intentional were not included in the ruling, the statements given by police officers were considered influential in the verdict.
Sentence reduced citing the defendant’s future
In the ruling issued on March 16 by the Diyarbakır 1st High Criminal Court, the panel rejected the lawyers’ demand that the defendant be punished for “intentional killing.” The lawyers argued that both during and after the incident, statements indicated the act was intentional, and that Şahin Öner, who was seriously injured, was taken to a police station instead of a hospital, pointing to a violation of the right to life. The court, which did not accept these arguments, based its decision on reports from 13 years ago as well as the statements of the defendant police officer and other officers, concluding that the act was not intentional. The panel stated that due to the narrow streets, the defendant could not have foreseen the incident and that it was not committed with intent. According to information in the case file, witnesses who gave statements at the time and called emergency services reported that “the armored vehicle ran over the child, his legs were trembling, but the police did not intervene.” It was also reported that police at the time pressured witnesses to state that “he had a bomb in his hand.”
No intent found in the death
In its reasoned decision, the court panel reduced the sentence from 3 years to 2 years and 6 months, taking into account the impact of the penalty on the defendant’s future. The ruling included the following statements: “In the incident where Şahin Öner lost his life after being struck by the Shortland-brand armored vehicle with code number 75 at the scene, during the dispersal of the group into side streets following the intervention of security forces; the report of the First Specialized Board of the Council of Forensic Medicine dated 15/04/2014 determined that the death occurred as a result of being hit and dragged by an armored police vehicle, as stated in eyewitness testimonies.
In the summary of the expert report dated 06/01/2025, it was stated that considering police officer Selahattin Korkmaz, the driver of the armored vehicle, to be secondarily at fault, and the deceased pedestrian Şahin Öner to be primarily at fault, was consistent with the manner in which the incident occurred.”
Police statements prioritized over witness accounts
The court’s reasoned decision stated that although there were claims that the defendant acted with intent or possible intent, these were not accepted. It emphasized that police officers who were present with the defendant stated that there was no intentional act, that the death occurred during intervention in a public incident, and that they only realized the death afterward. The ruling noted that the emergency report, “we are on 26th Street, one of the protesters is under the vehicle”, strengthened the court’s conclusion that the incident was accidental in nature. Although some witnesses stated that the victim’s hands were open and that the vehicle ran over him despite this, the court evaluated that explosive residue was found on the front windshield of the vehicle and that the defendant claimed the flames caused a loss of visibility. Taken together, these factors led the court to reject allegations that the defendant acted with intent or possible intent. While determining the base sentence, the court considered the duty performed by the defendant, the crowd at the scene, and the use of a crowd-control vehicle in a narrow street and accordingly imposed a sentence by partially moving away from the lower limit.
What happened?
On February 10, 2013, in Amed, police officer Selahattin Korkmaz killed 19-year-old Şahin Öner by running him over with an armored vehicle. An investigation was launched, and a case was filed against the officer on the charge of “causing death by conscious negligence.” As a result of the trial, the Diyarbakır 1st High Criminal Court sentenced the defendant on November 23, 2021, to 4 years, 5 months, and 10 days in prison for “causing death by conscious negligence.” Both parties appealed to the ruling. The Diyarbakır Regional Court of Justice, 3rd Criminal Chamber, evaluated the incident as a “simple traffic accident” and overturned the decision on the grounds of “incomplete examination,” citing contradictions among the reports in the case file. Following the annulment, a retrial began on April 30, 2024. On January 22, an expert report prepared by a panel of academics from Istanbul Technical University (ITÜ), Faculty of Civil Engineering and Faculty of Transportation/Machinery, claimed that the defendant officer was “secondarily at fault,” while Öner was “primarily at fault.” In the retrial, the court announced its verdict on March 19, 2025, sentencing the defendant officer to 3 years and 4 months in prison once again on the charge of “causing death by negligence.” The court’s reasoned decision did not take witness statements into account. Both the prosecution and the lawyers of the Öner family appealed the decision again. In its appeal, the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor of Diyarbakır argued that the sentence given to the defendant was excessive. The lawyers, on the other hand, stated that the ruling was “unlawful.”
Their application noted that police officers who should have been tried for “misconduct in office, negligent homicide, and tampering with evidence” were instead heard as witnesses, and that their testimonies during the prosecution phase were contradictory and lacking in detail. The application emphasized that the incident involved intent, pointing to independent witness statements as well as hospital and forensic reports. The lawyers argued that the decision should be overturned in favor of the Öner family. However, the court overturned the ruling in favor of the defendant, citing “excessive sentencing.”