When threatened, what level of response is "Appropriate" ?

[Skyman]

Hello,

Not meaning to drag already discussed topics, but the recent spate of blatant crimes has me on edge.What level of response to threats is "Appropriate" as deemed by the law? Trawling the forum, i have seen contrasting views.

Some say, shoot till they stop moving.Some say fire to scare or hit the leg.And then, what if you defend yourself with a knife? If you hit an artery, is it attempted murder? What if you perform a takedown and break the assailants neck by accident? What if you use something like a pipe? I personally would do enough to ensure the target is neutralized, so to speak.Will the court think i like causing injury?

There are instances of people being rewarded and jailed for doing the same thing.Can experienced people clear this up?

We can't keep thinking " will i go to jail? " when defending ourselves, can we?

[Safarigent]

Skyman,
I dont have any degrees or any experience on this matter, however there are a few points which bear listing out:
1. Can you avoid the situation? If yes; do so.
2. Can you stay inert and not escalate the situation? If yes, do so.
3. If you have to take action, what level of response is appropriate? Remember, levels of response range from shouting for help, to using a firearm.
4. What kind of damage needs to be effected to neutralize the situation?

In todays india, your actions will not be condoned, if you are on your own property and a robber is running away from you, and you hurt/maim/ shoot him.
You will most certainly be held guilty of quite a few things if it is proved that after the first debilitating swing/strike/ shot, more damage was inflicted without any corresponding threat to your life.
Your actions will not be condoned if you are on someone elses property and have hurt/maimed/killed someone who was robbing/ threatening to use force against some one.
Its a tricky road and you need to figure out your own thresholds. I would much rather avoid things then get into a scuffle.
If i am outside at night and someone wants money from me, i just might hand it over. A few notes are not worth all the legal hassle i might get into.
On the other hand if i there is a clear definable threat to my life or that of any person around me, i would not hesitate to take appropriate minimum response to dissuade/disable the perp.
Nothing more.
A shot in the air, a shot to a body extremity etc and further action as required.
I would not jump the gun(pun intended) and pop in a few rounds or effect a takedown just because i can.
In todays scenario, i would think a pepper spray to be the best thing to carry.
Best,
A

[Skyman]

A, are you sure if i am say, at my friends house, and some one tries to rob it, i cannot defend him? And i cannot stop a fleeing robber by force so as to hand him over to the authorities?

[Safarigent]

I am pretty sure of it.
Infact something similar was discussed here on ifg too.
http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15496

Unfortunately, self defence is a topic given a very myopic and restricted definition here in india.
A lawyer might be able to better flesh out the correct picture for you.

[Skyman]

What the hell? SO one cannot LEGALLY defend friends, nor try to stop robbers fleeing with valuables? What weed were the lawmakers smoking?

[Safarigent]

Makes one think doesnt it?

[airgun_novice]

Quite a good writeup, Safarigent. Thanks for the clarity. So basically, "Appropriate" level of response is based upon the clear and present level of threat (as would be interpreted by Indian Law). Definitely "makes one think"

[xl_target]

On a related note; The goal is not kill, maim or hurt your attacker.
You do just enough to stop the threat. That is the goal in any self defense situation. You stop the threat and that's all. If you can stop the threat by yelling, that's great. However, only you can judge the level of force that must be used at the time. There is a saying here: "It's better to be judged by twelve (a Jury) than be carried by six (pallbearers)". Remember that using deadly force is the last option, when no other will suffice, only in the protection of your life or your loved one's lives.

While there is nothing wrong with playing out different scenarios, the best way to avoid the situation is not to be there in the first place. Sometimes this cannot be avoided but the best way is to be aware of your surroundings at all times. Be aware of who is around you at all times, especially behind you. Preparedness and avoidance is much better than an actual confrontation. If you can get away with it, drop any macho pretentions and run away.

What the hell? SO one cannot LEGALLY defend friends, nor try to stop robbers fleeing with valuables? What weed were the lawmakers smoking?

While you might get away (in your area) with using deadly force (against another human being) in protection of your own or another human being's life, you aren't able to do that for non-human life (including your pets). As far as defending property, even in the US, if you use deadly force in protection of property, you're going to jail. I believe that only in Texas are you allowed to use deadly force in the protection of property.

Please keep in mind that my comments apply to the US. Some laws (like the right to self defense) are universal and some aren't. Either way, carrying that gun is a huge responsibility and if used without proper cause will cause you endless grief.

[Bhargav]

Skyman,
I dont have any degrees or any experience on this matter, however there are a few points which bear listing out:
1. Can you avoid the situation? If yes; do so.
2. Can you stay inert and not escalate the situation? If yes, do so.
3. If you have to take action, what level of response is appropriate? Remember, levels of response range from shouting for help, to using a firearm.
4. What kind of damage needs to be effected to neutralize the situation?

In todays india, your actions will not be condoned, if you are on your own property and a robber is running away from you, and you hurt/maim/ shoot him.
You will most certainly be held guilty of quite a few things if it is proved that after the first debilitating swing/strike/ shot, more damage was inflicted without any corresponding threat to your life.
Your actions will not be condoned if you are on someone elses property and have hurt/maimed/killed someone who was robbing/ threatening to use force against some one.
Its a tricky road and you need to figure out your own thresholds. I would much rather avoid things then get into a scuffle.
If i am outside at night and someone wants money from me, i just might hand it over. A few notes are not worth all the legal hassle i might get into.
On the other hand if i there is a clear definable threat to my life or that of any person around me, i would not hesitate to take appropriate minimum response to dissuade/disable the perp.
Nothing more.
A shot in the air, a shot to a body extremity etc and further action as required.
I would not jump the gun(pun intended) and pop in a few rounds or effect a takedown just because i can.
In todays scenario, i would think a pepper spray to be the best thing to carry.
Best,
A

Very good explanation AB.

Normally when these kinda things happen around us we get a lot of aggressive feelings and a huge adrenaline rush. It is at that point that one should be able to control it. We may think (including me) that bad guys should be killed but it holds a complete different meaning in court.

I would say the most difficult thing is to control the adrenaline and not the gun . When you are armed you will try to reach your firearm in very petty situations e.g. bunch of guys whistling and eve teasing, small arguments.. heck even road rage. No wonder they say, carrying is a huge responsibility

I think anywhere in the world, half of the job is done just by brandishing the weapon. If the guy still doesn't get it then yes a shot in the leg will do it.

totally agree.

[goodboy_mentor]

What the hell? SO one cannot LEGALLY defend friends, nor try to stop robbers fleeing with valuables? What weed were the lawmakers smoking?

"defend" does not always mean causing grievous injury or death. As mentioned correctly by others, avoidance of trouble in first place is the best option. Laws of self defense are pretty reasonable and sound in India. They are explained from Section 96 to 106 IPC. I have tried to explain this matter with help of ten points mentioned in Supreme Court judgment here http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 23#p156759

[Skyman]

XL, your comments are sound reason always

Bhargav, yep, the adrenalin is what makes the difference.

Goodboy- by defend i mean from pushing/punching all the way to shooting dead.Granted no one intends to maim, but things escalate so rapidly in such situations, it is difficult to predict where one will stop or what must be done for a successful diffusion of the situation.Will look into your info, which is excellent as always.

"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 definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass."

Which means there are provisions to protect others/defend property DIRECTLY threatened.Yes?

(iii) A mere reasonable apprehension is enough to put the right of self defence into operation. In other words, it is not necessary that there should be an actual commission of the offence in order to give rise to the right of private defence. It is enough if the accused apprehended that such an offence is contemplated and it is likely to be committed if the right of private defence is not exercised.

Which means suspicious activity on the part of some individual means we can use force to prevent whatever we suspect?

(v) It is unrealistic to expect a person under assault to modulate his defence step by step with any arithmetical exactitude.

But the cops will still do a number on us if we use force? How can they?

(x) A person who is in imminent and reasonable danger of losing his life or limb may in exercise of self defence inflict any harm even extending to death on his assailant either when the assault is attempted or directly threatened.

Same question.

[slingshot]

Hi Skyman,

My views are as follows :

1. If verbally threatened : Stay Calm, Create Zone of Defense, Talk Softly, Assess threat reduction, Apologise & Walk away. Most issues can be diffused by calm conversation. Most angry people you encounter are not bad people. Just chaps having a bad day. And most of the time, a conversation will diffuse a situation...I even made some friends like this

2. If pushed & shoved : Pin down opponent in any lock, and Stay Calm, Create Zone of Defense, Talk Softly, Assess threat reduction, Walk away

3. Fistfight : Well...ensure no punches from your side...especially not in the face (no blood...so no case). Open hand technique, edge of hand, elbow, knee, foot. Assault at opponents joints or Soft tissue. Key areas...eyes, throat, chest, kidneys, groin, solar plexus, navel, toes, joints like knee or elbow...you get the idea...DISABLE in some way...Pin down opponent in any lock, and Stay Calm, Create Zone of Defense, Talk Softly, Assess threat reduction....RUN AWAY

4. Someone pulls out a knife on you .....JUST RUN AWAY. Too risky to do anything else. At the least you will get cut...or at the worst you will pull out a weapon and cause serious harm to this criminal. Both ways you get screwed. Running away is great....in fact being unfit and not being able to outdistance some junkie is a very silly thing... If pursued by more than one...remember...they will run in different speeds...take a corner and assault assailant 1...then run again

5. Someone pulls a stick : Easy...go really close to assailant. The stick can do no harm if you are close...the assailants hands are occupied...and you are free to use technique discussed in point number 3

6. Someone takes out a firearm : Well...I guess you are screwed. However most of the times...its only used to scare...so I hope you met this type. In case this is a really bad ass who wants to make magnum holes in you...FIGHT FOR YOUR LIFE! NO QUARTER...NO MERCY...ABSOLUTELY NO HESITATION. FINISH HIM!

Hope this helped...

[Skyman]

Chuckle.Pray, what is the zone of defense? And sticks are dangerous at close range also, unless you can get him in a cinch.

[goodboy_mentor]

Which means there are provisions to protect others/defend property DIRECTLY threatened.Yes?

Every word in law can have a meaning. When you are using the word "threatened" it means criminal intimidation, it is defined under Section 503 IPC and its punishment is in Section 506 IPC. There is no right of private defense when you have the time to lodge complaint with police. You can always lodge a complaint with police for someone giving you verbal threats of taking away property etc. From where does question of self defense come in? For you to act under right of private defense of property, there has to be "reasonable apprehension" of an attempt to commit offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass. You can look up the definition of these crimes in IPC.

Which means suspicious activity on the part of some individual means we can use force to prevent whatever we suspect?

No it is not "whatever we suspect". It is only whatever the law of private defense allows you. There has to be "reasonable apprehension" of offenses mentioned under right to private defense. Your response is subject to restrictions contained in Section 99 IPC.

For example you cannot use right of private defense for property on a child who has jumped the fence of your garden to steal some fruits. On the other hand if a group of armed men jump over the wall of your house in middle of the night or someone is breaking the door or window of your house at dead of the night, you can "reasonably apprehend" that they are up to some serious offense that is mentioned in law for private defense.

But the cops will still do a number on us if we use force? How can they?

They have the right to investigate the matter to see if the act done by you was actually done as per law.

Same question.

Same answer as above.

[slingshot]

Chuckle.Pray, what is the zone of defense? And sticks are dangerous at close range also, unless you can get him in a cinch.

Sorry about not being clear. We all have a zone of comfort. Basically it is an area around us that we keep to ourselves and we are uncomfortable if this is breached. Elevators are uncomfortable because people are breaching our zone of comfort.

The Zone of Defence is a similar idea. However this zone is at least 6 to 7 feet in circumference around you....even behind you. In the event of an attack, we must create a zone of defence of at least 6 feet around us. If anyone breaches this zone, we must treat it as a potential threat and immediately deal with the threat and secure this 6 feet circumference.

This approach is critical. If we only focus on the attacker and not secure a zone of defence we open ourselves to attacks by other attackers.

Creation of a zone of defence also, usually gives us a much needed gate for escape.

And yes, sure, sticks can be used in close combat. I know that a lot of us are trained in Kubotan, Escrima, Pressure Point etc. However, during an attack, we only react as per muscle memory. Self Defence experts will keep making us train train train till all defence and offence moves are ingrained in our muscle memory...so we are not thinking...but only reacting fluidly when under threat. However, sticks store all their kinetic energy for harm at the end of the stick...and the end is not sharp...so we can get inside the the end and hence there is very little chance of getting hurt. So its not that sticks cant hurt...its that compared to knives...they have much less potential for harm.