24.05.2025 14:18
A reasoned decision regarding the murder at a liquor store in Esenyurt, Istanbul, where two people lost their lives, has been announced. In the reasoned decision, it was assessed that the defendants Murat, Tarık, Azat, and Servet Özer, who received two life sentences each, exhibited a threatening demeanor when they entered the liquor store, that they jointly exerted control over the commission of the crime, and that they acted with a shared intent.
The 150-page reasoned decision announced by the Bakırköy 2nd Heavy Penal Court stated that there was a debt issue between the company of Tarık Özer and Murat Özer and the company of the victim, Yunus Emre Erzen's father, Cantürk Erzen. The decision noted that Tarık and Murat Özer's company initiated enforcement proceedings against Cantürk Erzen's company, and that Erzen became angry upon receiving the payment order and made insulting posts about the defendants on social media.
THEY ASKED HIM TO CALL HIS FATHER
It was reported that on July 28, after learning about the posts, Tarık Özer and Murat Özer went to the liquor store with Tarık Özer's son, Azat Özer, and their cousin, Servet Özer. It was recorded that the victim, Yunus Emre Erzen, was there with his cousin, Yusuf Erzen, and Batuhan Bayındır. The reasoned decision stated that the defendants, Tarık Özer and Murat Özer, asked Yunus Emre Erzen where his father, Cantürk Erzen, was and told him to call his father, while the victim tried to avoid calling his father and sought to understand why they had come.
NINE BULLETS HIT HIS BODY
The reasoned decision expressed that the defendant Murat Özer squeezed the shoulder of the victim Yunus Emre Erzen and applied pressure, and that the defendants Tarık and Murat insisted that the victim call his father, Cantürk Erzen. It was stated that Murat Özer, who was squeezing Yunus Emre Erzen's shoulder, pushed his hand away, and then the defendant Murat Özer violently pushed the victim Yunus Emre Erzen towards the shelf containing full alcohol bottles behind him. Subsequently, it was reported that Murat Özer struck the victim's head hard with a full glass alcohol bottle, and Yunus Emre Erzen took the gun under the counter and fired twice at the feet of the defendant Murat Özer, leading to a scuffle between them. It was also noted that Tarık Özer fired multiple times at the victim Yunus Emre Erzen, while Murat and Azat Özer restrained Yunus Emre Erzen. The reasoned decision stated that Tarık Özer also fired multiple times at the victim Batuhan Bayındır and the participant Yusuf Erzen. It was mentioned that 9 bullets hit Yunus Emre Erzen and 2 bullets hit Batuhan Bayındır, resulting in their deaths. The reasoned decision also indicated that Yusuf Erzen was injured to the extent of a bone fracture.
THEY FACILITATED EACH OTHER'S ACTIONS
The reasoned decision stated that the defendants Murat, Tarık, Azat, and Servet Özer were in a threatening posture when they entered the liquor store, that they jointly exercised control over the commission of the crime, acted in a unified intent, and facilitated each other's actions.
EMPHASIS ON THE SENTENCES GIVEN
The reasoned decision indicated that Tarık, Murat, Azat, and Servet Özer were each sentenced to life imprisonment twice for the crime of 'intentional murder' against the victims Batuhan Bayındır and Yunus Emre Erzen. It was also noted that the four defendants received separate sentences of 11 years in prison for the crime of 'attempted intentional murder.' Tarık and Azat Özer were sentenced to 1 year and 6 months for the crime of 'carrying and possessing an unlicensed firearm,' while the other four defendants received separate sentences of 1 year and 6 months for the crime of 'aiding a criminal.'
THE VICTIM'S LAWYER WILL APPEAL
Evaluating the reasoned decision, the victim Cantürk Erzen's lawyer, Kerim Bahadır Şeker, stated, "Although the sentences given correspond to 59 years for the defendants, due to differences in the way the sentence is enforced according to established execution laws, our appeal will be for the life sentences given twice to be applied as one aggravated life sentence and one life sentence, totaling 74 years. We are preparing our objections in our reasoned appeal petition regarding the necessity for the judgment to be determined by the court in a planned and designed manner in the 150-page reasoned decision. Additionally, we will submit our objections regarding the defendants who received sentences for concealing and destroying evidence to receive minimum sentences. However, from our perspective, we believe that the court's most appropriate assessment was the ruling that the defendants committed this crime in participation, which will be an important factor during the evaluation of this case in the appeal."