![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.korhanyilmaz.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/03\/du_547428480.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\u015eerzan Kurt’un ailesi: Yeni bir bozma karar\u0131 verilmesi anla\u015f\u0131lmaz durumdur.<\/p>\n
Mu\u011fla\u2019da, yedi y\u0131l \u00f6nce \u015eerzan Kurt adl\u0131 \u00fcniversiteli \u00f6\u011frencinin bir polis taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6ld\u00fcr\u00fclmesine ili\u015fkin davada Yarg\u0131tay 1. Ceza Dairesi, iki y\u0131l \u00f6nce verdi\u011fi kendi karar\u0131 bozdu. H\u00fcrriyet’ten \u0130smail Saymaz<\/strong>‘\u0131n haberine g\u00f6re, 1. Daire, 2014 y\u0131l\u0131ndaki ilk bozma karar\u0131nda polise \u2018tahrik alt\u0131nda kasten \u00f6ld\u00fcrme\u2019 su\u00e7undan ceza verilmesini istedi. Yerel mahkeme de 1. Daire\u2019nin g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc do\u011frultusunda polise 16 y\u0131l ceza verdi. Ge\u00e7en s\u00fcrede t\u00fcm \u00fcyeleri de\u011fi\u015fen 1. Daire, bu kez polise \u2018a\u011f\u0131rla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f yaralama\u2019 su\u00e7undan ve daha az ceza istedi. Ayn\u0131 \u015fekilde, iki y\u0131l \u00f6nce 1. Daire ile davranan Yarg\u0131tay Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 da savc\u0131s\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fince g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc de\u011fi\u015ftirdi. Dosya Yarg\u0131tay Ceza Genel Kurulu\u2019na g\u00f6nderildi.<\/p>\n Mu\u011fla S\u0131tk\u0131 Ko\u00e7man \u00dcniversitesi\u2019nde okuyan 21 ya\u015f\u0131ndaki \u015eerzan Kurt, kentte 12 May\u0131s 2010\u2019da \u00e7\u0131kan olaylar s\u0131ras\u0131nda, omzuna isabet eden polis kur\u015funu ile can verdi. Kurt\u2019u \u00f6ld\u00fcren polis G\u00fcltekin \u015eahin hakk\u0131nda Eski\u015fehir 1. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi\u2019nde dava a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131. Dava, 9 Eyl\u00fcl 2012\u2019de bitti ve mahkeme, \u015eahin\u2019i ilkin m\u00fcebbet hapse \u00e7arpt\u0131rd\u0131. Ard\u0131ndan gerek\u00e7eli kararda \u201cB\u00f6yle daha hakkaniyetli oldu\u201d diyerek, 2005\u2019te kald\u0131r\u0131lan T\u00fcrk Ceza Kanunu\u2019ndaki (TCK) bir maddeyi yeni TCK\u2019ya uyarlay\u0131p \u015eahin i\u00e7in kendi i\u015fledi\u011fi su\u00e7a yard\u0131m indirimi yaparak, sekiz y\u0131l hapse ve tahliyeye karar verdi.<\/p>\n Yarg\u0131tay 1. Ceza Dairesi, 14 Nisan 2014\u2019te oy \u00e7oklu\u011fuyla verdi\u011fi ilk kararda, \u015eahin\u2019e TCK\u2019n\u0131n 81. maddesi gere\u011fince \u2018haks\u0131z tahrikle kasten \u00f6ld\u00fcrme\u2019 su\u00e7undan hapis verilmesini istedi. Bir \u00fcye ise m\u00fcebbet hapsi gerektiren \u2018kasten \u00f6ld\u00fcrme\u2019 su\u00e7undan ceza verilmesini y\u00f6n\u00fcnde g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f verdi. Eski\u015fehir 1. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi, 15 \u015eubat 2015\u2019te yeniden ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 yarg\u0131lamada, Yarg\u0131tay\u2019\u0131n bozma karar\u0131na uyarak, \u015eahin\u2019e 16 y\u0131l hapis cezas\u0131 verdi. \u015eahin tutuklanarak, cezaevine g\u00f6nderildi. Karara itiraz edilmesi \u00fczerine dosya tekrar Yarg\u0131tay 1. Ceza Dairesi\u2019nin \u00f6n\u00fcne geldi.<\/p>\n Karar\u0131 onamas\u0131 beklenen 1. Daire\u2019nin, ge\u00e7en iki y\u0131lda t\u00fcm \u00fcyeleri de\u011fi\u015fmi\u015fti. Daire oy \u00e7oklu\u011fuyla ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 ikinci karar\u0131nda, \u015eahin\u2019in 18 y\u0131ll\u0131k deneyimli bir polis ve toplumsal olaylarda bilgi sahibi oldu\u011funu savunuldu. \u015eahin\u2019in silah kullanma izni almad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve a\u00e7\u0131k tehdit olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 halde ate\u015f etti\u011fi belirtildi. Eylemin \u2018kanunun emrini yerine getirme\u2019 kapsam\u0131nda say\u0131lmayaca\u011f\u0131 ifade edildi. \u015eahin\u2019in, Kurt\u2019la husumetinin olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u00f6ld\u00fcrme amac\u0131yla ate\u015f etmedi\u011fi kaydedildi. TCK\u2019n\u0131n 87\/4. maddesine g\u00f6re \u2018a\u011f\u0131rla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f yaralama\u2019dan sekiz y\u0131ldan 12 y\u0131la kadar ceza istedi. Ayr\u0131ca \u2018san\u0131\u011f\u0131n sab\u0131kas\u0131z olu\u015fu ve mahkemeyi k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc bir tutumuna rastlanmamas\u0131\u2019 nedeniyle indirime gidilmesi gerekti\u011fi savunuldu.<\/p>\n \u0130ki \u00fcye ise Kurt\u2019un i\u00e7inde bulundu\u011fu grubun cisimler at\u0131p yaralama kast\u0131yla ta\u015fk\u0131nl\u0131k yapt\u0131klar\u0131, polisin sald\u0131r\u0131y\u0131 \u00f6nlemek i\u00e7in z\u0131mni iznini ald\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnerek havaya ate\u015f ettikleri gerek\u00e7esiyle \u2018bilin\u00e7li taksir ile \u00f6l\u00fcme sebebiyet vermek\u2019ten ceza verilmesi y\u00f6n\u00fcnde kar\u015f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fte bulundu.<\/p>\n Dahas\u0131 Yarg\u0131tay Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 da karar\u0131 temyiz etti. Savc\u0131l\u0131k, \u2018bilin\u00e7li taksir\u2019den ceza verilmesini istedi. Dosya karar verilmesi i\u00e7in Yarg\u0131tay Ceza Genel Kurulu\u2019na gitti.<\/p>\n Kurt Ailesi avukat\u0131 Mustafa Rollas karara itiraz etti. Rollas, \u201cYasal bir neden veya maddi kan\u0131t de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fi olmadan dairenin \u00f6nceki bozma karar\u0131ndan d\u00f6nmesi, a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131 g\u00fc\u00e7 bir \u00e7eli\u015fkidir. Ba\u015fkaca kan\u0131t ve mevzuat de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fi ya\u015fanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 halde, de\u011fi\u015fen daire \u00fcyeleri ve savc\u0131l\u0131k makam\u0131 sonras\u0131 aksi istikamette yeni bir bozma karar\u0131 verilmesi anla\u015f\u0131lmaz durumdur ve adalette g\u00fcven duygusunun zedelenmesine yol a\u00e7maktad\u0131r\u201d dedi.<\/p>\n\u00dcyeler gitti, karar de\u011fi\u015fti<\/h3>\n