Legal definition of the crime
The offence of intentionally endangering public safety is regulated under Article 170 in the section “Crimes Creating General Danger” within the Part on Crimes Against Society of the Turkish Penal Code. Acts committed against society that create danger over a broad area without causing direct and concrete harm are intended to be prevented by criminal sanctions. Such acts that create general danger are subject to special regulation because, beyond individual criminal norms, they target public order and the general sense of security. Pursuant to Article 170 of the TPC, the Offence of Endangering Public Safety is defined as follows:
Article 170 – (1) A person who, in a manner dangerous to the life, health, or property of individuals, or in a way capable of causing fear, anxiety, or panic among people:
a) Starts a fire,
b) Causes the collapse of a building, a landslide, an avalanche, a flood, or an overflow,
c) Fires a weapon or uses an explosive substance,
shall be punished with imprisonment from six months to three years.
(2) A person who causes a risk of fire, building collapse, landslide, avalanche, flood, or overflow shall be punished with imprisonment from three months to one year or a judicial fine.
Through this provision, individuals who create danger to the life, health, or property of the public through alternative acts are intended to be punished, thereby ensuring the protection of public peace.
Protected legal interest
The crime of intentionally endangering public safety is classified as a crime of danger. With this offence, the focus is on protecting public peace, aiming to safeguard individuals’ peace, bodily integrity, property, health, and life. In this way, it is intended that society can live in a state of tranquility, free from anxiety and panic.
Elements of the Crime
PERPETRATOR: The crime of intentionally endangering public safety is not specific to a particular offender. Our law imposes no restrictions regarding who can commit this crime. The perpetrator can be any person, meaning the crime can be committed by anyone.
VICTIM: Like the perpetrator, the victim of the crime of intentionally endangering public safety can also be anyone. The law does not impose any limitations regarding the victim, and everyone can be affected by the offence.
ACT: The crime of endangering public safety is a crime of alternative acts. The offence does not have to be directed at a specific individual; it punishes situations that create danger. As can be understood from the wording of the law, the crime of endangering public safety…
- The offence can be committed by causing a fire, and according to the established case law of the Court of Cassation, for a fire to be considered as having occurred, the perpetrator must have caused it to ignite and spread in a manner capable of creating a general danger to people and property.
- It can also be committed by causing the collapse of a building, a landslide, an avalanche, a flood, or an overflow.
- It can be committed by firing a weapon or using an explosive substance. According to the case law of the Court of Cassation, firing a blank gun into the air does not constitute the crime of intentionally endangering public safety.
Pursuant to Article 170/1 of the Turkish Penal Code, creating a concrete danger through the alternative acts mentioned above is sufficient for the commission of the offence. It is not necessary for actual harm to occur; the creation of a danger capable of causing fear or panic among people is accepted as an objective condition for punishment. If actual harm does occur, the perpetrator may also be punished under other offences regulated by the TPC according to the resulting damage. For the punishment of the crime of endangering public safety, it is crucial that the emerging danger is of a nature capable of causing harm to the health or property of individuals.
- It can also be committed by causing the danger of a fire,
- the danger of a building collapse,
- the danger of a landslide,
- the danger of an avalanche, or
- the danger of a flood or overflow.
Pursuant to Article 170/2 of the Turkish Penal Code, the crime of intentionally endangering public safety can be committed. Here, the perpetrator is not the person who directly performs the act creating the danger but the one who causes it. This article regulates the creation of an abstract danger. Under Article 170/2, the existence of the alternative acts is sufficient for the commission of the offence, and there is no requirement for the emergence of a concrete danger to the health or property of individuals.
MENTAL ELEMENT: Intent (dolus) is required for the crime of intentionally endangering public safety. The perpetrator must carry out the alternative acts knowingly and willingly. Although the crime can also be committed negligently, the negligent form of the offence is regulated under Article 171 of the TPC.
SUBJECT MATTER: The subject matter of the crime of intentionally endangering public safety consists of performing abstract or concrete alternative acts capable of creating a danger to the health, life, or property of individuals.
Special Forms of the Crime
ATTEMPT: As noted above, the crime of intentionally endangering public safety is a crime of alternative acts. To speak of an attempt, the perpetrator must have begun the acts but be unable to complete them due to reasons beyond their control, and the divisibility of the acts must be considered. However, since the acts constituting this offence are indivisible, it is not possible to speak of an attempt for the crime of intentionally endangering public safety.
CONCURRENCE OF OFFENCES (MULTIPLE OFFENCES): It is possible to apply the provisions on concurrence of offences under our law for the crime of intentionally endangering public safety. If the perpetrator violates multiple legal interests with a single act, or violates the same legal interest with multiple acts, punishment will be applied according to the concurrence of offences. If the resulting harm is more severe, the perpetrator will be punished for the offence requiring the heaviest penalty. In such cases, under Article 44 of the TPC, ideal concurrence applies, and the perpetrator is punished for the offence with the heaviest penalty resulting from their act. For example, in the case of firing a weapon in a residential area in violation of Law No. 6136, the perpetrator will be punished separately for both intentionally endangering public safety and for violating Law No. 6136 (Article 13/1 of Law No. 6136).
PARTICIPATION (COMPLICITY): The crime of intentionally endangering public safety can be committed by multiple perpetrators. In cases where the offence is committed collectively, the general provisions regarding participation will apply, and all participants will be considered perpetrators, with each being sentenced separately.
Complaint, Reconciliation, Statute of Limitations, and Competent Court
The crime of endangering public safety is not among the offences subject to a complaint by law. It is investigated ex officio by the Office of the Public Prosecutor without the need for any complaint. Therefore, no complaint period is prescribed for this offence.
The crime of endangering public safety cannot be included in reconciliation (mediation) procedures. There is no provision for reconciliation regarding this offence, and reconciliation is not possible for it.
A criminal case must be initiated within 8 years from the commission of the crime of endangering public safety. Accordingly, the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution of this offence is 8 years.
The trial of the crime of endangering public safety is conducted by the courts of first instance (Assize Courts). Additionally, trials for this offence can be conducted under the expedited trial procedure. In cases deemed necessary, the trial of the offence will be subject to the expedited procedure.
Judicial Fine, Suspension, and Postponement of Pronouncement of the Verdict
Under the crime of intentionally endangering public safety, the sentence to be imposed on the perpetrator, pursuant to Article 170/1 of the Turkish Penal Code, is imprisonment from six months to three years. If the sentence is less than one year, it can be converted into a judicial fine under the provisions governing judicial fines, provided the conditions are suitable. However, under Article 170/2, since an alternative penalty of imprisonment from three months to one year or a judicial fine is prescribed, once imprisonment is chosen, it cannot subsequently be converted into a judicial fine.
It is possible to suspend the execution of the sentence imposed on a perpetrator convicted of intentionally endangering public safety, meaning that the enforcement of the sentence in correctional institutions can be deferred under certain conditions.
It is also possible to postpone the pronouncement of the verdict (Postponement of Pronouncement of the Verdict, PPoV) for a sentence imposed for the crime of intentionally endangering public safety. If the PPoV provisions are applied, the verdict will have no legal effect provided the perpetrator fulfills certain conditions during the probationary period.
Sample Supreme Court (Court of Cassation) Decisions on the Crime of Intentionally Endangering Public Safety
According to the findings and the court’s acceptance; on March 20, 2012, during unauthorized Nevruz celebrations in the İdil district of Şırnak province, in accordance with calls for action from a PKK-affiliated website, large crowds—including individuals with masked faces—gathered in various neighborhoods and streets from the morning hours. Despite warnings, they insisted on not dispersing and attacked the security forces with stones and Molotov cocktails. The events continued until the evening. Upon reviewing the CD footage, it was observed that, despite the warnings, the crowd did not disperse, and considering the statement of the juvenile offender who appeared in the footage holding stones and a Molotov cocktail claiming to have used the Molotov, although a conviction was rendered for intentionally endangering public safety by using a Molotov cocktail pursuant to Article 170 of the TPC, the juvenile’s attack against the security forces constitutes an offence under Article 265 of the TPC. Furthermore, if the target is not specific, a conviction under Article 170 of the TPC should be rendered. Failure to take this into account constitutes grounds for annulment. (Court of Cassation, 16th Criminal Chamber – Decision: 2017/5571)
8th Criminal Chamber, Case No: 2019/12247, Decision No: 2019/9552
Text of the Case Law
COURT: Assize Court
OFFENCE: Firing a gun in a manner that intentionally endangers public safety
JUDGMENT: Acquittal
Having been examined and considered:
Although a public prosecution was initiated requesting the defendant to be punished for the crimes of intentionally endangering public safety and threatening with a firearm, it was noted that the defendant, during an argument with the complainants, pointed a shotgun at [complainant’s name] saying “I’ll shoot you” and then fired the shotgun into the air in front of the residence. Considering that this act as a whole constitutes the crime of threatening with a firearm, the court should have limited the conviction to only the crime of threatening with a firearm and concluded that there was no need for a judgment regarding the crime of intentionally endangering public safety.
However, an acquittal was additionally rendered for the crime of intentionally endangering public safety, which is contrary to the law. The appeal lodged by the complainants’ attorney was thus found to be justified. For this reason, in accordance with Article 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMUK) as applied under Article 8/1 of Law No. 5320, the judgment was REVERSED.
Decision rendered unanimously on 04.07.2019.
“…The rulings issued by the Local Court were appealed, and the file was reviewed considering the period of the application, the nature of the decision, and the date of the offence. As there were no grounds for rejecting the appeal, the case was examined on its merits. According to the minutes, documents, and reasoning reflecting the hearing process during which the defendant formed their conscience, no other reasons were deemed valid.
However, the act of the defendant, half an hour after threatening the victim with a knife in front of the victim’s father’s workplace, firing at the same workplace, constitutes the crimes of armed threat against the victim in a chain-like manner and intentionally endangering public safety. In this case, pursuant to Article 44 of the Turkish Penal Code (TPC), only a conviction for the most severe offence, namely the crime of armed threat, should have been issued under Article 43/1 of the TPC. Instead, due to an unlawful reasoning and without applying Article 43/1 of the TPC, separate convictions were rendered for both armed threat and intentionally endangering public safety. This is contrary to the law, and since the defendant’s appeal grounds were found justified, the RULINGS ARE REVERSED.
As there was no cross-appeal, during the re-trial, Article 326 (final paragraph) of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 1412 should be observed. The file shall be sent to the court of first instance for continuation and conclusion of the proceedings starting from the stage prior to reversal. The decision was made unanimously on 12.12.2019.”
(4th Criminal Chamber, Case No: 2015/24559, Decision No: 2019/19630)
Lawyer. Gökhan AKGÜL & Lawyer. Mümine Nur AYDOĞMUŞ
