Revenge is not self-defence. The Court of Cassation convicts Roggero and deals a blow to the right

Self-defence does not mean the freedom to take revenge by killing two people in the street and putting the lives of anyone passing by at risk. This is the principle of common sense reaffirmed by the Court of Cassation, which has definitively upheld the sentence of 14 years and 9 months imposed on appeal on Mario Roggero, a jeweller from Grinzane Cavour, in the Cuneo area, convicted of shooting dead two robbers and wounding a third following the raid on his shop on 28 April 2021. Roggero had also been found guilty of murder and attempted murder at first instance, receiving a sentence of 17 years which was subsequently reduced on appeal. Since the events took place – captured on a chilling video from the jewellery shop’s CCTV cameras – Roggero – who has never expressed any remorse for his actions – has become a symbol for a section of the Italian right, which has inappropriately referred to the incident as ‘self-defence’. In the race between Vannacci and Salvini to exploit the situation, the latter ultimately prevailed; following the conviction, he went so far as to ask President Sergio Mattarella for a pardon. 

The point is that, despite the propaganda peddled by the right (which much of the social media crowd has fallen for), self-defence never played any part in Roggero’s case; he only acted after being robbed, grabbing the gun kept under the till and chasing after the robbers outside the shop. Upon reaching their car, Roggero fired several shots. Alessandro Modica, who was driving the car, was wounded in the leg but managed to escape. Giuseppe Mazzarino was fatally shot near the car. Andrea Spinelli, who was wounded, tried to escape on foot but fell onto the tarmac: Roggero caught up with him, kicked him several times in the face and again aimed the gun – by then empty – at him. Shortly afterwards, he collapsed to the ground and died.

The prosecution has consistently maintained that this was not an act of self-defence, but rather an action carried out once the risk to the safety of the robbery victims had already passed, describing it as a form of revenge against the criminals. This argument was accepted first by the court, then by the Court of Assizes of Appeal (which recognised certain mitigating circumstances and reduced the sentence to 14 years and 9 months), and finally now by the Court of Cassation. Even the Attorney General of the Court of Cassation, prior to the verdict, had requested that Roggero’s conviction be upheld.

As explained by the appeal judges, even following the 2019 reform – so strongly advocated and trumpeted by Salvini – the use of a weapon may be deemed a proportionate response against anyone who has unlawfully entered a dwelling only if specific conditions are met, namely that “the danger of harm is imminent; the use of the weapon is necessary to defend one’s own safety or that of others, or to protect property; no other alternative courses of action—whether lawful or less harmful—are feasible; and, with specific reference to attacks on property, there is a danger of personal assault”. None of these elements can be found in Roggero’s conduct: “The constituent elements of the defence of self-defence cannot be said to have been met, given that the firing of multiple shots from the weapon used by Roggero – which led to the death and injury of the robbers – took place outside the jewellery shop, on a public street, at a time when the violent and threatening action by the three perpetrators of the robbery had ended and they were about to get into their car to leave the scene. Neither Roggero nor his family members were, at the time the shots were fired, exposed to a real danger of attack by the robbers, and there was no situation of imminent danger”.

Nor can it be argued that Roggero acted in a ‘state of severe distress’. It was he himself who, following the tragic events, stated in a series of interviews that he had acted in that way to stop the robbers and bring them to justice. It was only later, during the trial, that Roggero claimed he had feared the robbers had abducted his wife: “A belief objectively refuted by the part of the footage taken before Roggero left the jewellery shop, in which it is clearly seen that, after grabbing the gun, he collides with his wife”.