Self Defence Extends to Protecting Property: SC

[paddy]

Source: The Times of India, New Delhi

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 193592.cms

NEW DELHI: Right to self-defence is not only about using force to save oneself from an attacker but also extends to protecting one's property from being stolen or forcibly taken over, the Supreme Court has ruled.

"The basic principle underlying the doctrine of the right to private defence is that when an individual or his property is faced with danger and immediate aid from the state machinery is not readily available, that individual is entitled to protect himself and his property," it said.

But the force used by a person to protect himself or his property should not be grossly disproportionate to that needed to ward off the threat from the aggressor, a bench comprising Justices D K Jain and R M Lodha said in a recent judgment.

At the same time, the bench said it would be difficult to quantify how much force was justifiable in exercise of a person's right to self-defence.

"The means and the force a threatened person adopts at the spur of the moment to ward off danger and to save himself or his property cannot be weighed in golden scales. It is neither possible nor prudent to lay down abstract parameters which can be applied to determine whether the means and force adopted by the threatened person was proper or not," said Justice Jain, writing the judgment for the bench.

The court did not give any relief to petitioner Sikander Singh and his associates who had launched an attack on another set of persons and had received injuries when those attacked had retaliated. Citing the injuries on them, the petitioners had claimed that they had attacked in self-defence and requested the court to set aside their conviction.

On finding that the petitioners were the aggressors, the bench said they could not claim right to self-defence.

"The right to self-defence does not include a right to launch an offensive or aggression. In our opinion, therefore, the appellants have failed to establish that they were exercising right of private defence," it said.

[HydNawab]

.

But the force used by a person to protect himself or his property should not be grossly disproportionate to that needed to ward off the threat from the aggressor, a bench comprising Justices D K Jain and R M Lodha said in a recent judgment.

At the same time, the bench said it would be difficult to quantify how much force was justifiable in exercise of a person's right to self-defence.

So if an aggressor has a knife and I have a handgun, to protect myself, I have to dump the handgun and go find a knife to protect myself? Or do I sustain injuries from the aggressor's knife first and then use my firearm?

[m24]

"The basic principle underlying the doctrine of the right to private defence is that when an individual or his property is faced with danger and immediate aid from the state machinery is not readily available, that individual is entitled to protect himself and his property," it said.

"The means and the force a threatened person adopts at the spur of the moment to ward off danger and to save himself or his property cannot be weighed in golden scales. It is neither possible nor prudent to lay down abstract parameters which can be applied to determine whether the means and force adopted by the threatened person was proper or not," said Justice Jain, writing the judgment for the bench.

"The right to self-defence does not include a right to launch an offensive or aggression.

Very confusing statements.

Regards

[MoA]

Just read it myself. It is good news.

[OverUnderPump]

So if an aggressor has a knife and I have a handgun, to protect myself, I have to dump the handgun and go find a knife to protect myself? Or do I sustain injuries from the aggressor's knife first and then use my firearm?

We give the bloke a firearm and challenge him to a duel .
Then again if he's not trained on how to use a firearm, the onus lies on us to properly train him first or we risk 'violating his human rights'.

What will they think of next ?

regards

OUP

[nagarifle]

rewarding the criminal and jailing the victim

[Subal das]

We give the bloke a firearm and challenge him to a duel

not a bad idea at all but in different sequence, first we challenge then give firearm.

[OverUnderPump]

We give the bloke a firearm and challenge him to a duel

not a bad idea at all but in different sequence, first we challenge then give firearm.

Sorry for going OT,
Situation:
Me: I have two licensed guns (.32 and a .357 revolvers), pick one.
Bad guy picks up the .32
Me: Dude given the strigency of the Arms Act,I didnt have more than 50 rounds on me, of which I spent 49 already.And the last one I have is a .357
Bad Guy: Oh Damn, I need to call the antis or the human rights folks RIGHT NOW.

On a serious note, for those of us who have received PM's please get on the case now. Or else this will become a reality.

regards

OUP

[Subal das]

some times ago one friend who lives in US told me about their situation. A lot people from New Orlean relocated by FEMA turn into burglary, that area was affected so badly, so police told to locals, you see this guy on your porch, shoot him, bring to your kitchen, and calls us. That kind of relationships between police and citizens would be an ideal to deal with escalating insecurity in India. And of course citizens should have a lot of GUNZZ.

that is very unlikely going to happen, because as

Babur is reported to have said when cautioned about Delhi Sultanate’s formidable Army, “I have studied the Indians; they never learn from their history’. That was in 1526 AD. Not much has changed, or has it ?

The Enemy Within

Lieutenant General Satish Talwar,
PVSM, VSM and Bar (Retd)*

http://www.usiofindia.org/article_Oct_Dec09_5.htm

[shooter]

Now why does it sound familiar.