AN ASSESSMENT OF SHOOTING AT A PERSON IN A BULLETPROOF VEHICLE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF TURKISH CRIMINAL LAW

1. In General

If a person fires at a vehicle containing someone they intend to kill, provided they know the victim is in the vehicle, the weapon is capable of letting death, and the shots are aimed at the victim, this is generally of intentional homicide or attempted intentional homicide .

However, a significant criminal law problem arises if the bullets fail to reach the victim because the vehicle's windows are bulletproof:

Did the perpetrator begin the act of killing but the crime could not be completed due to an external obstacle, or is it an "impossible crime" because the method used was unsuitable from the outset for causing death?

The answer to this question should be given specifically within the framework of Articles 21 and 35 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237.

2. The Crime of Intentional Homicide and Intent to Kill

According to Article 81 of the Turkish Penal Code;

"A person who intentionally kills another person shall be punished with life imprisonment."

Therefore, in the crime of intentional homicide, the perpetrator must knowingly and willingly cause the victim's death. According to Article 21 of the Turkish Penal Code, intent is the knowing and willing performance of the elements in the legal definition of the crime.

The fact that the perpetrator fired a firearm directly at the victim, the number of shots fired, the weapon used, the distance fired, the area targeted, any prior animosity, and the perpetrator's behavior before and after the incident are all considered together in determining intent to kill.

Therefore, in this specific case, if it is accepted that the perpetrator's intention was genuinely to kill the victim, the main point of discussion shifts from intent to the suitability requirement for attempt

3. Attempted Murder

According to Article 35/1 of the Turkish Penal Code;

"If a person, having intended to commit a crime, directly begins to execute it with suitable actions but is unable to complete it due to reasons beyond their control, they shall be held liable for attempted crime."

For an enterprise to be established, the following are fundamental requirements:

• the perpetrator having the intent to commit the crime,
• directly initiating criminal acts,
• the actions performed must be suitable for the completion of the crime,
• the crime could not be completed due to reasons beyond the perpetrator's control

is required.

Firing a firearm at the person one intends to kill, as a rule, signifies that the preparatory act has ceased and the direct commission of the crime of murder has begun.

The main debate here is whether bullets that cannot reach the victim due to bulletproof glass constitute "favorable action"

4. If the perpetrator is unaware that bulletproof glass is present

First, the most likely scenario should be considered.

The perpetrator believed the victim was inside a normal car; he fired shots with the intention of killing the victim; however, the bullets did not reach the victim because the vehicle contained ballistic-protected, bulletproof glass, which the perpetrator was unaware of.

In this case, the strong legal assessment is that the incident constitutes attempted murder

Because the perpetrator;

• He has the intent to kill
• He is firing at the location of the victim
• He uses a firearm, which is objectively a suitable means of killing
• He has started direct executive actions,
• The outcome did not occur due to a protective measure beyond the perpetrator's control.

In this case, bulletproof glass an external and incidental obstacle .

For example, if the perpetrator fired a gun, normally capable of killing a person, from a distance of a few meters towards the head or chest of the victim sitting in the driver's seat of the vehicle, but the bullets were stopped by ballistic glass, it would not be accurate to conclude directly that the crime could not have been committed by saying "it was impossible for the victim to have died anyway.".

The suitability assessment is not based solely on the outcome of the crime.

Otherwise, the victim;

• wearing a bulletproof vest,
• being behind a wall unknown to the perpetrator
• the bullet hitting a metal object in his pocket,
• the presence of a bulletproof protection system

Such incidental protective factors would have eliminated the attempt each time.

However, Article 35 of the Turkish Penal Code accepts liability for attempted crime only if the crime could not be completed due to reasons beyond the perpetrator's control.

The Supreme Court's Criminal General Assembly also draws attention to the distinction between the act being unsuitable for producing the result or the absence of a subject matter for the crime in the assessment of an impossible crime. The mere fact that the result did not occur does not retrospectively render the act unsuitable.

Therefore, if death did not occur due to bulletproof glass that the perpetrator was unaware of, as a rule:

Attempted murder under Articles 81 and 35 of the Turkish Penal Code

It will come up on the agenda.

5. If the perpetrator knew that bulletproof glass was present

This is the more complex possibility.

The perpetrator knew the victim's vehicle was bulletproof but still fired at it.

Here, it cannot be said that the crime of attempted crime has not occurred simply based on the finding that "he knew the glass was bulletproof.".

the perpetrator knew and what they considered possible .

A. If the perpetrator knows that the glass is bulletproof but still believes that bullets can penetrate it

For example, even though the perpetrator knew the vehicle was armored;

• He thinks that the weapon or ammunition he is using could overcome this protection,
• He thinks the glass could be broken with a large number of shots
• He thinks a particular region is weaker,
• if he anticipates being able to reach the victim through another opening in the vehicle,

The liability for intent to kill and attempted murder does not disappear.

In this case, it must again be investigated whether the specific means and actions were objectively capable of causing death .

Therefore, the information that "he knew it was bulletproof" alone does not definitively determine whether the defendant is guilty or guilty.

B. If the perpetrator knows that the glass is absolutely impossible to breach with the weapon he is using, and yet he only shoots at the glass..

This is where the real theoretical problem arises.

Let's assume the perpetrator is;

• He knows the protection level of the glass,
• He knows that the weapon and ammunition he has cannot penetrate this glass
• He knows the victim is in a fully protected area
• However, he's only shooting from outside the window.

In such a case, "suitable conduct" condition required in Article 35 of the Turkish Penal Code is seriously called into question.

Because for attempted liability to arise, it is not sufficient for the perpetrator to merely intend to commit the crime. The perpetrator must have commenced the execution of the crime with actions suitable for carrying out the intended crime.

Article 35 of the Turkish Penal Code, unlike the "suitable means" concept in the old Penal Code, provides for an assessment of suitability that takes into account the entirety of the actions.

The Supreme Court's Criminal General Assembly's assessment of the concept of an impossible crime also states that an impossible crime can arise when the act is completely incapable of producing the legal consequence.

For example, if the person intended to be killed is actually already dead, this constitutes a classic example of an impossible crime due to the absence of a subject matter. Similarly, using methods that are objectively impossible to achieve the desired result can also give rise to the discussion of an impossible attempt.

However, in the case of bulletproof glass, this conclusion with great caution .

Because a firearm is, by its very nature, a tool capable of killing. The inability to kill here stems not from the nature of the weapon used, but from the specific protective circumstances the victim finds themselves in.

Therefore, the distinction between "absolute unfavorability" and "relative unfavorability" is important in this specific case.

6. Distinction Between Absolute and Relative Unfavorability

In criminal law doctrine, the debate over the impossibility of committing a crime focuses on whether the impossibility is absolute or relative.

Absolute impossibilityrefers to a situation where, under the specific circumstances, it is objectively impossible for the method used to produce the criminal outcome.

Relative unfavorability means that actions that would normally produce a result are unsuccessful due to the specific circumstances of the event.

In the case of a bulletproof vehicle, firing a firearm is not in itself an undesirable act of killing. On the contrary, it is an extremely effective and dangerous means of attacking human life.

The factor that prevented the outcome from occurring was the extraordinary protective measure used by the victim.

Therefore, in cases where the perpetrator was unaware of the bulletproof glass, it is a stronger legal approach to consider the incident not merely as an "impossible crime," but rather as a relatively unfavorable and punishable attempt

7. The perpetrator's knowledge of bulletproof glass may affect the content of the intent, rather than just the suitability of the situation

If the perpetrator was aware of the glass's properties, a second problem arises:

Is there truly an intention to kill the victim?

If a person knows for certain that their weapon cannot penetrate glass and yet fires only at the glass, the defense could rightfully raise the following question:

"If the perpetrator knows that the victim's death could not have occurred through their own actions, did they truly act with the intent to kill?"

In this case, in determining intent to kill;

• Threats before the incident,
• the method by which the perpetrator obtained the weapon,
• planning the event,
• weapons and ammunition used,
• number of shots,
• targeted area,
• whether the perpetrator subsequently continued with the attempt to kill,
• whether he tried to open the car door or fire from another point,
• statements after the incident

It will be important.

For example, if the perpetrator sees that the window has not been pierced, but continues to fire from the door or side as the vehicle moves, there is a much stronger indication that there was intent to kill.

Conversely, if it is determined that the perpetrator knew the glass was impassable and only fired to scare, other types of crimes may be considered instead of intent to kill.

8. The Concept of an Uncommittable Crime

The Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 does not regulate "impossible crimes" in a separate article. However, it is accepted based on the opposite meaning of the "suitable conduct" condition in Article 35 of the Turkish Penal Code.

The Supreme Court's Criminal General Assembly also emphasizes that for a crime to be considered impossible, the act must be unsuitable or the subject matter of the crime must be absent.

In an impossible crime, although the perpetrator has the intention to commit the crime, the completion of the crime is not possible due to objective reality.

Classic examples;

• The person intended to be killed must have already died
• Trying to induce an abortion in a non-pregnant person,
• stealing property that actually belongs to oneself while believing it to belong to someone else

It is shown as follows.

However, shooting a living person at the scene with a firearm differs significantly from these classic examples. Here, the person who is the subject of the crime is alive, and the weapon used in the attack is normally capable of killing.

Therefore, the mere presence of ballistic protection in a vehicle should not automatically lead to the conclusion that the crime cannot be committed.

9. The rating of bulletproof glass may require expert examination

Technical analysis is of paramount importance in this type of case.

Bulletproofness is not an absolute concept. Ballistic protection;

• the type of weapon used
• depending on the nature of the ammunition,
• shooting range,
• shooting angle,
• the number of shots made to the same point,
• to the ballistic protection level of the glass,
• whether the glass was already damaged

It may vary depending on the situation.

Therefore, it may not be sufficient for the court to make an assessment of suitability under Article 35 of the Turkish Penal Code based solely on the finding that "the vehicle was bulletproof.".

A forensic examination of the weapon and ammunition, along with a comparison of the vehicle's ballistic protection characteristics, should be conducted to determine whether the shots fired had the potential to hit the victim and cause death under the specific circumstances of the incident .

This assessment is central to the legal characterization.

10. Consequences from the Perpetrator's Unawareness that the Glass is Bulletproof

Perpetrator;

1. He wanted to kill the victim
2. He saw that he was inside the vehicle,
3. He fired a real firearm, capable of killing, directly into the victim's area
4. However, if the bullets did not reach the victim due to bulletproof glass, which the perpetrator was unaware of,

As a rule, regarding attempted murder should be applied.

The fact that death did not occur here is not due to the perpetrator's will.

The factor that prevented a positive outcome was the ballistic protection in the victim's vehicle.

Therefore, within the meaning of Article 35 of the Turkish Penal Code, it can be said that the crime could not be completed "due to reasons beyond the perpetrator's control".

11. Outcome from the Perpetrator's Perspective: Knowing the Glass is Bulletproof

If the perpetrator knew the glass was bulletproof, then a single outcome is not possible.

First possibility:

If the perpetrator knows that the glass is bulletproof but believes that the weapon or ammunition used can penetrate it, and fires with the intention of killing the victim;

Attempted murder may be considered.

Second possibility:

If the perpetrator knows the protective level of the glass but believes that they can penetrate it with intense fire, hit the victim from another point, or render the protection ineffective;

The issue of liability for enterprises is once again strongly on the agenda.

Third possibility:

If the perpetrator knows that it is absolutely impossible for the weapon and ammunition used to penetrate the existing ballistic glass, knows that the victim is completely protected, and yet chooses to fire only at this glass;

It must be discussed whether the necessary conditions for fulfilling the requirements in Article 35 of the Turkish Penal Code have been met, and consequently, whether an impossible crime has been committed.

In this scenario, merely having the intention to kill is not sufficient for punishment. Criminal law punishes not the thought itself, but the actual act of killing that occurs under the conditions specified in the law.

12. Likelihood of Attempted Murder by Design

The fact that the target of the incident was a specific businessman and that the perpetrator had made prior preparations does not, by itself, constitute the aggravated form of premeditated murder as defined in Article 82/1-a of the Turkish Penal Code

The design must also be presented in light of the specific characteristics of the case.

However, the perpetrator;

• They had been monitoring the victim's movements beforehand,
• They had determined the appropriate time and place for the attack
• supplied weapons,
• prepared a vehicle or escape plan,
• Despite having sufficient time to abandon his decision, he persisted in his resolve to commit the crime

In that case, the application of design provisions may come into question.

Premeditated murder is an aggravated offense under Article 82 of the Turkish Penal Code, punishable by life imprisonment.

If this crime remains at the attempted stage, the provisions of Article 35 of the Turkish Penal Code apply.

13. Punishment for Attempted Offense

Article 35/2 of the Turkish Penal Code was amended on June 4, 2025.

According to the current regulations, in the case of an attempted crime;

instead of aggravated life imprisonment, a sentence of 14 to 21 years,

instead of life imprisonment, 10 to 18 years

They are sentenced to imprisonment.

Therefore, if the act is classified as attempted simple intentional homicide under Article 81 of the Turkish Penal Code, the sentence would primarily 10 to 18 years .

If the act is deemed to fall under Article 82 of the Turkish Penal Code, for example, attempted murder with premeditation, the basic sentence for attempted murder 14 and 21 years .

The severity of the damage or danger caused will be taken into account in determining the specific penalty.

14. Other Crimes

Regardless of whether it's an attempted murder case, the specifics of the incident matter;

• Damaging property with a weapon,
• unlicensed possession or carrying of firearms,
• threatening,
• related crimes if other people are also endangered

It may also come up.

Whether these actions, along with attempted murder, should be punished separately must be assessed based on the specific acts and the provisions on concurrence of offenses under the Turkish Penal Code.

15. Conclusion

In an incident where someone fires at a person inside a bulletproof car with the intent to kill, the fact that the vehicle has ballistic protection does not, by itself, negate the crime of attempted murder.

If the perpetrator is unaware of the bulletproof glass, and fires a real firearm directly at the victim with the intention of killing them, but the bullets fail to reach the victim solely due to the ballistic glass, the strongest legal classification is attempted murder under Articles 81 and 35 of the Turkish Penal Code.

However, if the perpetrator knew that the glass was bulletproof, a more detailed assessment is required. If the perpetrator believed they could overcome the protection with the weapon or ammunition used, liability for attempted crime may continue. However, if the perpetrator fired only at a fully protected area, knowing that it was objectively impossible for the weapon or ammunition used to reach the victim, then the of the "suitable action" condition and the "impossible crime" debate under Article 35 of the Turkish Penal Code arises.

Therefore, the fundamental difference between the two possibilities can be summarized as follows:

Regarding the perpetrator who was unaware of bulletproof glass:
Assault capable of killing + external obstacle unknown to the perpetrator = strong evidence of attempted murder.

Regarding the perpetrator who is aware of bulletproof glass: The perpetrator's knowledge of being able to overcome the protection and the concrete suitability of the method used are investigated. If overcoming the protection is objectively possible , it is considered an attempted crime ; if it is completely and absolutely impossible, the issue of an uncommittable crime/inadmissible act arises.

In conclusion, legal classification in such cases should not be based solely on the perpetrator's subjective knowledge, but the nature of the weapon, ammunition, firing distance, ballistic glass protection level, the targeted area, the number of shots fired, and the manner in which the perpetrator carried out the attack .