Arezzo, murdered thief who entered his workshop: examining magistrate rejects the presentation

Pacini, that night, was in his workshop because he slept there after having suffered several successful attempts or robberies.

“The prosecutor – writes the investigating judge in his disposition – argued that the defensive action would have been launched ‘in advance’ while the thief entered the shed, but this, in retrospect, in addition to making the danger reality, would seem exclude the possibility that Pacini could really have made a mistake in that the intruder had a weapon ”.

The investigating judge goes on to argue that “in light of such a reconstruction of the facts, it is not possible to understand the reason why the prosecutor, while claiming that Pacini’s reaction was ‘objectively disproportionate’, first apodictically believes that it can exclude any profile of guilt of the suspect and immediately after “being able” to conclude that, when the latter has also culpably exceeded the limits imposed by the presumed situation of need, he would not be reproached for the serious and, in fact, extreme alarm that it has affected their capacity for cold discernment and rational restraint ”.

The investigating judge has ordered a complementary investigation in particular on aspects related to the arrival of the police to the shed, the deactivation of the alarm, the internal and fatal fracture reported by the thief, in the laser pointer and the torch supplied with the weapon. . used by Pacini.