Lady and guards shoot intruders in Kolkata

[bennedose]

I do believe we have state, district and zonal level rifle associations where we can borrow a pistol, rifle or shotgun and shoot as much as we can.

That is different from training in how to use a weapon when threatened. That apart, not all state assocoiations allow one to practice shooting with the weapon one owns, or under the conditions that one might have to use them

Well we don't have IPSC in India yet. In Karnataka we have ksra and Mysore district rifle association where we can fire as much as we want....

I am a regular shooter at KSRA. As far as I know, KSRA has only 12 bore and 0.22 rifle and pistol. What if you own a .32 revolver? Do they supply ammunition for that? How does one get familiar with one's own weapon if one cannot fire one's weapon even in a relatively good situation like KSRA.

[farook]

I am a member at KSRA too and if your know Andraman he would give you a .32 sw walter ssp pistol and upto 100 ammo a day. Thats 200 per week. If you using an Ashani apply for a quota of 50/250 at the commissioners office. That would be like 20 a month. I am not sure weather your revolver would fire a .32 sw but most revolvers do. I think we are deviating from the topic here...

[Vikram]

People who have licensed guns in India are neither allowed to nor required to know how to use them in case of personal danger. The ability to safely handle a firearm in the presence of danger, that can come only with training in an appropriate environment, takes second place to draconian background checks when it comes to issuing licenses ensuring that licensed weapons are allowed only for mice who will simply store them up with that pathetic 25 rounds per year allowance and no possibility of discussing/talking/training regarding the use of the weapon that they had to go through so much trouble to get a licence. So someone shoots and kills someone else and thet "killer" gets arrested because no one will say that it was the dead person who attacked.

In this particular instance it appears that neither the weapons nor the licence belonged to the lady and guards who used them. That would imply that the "safe storage" that the gun owner was supposed to have ensured had not been ensured. There is one more person for the police to arrest now. From a nursing home, by the looks of it.

Bennedose,

It is not just about the laws. While we have a duty to comply with the laws as law abiding citizens , on a moral plane, we have every right or even a duty to disagree with those that are not just. That is what we are doing here. The explanation you posted above, for the lack of a more apt expression, irrelevant to a life or death situation that unfolded in the present case. The law and the legal entities may be staked against the attacked than the attackers.Facilities to acquire and practice with firearms can be non-existent. But that should not mean that we need to employ those same yardsticks that the law makers and enforcers use against the attacked and the manner in which he/she conducted in the face of mortal danger. Of course, it will be important to examine if there was a point when the response to threat became execution. Again, it is quite possible that people temporarily lose control of reasoning faculties due the fear they experience.

The fact that she used licensed firearms that belong to another is irrelevant at least from a self-defence point of view. What if a son uses the father's firearm though there is no written retainer letter but the firearm is accessible and is the only recourse? Lets look at it this way. She had access to those firearms, she used them and lived to stand trial instead of getting buried without a trial, hasn't she?

We know what logic the authorities are employing. Our duty is to examine it and analyse it. It is a different matter if you agree with that. I disagree but that does not have a bearing on my compliance with the law of the land.

Best-
Vikram

[TC]

What if a son uses the father's firearm though there is no written retainer letter but the firearm is accessible and is the only recourse? Lets look at it this way. She had access to those firearms, she used them and lived to stand trial instead of getting buried without a trial, hasn't she?

Vikram allow me to add more food for thought. On September 15 some people had opened fire at the same premises, apparently to scare away the residents and vacate the land. Immediately after this the lady lodged a complaint with the local police station and the police commissioner seeking protection. Another gentlemen who lives in the adjacent house filed a writ petition in court seeking police protection. Since the properties are involved in litigation the court asked the police commissioner to look into the matter and use his discretion regarding putting up a police post without however getting involved in the ongoing litigation which is entirely a civil matter in the court of law. The police commissioner asked the local police station to file a status report on the law and order situation. It did, saying there was no need to post policemen at Mamta Agarwal's residence.

Yesterday, the officer of the local police station who was asked to prepare the report was taken off duty and a probe was initiated against him because it has now been established that he filed a bogus report and all this while was in contact contact with one of the people brokering the real estate deal.

The officer in charge of the same police station was also suspended yesterday for dereliction of duty.

So long

TC

[Vikram]

TC,

Thanks again for your update. It is downright frightening and infuriating to know this despite the fact that we have been witnesses to this type of corruption perennially. It demonstrates clearly that despite good intentions, one minor corrupted cog(not a spelling mistake) in the system can play havoc with the lives of citizens. The honourable High Court and the CP acted on it and one employee chose to bend it. Your update sheds so much light on the constant pressure the intended victims were subjected to. Meanwhile, we expect people to react with at most observance of the notion of what is reasonable.

Best-
Vikram

[Vikram]

Meanwhile:

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... le-parents

Support pours in for Mamata Agarwal from friends, parents

KOLKATA: As Mamata Agarwal spends her second day in police custody, her friends and parents from different parts of the world have come out in open support for this young headmistress. Melissa Ward, who funded the Montessori run by Mamata, is coming down from Las Vegas to launch a campaign to demand her release. An Irish couple has also come forward to provide all kinds of help to Mamata's relatives.

"Mamata was my eyes and ears in Kolkata. She provided me with all support when the city was new to me, the people were unknown and I didn't even know the language. She taught me Hindi and provided all sorts of help. She was not only my friend but became a part of my family. It is my moral responsibility to be by her side now," Melissa told TOI over phone from Las Vegas.

"I shall reach Kolkata next week, probably on Tuesday, and then I shall decide what to do. Many people, including many parents whose children have been benefited by Mamata, have written to me. I have the support of at least 25 parents from different parts of the world," she added.

An Irish couple, who now stays at County Clare in Ireland, will come to Kolkata if needed. Speaking to TOI from Ireland, Neil Haren said, "I had the chance to meet Mamata during my stay in Kolkata between 2006 and 2008. She is one of the finest persons I have ever come across. My children used to study at her school. She is a beautiful teacher but more importantly she is a nice human being."

Meanwhile, Mamata's brother Umang Agarwal, who flew down from Bangkok, argued that his sister retaliated in self-defence. "What will a woman do if 30-40 people jump over the boundary wall at the dead of night with guns, swords, iron rods and sticks? If she had not retaliated she would have been raped and killed," Umang said.

Umang, who now feels that his life is under threat, added, "She used to say that she was getting threats on her mobile and she even informed it to the service provider. She was told that the mobile numbers from where she was getting threat calls are registered in Uttar Pradesh. She informed that to the police but no action was taken. She didn't want to take law in her hands but she was pushed to such a corner that she had no other alternative."

"Today everybody is telling that she has taken law in her hands but where were they when she has been running from pillar to post for justice. Starting from the local police station upto the President of India she wrote to everybody but no one responded and she was left at the mercy of some hooligans and corrupt businessmen. If there is no security at the stone throwing distance from CP's house then where will people stay?" Umang asked.

[FN-Five-Seven]

If someone starts thinking on such lines probably he or she is risking more than necessary.

Well , you got to think on such line sometime , either before pulling the trigger or after being put behind bars . Choice is entirely yours .

Your residence is your territory. Why someone is house breaking or trespassing?

All I am saying is that after incapacitating the intruder / attacker , seize firing and call the authorities . Let them handle the situation . Let the Judge dispense punishment . Do otherwise , and face the consequences as the lady is facing now . As simple as that .

When faced with sudden intruders one does not usually have the time thinking about finer details like whether some one is armed or where to hit and the like. Usually it is the instinctive reactions for self preservation that take over.

I hope you are not serious with this statement of yours . If you skip over the finer details such as whether or not the trespasser is armed or not , and where to hit or not , your actions are nothing but indiscriminate firing . And in indiscriminate firing , you not only run the risk of missing the attacker but also the risk of shooting down an innocent bystander . The innocent bystander could even someone you were trying to protect from the attacker in the first place .
Training with your weapon , to perform to the best of your abilities under any imaginable situation is a huge part gun ownership . Without proper training your weapon is pretty much useless .
Why do you think the military , police and even civilians train under simulated stressful situations ? Why do you think people buy and practise with guns equipped with High Visibility Sights , Red Dots , Laser Sights ?

F-N-Five-Seven

[bennedose]

It is not just about the laws. While we have a duty to comply with the laws as law abiding citizens , on a moral plane, we have every right or even a duty to disagree with those that are not just. That is what we are doing here. The explanation you posted above, for the lack of a more apt expression, irrelevant to a life or death situation that unfolded in the present case. The law and the legal entities may be staked against the attacked than the attackers.Facilities to acquire and practice with firearms can be non-existent. But that should not mean that we need to employ those same yardsticks that the law makers and enforcers use against the attacked and the manner in which he/she conducted in the face of mortal danger. Of course, it will be important to examine if there was a point when the response to threat became execution. Again, it is quite possible that people temporarily lose control of reasoning faculties due the fear they experience.

Vikram, "The Law' is being interpreted subjectively when it comes to the possession of firearms. Background checks are extensive and even after that licenses are not granted on whims, suggesting that the applicant does not face a threat or does not need a firearm. The long and short of this policy is that anyone who uses a firearm against someone else has to prove that he or she was a genuine, government licensed owner of a firearm and that he or she was under threat when the firearm was used. Even if the user of the firearm can prove that he/she was under threat, there remains the issue of proving that the user was licensed to use a firearm. The fundamental policy in India seems to be to tie up the right to use a firearm in self defence in a web of regulation that effectively ensures that almost no one gets a licensed firearm.

To my mind, a relaxation of the policy is unlikely to come by knee jerk support to all cases reported in the media in which firearms seem to have been used in self defence. If the courts eventually rule that laws were broken those who supported the user of the firearm will end up embarrassed.

I personally believe that the route to decreasing red tape and regulation in India and increasing the liberalization of firearm licenses is to be supportive of the police and teh law enforcement apparatus in general. This is possible in some (but not all) places in India where organized residents welfare asociations who have a local area security plan can sponsor designated people to undergo firearms training followed by the issuing of licenses. I know that the police in my own local area mooted this plan. This is still far short of the right to self defence using a firearm, but to me it looks like a step forward rather than the constant caterwaul of blaming the police to be stupid and biased.

In this particular case, I notice that the earliest reactions were to blame the police for arresting someone. I think such judgements are reached in the absence of all the facts. Of course the police can be wrong. Until a few years ago, police would routinely arrest doctors every time a patient died and the patient's relatives complained. Thankfully for doctors this has now stopped because the law has been changed (the law used to allow an initial arrest of doctors). But if one purports to belong to a body that generally supports the right to possess firearms and be law abiing - a blind, knee jerk cursing of the police does not appear, prima facie, to be coming from a group who are totally right. I don't think that is the right way to go about securing the right to posses firearms by law abiding people - by cursing the law enforcement apparatus. That does not sound very smart to me.

[Vikram]

In the face of danger, especially in a situation where your life is at risk, the mind experiences a severe shock and the rush of adrenalin so renders one that fight or flight or freeze are the most possible reflexes. If one is capable of showing such clarity and charity as you two espouse for the welfare of one's assailants in such a situation, I am not sure if one would be lucky enough to survive.

What would one do when a mob suddenly enters your residence? Can you actually make these rational calculations other than doing what needs to be done to protect yourself? It really depends on how badly the intended victim is in fear of life or serious injury and only that person can make the call.

1. When you are facing a mob of over a dozen, how practical is it to offer warning shots or aim for the legs? Is it a riot where the police are trying to disperse an unruly mob or a situation where you are trying to protect yours and your family members' lives?

2. What if they rush you construing that you lack the will to cut them down should they not desist from continuing their attack?

3. Unarmed? Most murders in India are committed with cleavers, knives, sickles, chopper etc. So, should one only use these items to defend oneself? Cannot one single blow with a stout stick kill a human? Were these people not armed with sticks? A person can be killed with bare hands too. The logic of proportionality does not enter life and death situations for the possible victim. A firearm is meant to equal the odds or be advantageous so that the intended victim can protect himself/herself.

Vikram

Ideally a mature gun owner who believes he has a weapon for self defence should not be using one in a state of utter panic. Easier said than done, but here are my thoughts on this.

I assume one has acquired a licence and a weapon in India, and I am presuming that the person who manages this should have some idea of the nature of danger he might be in. That would vary with the person. A gun owner in a remote rural area has a different set of risks than that faced by a city dweller in a full built up urban area. Each has to choose his weapon right. The city dweller in a closed area who has to travel city roads at night is probably better off owning a handgun, while the rural estate owner is probably better off with a shotgun.

A city licenced gun owner owner cannot legally use his weapon beyond certain geographical limits and certainly not allover the state or country. So his calculus of the risks he might have to respond to are restricted by the area. A large estate owner protecting his estate may have to prepare a vantage point from which he can deal with intruders. The city car owner may have to prepare for someone stopping his car.

A person who has had a licenced weapon for 20 years and has never had to use it in self defence and does not even use it for practice shooting is unlikely to even have the weapon ready to shoot if he is faced with an emergency. This begs the question, should one not always prepare onself mentally for situations in which one may have to use a firearm is one is among the privileged few who has a licence and a firearm?

What would preparing oneself mentally mean? This is what i think.

The first is to try and predict situations that might occur. In most instances people are not faced with the threat of a mob of 10 or 15 people climbing over the wall into one's property - so that might not be the first and main crisis that one has to prepare for. If it is home security one is concerned about, the simplest method is to know how and where you have stored your weapon and how quickly you can get it ready for action. If you sleep with a loaded gun nearby every night it is most likely because you expect to be disturbed and needing to use the weapon at short notice. Perhaps such a person has made some dangerous enemies. But not everyone is in that situation. But if it is a burglary or a break in the one must know how to quickly access one's weapon and have a pre-planned plan a vantage point where one has cover/protection from any weapon that the intruder may be carrying while you the gun owner can still shoot the intruder. In the absence of regular practice a "face off" like gunslingers in the wild west would be an error. It is better to stay hidden and under cover first while having the weapon ready. This typically means that one must ensure extra layers of home security inclduing layers of barred doors/windows that delay entry to a burglar while giving one some warning of an attack. The home/property must have two or three layers of doors/barriers (or alarm or dog).Without that it may not be possible to use a gun optimally. besides, having those layers of security will look better in a court of law court when you can say that you had all this security and you shot a man only after he had forcibly broken in the initial barrier/s. Sleeping with an open door with a gun and then shooting an intruder who comes through an open door will not look good in court. It means you were not taking security seriously and imagined your gun as first and last line of defence.

For a driver of a car carrying a handgun, the issue is simpler in some ways. He simply carries a loaded weapon with him if he is expecting to be attacked. But if a gang of men stop his car, does he simply shoot? Or does he threaten? Or try not to stop the car at all an swerve and keep moving. But if the road is physically blocked what does one do? Threaten? Shoot first, talk later? Shoot legs? Shoot chests? Not a nice situation whicever way you look at it, gun or no gun.

If one is expecting to be mugged while walking and one is carrying a hidden handgun, the situation is still not very simple. A mugger may simply attack and stab or hit at the first sign that something is wrong. There may be no time to pull out a gun and practice any pre-planeed heroics with the gun. The most basic rule is to avoid areas where one might get mugged and secondly, do not "feel brave" and enter dubious situatiions thinking a gun in my pocket wil protect me. If one must go into such an area, and one is really scared, I believe it would be better to pull out the gun and carry it, ready to shoot, so everyone can see. However I have never neen in that situation - this is just a thought I have had. If one gets stopped when the gun is in a hip holster or under the belt the best thing to do might be to first hand the mugger you wallet watch and phone and then walk away or shoot him. That is a choice one wil have to make. I believe that one must be mentally prepared for that.

Even with all this mental preparation, if you live 20 or 30 years without even facing any such sitation, one is likely to become lax. This where a bit of training might be helpful. Such training is mostly unavailable to Indians. Also regular practice with one's weapon - I suggest 20 rounds every month or two would be a good idea. That would mean membership of an association that allows that and preferably a practice wepon for which one can get ammunition at the club. If you own a licensed shotgun and the club allows only air rifles, it is of no use.

Bennedose,

All nice and well but in a different context. How does this fit into the sage advice that one needs to offer warning shots and/or aim for the legs when one is facing a mob? Evidently you did what many do not do, that is learning about the basics of self-defence. I am not a bit surprised that you did not come across a self-defence expert who approves of warning shots and aiming at legs.

Best-
Vikram

[FN-Five-Seven]

I appreciate,and I mean it, the fact of your human kindness and the ability to be charitable to your assailants in the face of mortal danger.

Hold on to your horses , Sir , and stop imagining me as Mother Teresa or someone like her .
The only thing I care about is myself . If the assailant is incapacitated , instead of dead , lesser charges will be piled against me by the Police . Lesser the charges , easier for me to obtain bail . That's about it .

I am not a cold blooded or a stony hearted killer. Or even remotely blood thirsty. But there are quite a few issues that need to be addressed in your views.

That's heart warming to know . You are my favorite Georgian now ; well right after the Georgian girl on my Facebook .

In the face of danger, especially in a situation where your life is at risk, the mind experiences a severe shock and the rush of adrenalin so renders one that fight or flight or freeze are the most possible reflexes. If one is capable of showing such clarity and charity as you two espouse for the welfare of one's assailants in such a situation, I am not sure if one would be lucky enough to survive.

First of all , as I already mentioned I am not running any welfare scheme for the assailants .

Secondly , I keep mentioning incapacitating the assailant over and over again , which you guys keep missing over and over again . Maybe I should type in bolder and bigger fonts .

Thirdly , an unarmed assailant with his knee blown off , writhing in pain , bleeding on my floor and me standing unharmed with a gun in my hand pointed at the assailant , I am pretty sure , I have a better chance of survival .

What would one do when a mob suddenly enters your residence?

Scare , then incapacitate , and kill if absolutely necessary .

Can you actually make these rational calculations other than doing what needs to be done to protect yourself?

Yes . I can do both actually at the same time . If I can't , I better start doing so .

1. When you are facing a mob of over a dozen, how practical is it to offer warning shots or aim for the legs?

So , you are implying , if a mob is intruding into my property , and I fire a warning shot , they will not be intimidated and think of retreating ? Are you suggesting that even after blowing someone's knee off , he still going to come at me ?
Seen too many zombie movies , have we ?

2. What if they rush you construing that you lack the will to cut them down should they not desist from continuing their attack?

I want to see a person "rush" at me with his knees blown off . I will it will be worth the risk .

Most murders in India are committed with cleavers, knives, sickles, chopper etc.

How in the world did you come up with this conclusion ? I guess , when I read about cache of illegal arms and ammo being seized by Police , every now and then , they were to be used for bringing in gold for India in the Olympics .

So, should one only use these items to defend oneself?

If you don't have a gun on you , knife is your next best option .

Cannot one single blow with a stout stick kill a human?

Yes

Were these people not armed with sticks?

Security guards ? No .

Another Update : The senior officer of the Property dealer has been arrested . He applied for bail , which was rejected .


F-N-Five-Seven

[Vikram]

It is not just about the laws. While we have a duty to comply with the laws as law abiding citizens , on a moral plane, we have every right or even a duty to disagree with those that are not just. That is what we are doing here. The explanation you posted above, for the lack of a more apt expression, irrelevant to a life or death situation that unfolded in the present case. The law and the legal entities may be staked against the attacked than the attackers.Facilities to acquire and practice with firearms can be non-existent. But that should not mean that we need to employ those same yardsticks that the law makers and enforcers use against the attacked and the manner in which he/she conducted in the face of mortal danger. Of course, it will be important to examine if there was a point when the response to threat became execution. Again, it is quite possible that people temporarily lose control of reasoning faculties due the fear they experience.

Vikram, "The Law' is being interpreted subjectively when it comes to the possession of firearms. Background checks are extensive and even after that licenses are not granted on whims, suggesting that the applicant does not face a threat or does not need a firearm. The long and short of this policy is that anyone who uses a firearm against someone else has to prove that he or she was a genuine, government licensed owner of a firearm and that he or she was under threat when the firearm was used. Even if the user of the firearm can prove that he/she was under threat, there remains the issue of proving that the user was licensed to use a firearm. The fundamental policy in India seems to be to tie up the right to use a firearm in self defence in a web of regulation that effectively ensures that almost no one gets a licensed firearm.

To my mind, a relaxation of the policy is unlikely to come by knee jerk support to all cases reported in the media in which firearms seem to have been used in self defence. If the courts eventually rule that laws were broken those who supported the user of the firearm will end up embarrassed.

I personally believe that the route to decreasing red tape and regulation in India and increasing the liberalization of firearm licenses is to be supportive of the police and teh law enforcement apparatus in general. This is possible in some (but not all) places in India where organized residents welfare asociations who have a local area security plan can sponsor designated people to undergo firearms training followed by the issuing of licenses. I know that the police in my own local area mooted this plan. This is still far short of the right to self defence using a firearm, but to me it looks like a step forward rather than the constant caterwaul of blaming the police to be stupid and biased.

In this particular case, I notice that the earliest reactions were to blame the police for arresting someone. I think such judgements are reached in the absence of all the facts. Of course the police can be wrong. Until a few years ago, police would routinely arrest doctors every time a patient died and the patient's relatives complained. Thankfully for doctors this has now stopped because the law has been changed (the law used to allow an initial arrest of doctors). But if one purports to belong to a body that generally supports the right to possess firearms and be law abiing - a blind, knee jerk cursing of the police does not appear, prima facie, to be coming from a group who are totally right. I don't think that is the right way to go about securing the right to posses firearms by law abiding people - by cursing the law enforcement apparatus. That does not sound very smart to me.

Benedose,

You really do injustice to your colleagues here by calling the support to her lady or their protest at the legal system that fails the law abiding citizens caterwauling.

There is no knee jerk reaction in the support for her here. People have been reading all the information provided and made allowances for the information that is unclear or unavailable. Have you missed the parts about her long standing requests for protection? What was done? Advice to install CCTV?

You tell me? Did the system succeed in protecting her pleas for protection? If not, do you blame her for standing her ground instead?

Did you read what TC posted above about her house being fired upon and the suspension of the officer involved in submitting a false report? I have many friends who are serving police officers and almost all of them are decent human beings. When I was taking my civil services exams, IPS and the Delhi PS were my top two preferences. I deeply admire the institution of the police but that does not mean that I am blind to their shortcomings.

If the courts eventually rule that laws were broken those who supported the user of the firearm will end up embarrassed.

I do not get it. Do you intend to say that we will be embarrassed if the courts find her guilty? Why is that? I made it very clear that as law abiding citizens, we will comply with what the law says. That does not mean that we have to agree or support unfair laws. Metaphorically speaking,we all are Socrates who drink our daily hemlocks.

Discrimination was once legal in our country.Being legal makes it acceptable?

We strive to change laws through opinion making. This is what this forum does. You may not see the results tangibly,yet. That does not mean that we haven't been doing our bit to shape public opinion.

Best-
Vikram

[nagarifle]

after reading all the posts and criticism and opinions passed. what i would like to know from the learned gentry is this!

WHAT the heck are we doing to give support the lady? are we supporting her for the courageous act or are we just gassing? gussing does not help anyone.

how can we support the lady and those with her?

until people stand up together we have noting but criticism.

is this not a just reason to show solidarity with the lady and those with her?

what can i do?

[Vikram]

I appreciate,and I mean it, the fact of your human kindness and the ability to be charitable to your assailants in the face of mortal danger.

Hold on to your horses , Sir , and stop imagining me as Mother Teresa or someone like her .
The only thing I care about is myself . If the assailant is incapacitated , instead of dead , lesser charges will be piled against me by the Police . Lesser the charges , easier for me to obtain bail . That's about it .

I am not a cold blooded or a stony hearted killer. Or even remotely blood thirsty. But there are quite a few issues that need to be addressed in your views.

That's heart warming to know . You are my favorite Georgian now ; well right after the Georgian girl on my Facebook .

In the face of danger, especially in a situation where your life is at risk, the mind experiences a severe shock and the rush of adrenalin so renders one that fight or flight or freeze are the most possible reflexes. If one is capable of showing such clarity and charity as you two espouse for the welfare of one's assailants in such a situation, I am not sure if one would be lucky enough to survive.

First of all , as I already mentioned I am not running any welfare scheme for the assailants .

Secondly , I keep mentioning incapacitating the assailant over and over again , which you guys keep missing over and over again . Maybe I should type in bolder and bigger fonts .

Thirdly , an unarmed assailant with his knee blown off , writhing in pain , bleeding on my floor and me standing unharmed with a gun in my hand pointed at the assailant , I am pretty sure , I have a better chance of survival .

What would one do when a mob suddenly enters your residence?

Scare , then incapacitate , and kill if absolutely necessary .

Can you actually make these rational calculations other than doing what needs to be done to protect yourself?

Yes . I can do both actually at the same time . If I can't , I better start doing so .

1. When you are facing a mob of over a dozen, how practical is it to offer warning shots or aim for the legs?

So , you are implying , if a mob is intruding into my property , and I fire a warning shot , they will not be intimidated and think of retreating ? Are you suggesting that even after blowing someone's knee off , he still going to come at me ?
Seen too many zombie movies , have we ?

2. What if they rush you construing that you lack the will to cut them down should they not desist from continuing their attack?

I want to see a person "rush" at me with his knees blown off . I will it will be worth the risk .

Most murders in India are committed with cleavers, knives, sickles, chopper etc.

How in the world did you come up with this conclusion ? I guess , when I read about cache of illegal arms and ammo being seized by Police , every now and then , they were to be used for bringing in gold for India in the Olympics .

So, should one only use these items to defend oneself?

If you don't have a gun on you , knife is your next best option .

Cannot one single blow with a stout stick kill a human?

Yes

Were these people not armed with sticks?

Security guards ? No .

Another Update : The senior officer of the Property dealer has been arrested . He applied for bail , which was rejected .


F-N-Five-Seven

F-N,

You can indulge in your sarcasm. I am not going to engage or indulge you on that note for I do not relish wrestling with the proverbial in the mud,figuratively speaking.

So you are convinced that scaring, injuring and shooting to kill should be the logical progression?

The following is not just for you.For others too who think the above line of actions is the practical option.

Shooting into air: you are wasting ammunition. Especially if you have a single or double barrel shotgun and reloading under stress is going to be a major challenge(Try doing that when someone times you. Even that should be stressful enough for you/ or most people to fumble) ; the assailants construe it as your inability or lack of will to do what it takes and are only threatening. If the numbers are large, they will simply rush you or if even one or two attackers can cover the ground and snatch it from you.

Shooting to incapacitate: provided you are able to hold the nerves and skilled enough to shoot under pressure at moving targets; have you shot a handgun or a rifle at anything that resembles a human target? Even a standing one?

Have you any idea how much time it takes for an average individual at 20 metres to get you? Have you any idea what reaction time it takes to actually draw and shoot?Roughly 4-5 seconds. Can you draw and shoot in that time?

http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=21270

Do you really think that you are going to kneecap, a target the size of a tennis ball, your attackers?

Do you think that shooting someone in the knee is going to stop them from proceeding further? People need not be drugged up or crazed up or psyched up to be able to withstand multiple gunshot wounds and still be operational. Have you any idea why the 10mm and later the .40 S&W cartridges were developed?

[youtube][/youtube]


[youtube][/youtube]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout

The shootout involved ten people: two suspects and eight FBI agents. Of the ten, only one, Special Agent Manauzzi, did not fire any shots (firearm thrown from car in initial collision), while only one, Special Agent Risner, was able to emerge from the battle without a wound. The incident lasted under five minutes yet approximately 145 shots were exchanged.[7][23]
Toxicology tests showed that the abilities of Platt and Matix to fight through multiple traumatic gunshot wounds and continue to battle and attempt to escape were not achieved through any chemical means. Both of their bodies were drug-free at the time of their deaths.[24]

William Matix: Smith & Wesson Model 3000 12-gauge shotgun, one round #6 shot fired. Killed after being shot six times.
Michael Platt: Ruger Mini-14 .223 Remington carbine, at least 42 rounds fired, S&W M586 .357 Magnum revolver, three rounds fired, Dan Wesson .357 Magnum revolver, three rounds fired. Killed after being shot 12 times.

Please cite one single self-defence expert that suggests the line of action that you espouse.

What I am trying to drive at is, our little frog in the well syndrome that prevents to educate oneself or at least be aware of the scientific studies that demonstrate the relationship between ballistics, human body and psychology and pontificate on matters as important as self-defence can get us killed. Offering wisdom that draws upon fleeting reflection and conjectures alone can harm others too.

Re firearm related murders,

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20110922/main8.htm

India, as a whole, witnessed 4,101 gunshot murders during the period. These accounted for 12.2 per cent of the 33,727 murders reported during the year. Overall, the country lost 6,219 persons to gunshots - 66 pc of them were murdered, 26.3 pc killed accidentally while 7.7 pc committed suicide using weapons.

If you want to debate or discuss further, please do come up with facts or at least some informed opinions instead of mere opinions in support of your arguments.

Finally, I am an Indian.

Best-
Vikram

[timmy]

What would one do when a mob suddenly enters your residence?

Scare , then incapacitate , and kill if absolutely necessary .

Now we have established that you allow Ms Agarwal the right to shoot, and to kill, to defend herself. What you are quibbling about is that her judgment, which was exercised on the spot and under the threat, was lacking and inferior to your own, which is being exercised from some distance and from the comfort of your armchair.

Can you actually make these rational calculations other than doing what needs to be done to protect yourself?

Yes . I can do both actually at the same time . If I can't , I better start doing so .

Your statement reveals that you've never been under such a threat, and that you assert that what you would do would be a superior course of action to the person who actually was under the threat. This is an interesting assertion, but I am not convinced that your expertise on these sorts of issues is very great -- certainly not as great as Ms. Agarwal's, which is why I discount your judgments of her.

1. When you are facing a mob of over a dozen, how practical is it to offer warning shots or aim for the legs?

So , you are implying , if a mob is intruding into my property , and I fire a warning shot , they will not be intimidated and think of retreating ? Are you suggesting that even after blowing someone's knee off , he still going to come at me ?
Seen too many zombie movies , have we ?

Yes, and apparently you have seen too many movies, yourself, old chap. Perhaps you need to scroll back and read Mr. Farook's story of the farmer, and how the same warning shots you have suggested did not deter his attackers. Your "method" of deterrence takes no account of assailants, and whether they may be under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, under which case(s), such an attacker can and has continued an attack under the circumstances you have suggested -- this, in fact, is why the US Army developed the .45 ACP and 1911: because Moro tribesmen in the Philippines would take drugs before attacks, and, unless they were anchored by a large caliber, powerful bullet, they would keep on charging. This is not some rare occurrence; as any policeman of any town of size who has pulled over a car load of drug addicts can attest.

Even if the single goonda is disabled, there is no guarantee, as you imply, that the others will go running.

2. What if they rush you construing that you lack the will to cut them down should they not desist from continuing their attack?

I want to see a person "rush" at me with his knees blown off . I will it will be worth the risk .

This is what passes as logic to you? Ms. Agarwal saw this happen, but you didn't, so on that basis, her judgment was wrong? You will be a busy man if everyone under attack by goondas must first call you to get your permission when they are attacked.

Most murders in India are committed with cleavers, knives, sickles, chopper etc.

How in the world did you come up with this conclusion ? I guess , when I read about cache of illegal arms and ammo being seized by Police , every now and then , they were to be used for bringing in gold for India in the Olympics .

Vikram has come to this conclusion because he reads about such things and consults the data of such events before forming his opinions (which many of the rest of us have, as well) -- and from your views, this is a step you do not feel necessary.

[jatindra Singh Deo]

Its amazing how people sermonize on the course of action taken by a hapless but brave woman who choose to stand her ground.That after the state had summarily disowned her repeated plea for protection against mob voilence .I somehow feel strongly for the lady and what she stood for empowers all victims this menace of land mafia all over the country .Discounting the sermons which hardly mean anything ,some guts she has to give em back !