Armed Guards not permitted to fire ?

[FN-Five-Seven]

Note to the moderators : If this post is not suitable to this section , please do the needful .


Hi members ,

Today I was having a chat with the fellows who runs a security agency and their office is 20-25 metres from my business . While conversing with them , they said that although they deployed armed guards to various jewellery shops , housing complexes , industrial units , the armed guards posted there DO NOT have the permission ,from the Law ,to shoot in case some robber / robbers is/ are looting the jewellry shops or housing complexes or industrail units etc . They are only permitted to shoot , by the law , if and only if harm comes to their lives .

First I thought , they were pullling my leg , but kept insisting on the fact . Later when I came home , I called up the Security Agency who deployed guards to my Housing Complex ( They are a different company ). They repeated the same .

Now my question is , is it really true that the armed guards are NOT permitted , by Law to shoot , if someone loots the property the armed guards are deployed to protect ?

Secondly , if it is true , what is the point of having armed guards , if they are not permitted to shoot ? Are the firearms given to them are for the sole purpose of intimidation ?

Regards

FN-Five-Seven

[only32owner]

Friends kindly correct me if I am wrong here,

I think no law in the world gives anyone permission to shoot/fire, it has to be individual's discretion at that moment.
Having said that and as you quoted,

They are only permitted to shoot , by the law , if and only if harm comes to their lives .

Once the armed guard, interviens into bad situations, as you mentioned. Even his life will be in danger. I think he can use his firearm.

But in practicality, these aremed guards are just to draw more salaries. If that poor fella I ever fire who is going to take care of his lawyers fee and his family.

Regards.

[manshah007]

I strongly feel sole purpose of keeping armed guard in banks, at jewellery shops and other such establishments is intimidation. Clear visibility of long firearm like. 12 bore gun carried by so called armed guards is for exhibition purpose have you ever observed people with concealed firearms are not normally seen at such places . Hathi ke daant khane ke aur hote hain, dikhane ke aur.

[inplainsight]

I think the security agency's policy is aimed more at discouraging trigger happy guards and the headaches caused by shooting someone.

As per my understanding, an armed guard would be protected by law if he shot an assailant or robber.

The following IPC sections deal with the right to self-defense,

96 Things done in private defence.
Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence

97 Right of private defence of the body and of property.
Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend- First.-- His own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body; Secondly.-- The property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the defintion of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass

102 Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of the body.
The right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence though the offence may not have been committed; and it continues as long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues

105. Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of property.
The right of private defence of property commences when a reasonable apprehension of danger to the property commences. The right of private defence of property against theft continues till the offender has effected his retreat with the property or either the assistance of the public authorities is obtained, or the property has been recovered. The right of private defence of property against robbery continues as long as the offender causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint or as long as the fear of instant death or of instant hurt or of instant personal restraint continues. The right of private defence of property against criminal trespass or mischief continues as long as the offender continues in the commission of criminal trespass or mischief. The right of private defence of property against house- breaking by night continues as long as the house- trespass which has been begun by such house- breaking continues

106. Right of private defence against deadly assault when there is risk of harm to innocent person.
If in the exercise of the right of private defence against an assault which reasonably causes the apprehension of death, the defender be so situated that he cannot effectually exercise that right without risk of harm to an innocent person, his right of private defence extends to the running of that risk. Illustration A is attacked by a mob who attempt to murder him. He cannot effectually exercise his right of private defence without firing on the mob, and he cannot fire without risk of harming young children who are mingled with the mob. A commits no offence if by so firing he harms any of the children.

Unfortunately, having the law on your side and convincing the Police that you have done nothing wrong are two different things.

[goodboy_mentor]

I think the security agency's policy is aimed more at discouraging trigger happy guards and the headaches caused by shooting someone.

Your observation appears correct. Probably to keep matters simple for the guards to understand, they have been told to fire only when their life is in danger.