Lady and guards shoot intruders in Kolkata

[essdee1972]

Oh, so 20 or so men / women attacking me do not have "intent to cause grievous harm" if they are unarmed? They attacked a lonely lady in the middle of the night with intentions to perform Satyagraha, is it?

And if I am attacked, and there's an unclaimed gun in the vicinity, I am supposed to let it lie and protect myself with my Bruce Lee skills, which I am sure every Indian child learns in kindergarten?

Which security agency hires out its people to throw others out of homes? Why is no action being taken against the owners of that so-called security agency?

I see the need to relook at the legal qualifications and degree certificates of both the public prosecutor and the defence counsel for the "security guards".

[goodboy_mentor]

I see the need to relook at the legal qualifications and degree certificates of both the public prosecutor and the defence counsel for the "security guards".

The matters are probably not related to qualifications. In any corrupt system, the corrupt always gain from the suffering of people. Below mentioned will probably help making things more clear:

‘We’re now bribed to ensure that the person in custody is not beaten in lockup’

‘When we arrest someone for interrogation, the family members are ready to pay 10-20 thousand rupees’
.
.
.
According to a sub-inspector posted in the area across Hindan River, Ghaziabad is like Dubai for the police department with good opportunities to make the extra buck. The amount received for not torturing men in custody is distributed among shareholders ranging from the highest management to lower level figures of authority.
.
.
.
A doctor of a government hospital reveals on condition of anonymity that a panel of doctors is set up by the DM to carry out the post mortem of any death in custody. He says that in most cases the doctors are under pressure of senior officers to prepare a report that suits the police. Another doctor says, “This is why the cause of mysterious custodial deaths is never clearly specified. In order to keep the matter under cover they tamper with the viscera report. Why else would obvious marks of physical assault on the dead body go unnoticed by an entire panel of doctors?”

Complete report can be read at http://www.tehelka.com/in-ghaziabads-pr ... nglepage=1

In a corrupt system, probably the corrupt make profit even out of so called terrorism and internal rebellions:

What is further intriguing the minds of the people of Punjab is the ignorance being feigned by the Government of India, especially its Home Ministry regarding the `seizures' made from `Punjab Raj Bhawan' after the demise of Mr. Nath. The total `collection' amounts to Rupees 800 crore inclusive of cash, jewelry, and other immovable property. In fact, according to sources, this `body' seems to be a part of the amount of Rs. 4500 crore which was placed at the disposal of Mr. Surendra Nath to root out terrorism.

Mr. Surendra Nath played an all important role to give strength to the hitherto lesser known C.I.S.F. (Central Industrial Security Force) and it is being alleged that some of `its' men were used to kill innocent persons including the family members of the Punjab police personnel as well as teachers, doctors, engineers, media men and political personalities.

Complete report can be read at http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1994_cr ... -india.htm

[FN-Five-Seven]

Oh, so 20 or so men / women attacking me do not have "intent to cause grievous harm" if they are unarmed? They attacked a lonely lady in the middle of the night with intentions to perform Satyagraha, is it?

I think , initially the media has painted a different picture about the security guards by giving them names such as "bouncers " / muscle men " etc . They were simply youths in their twenties recruited by a security agency named Active Security . They were told that they were to guard a property over night . They had joined the security agency recently to make ends meet in the given economic situation . They were accompanied by a lawyer . Now if they were real criminals , they would have been armed to teeth and the lady would not have survived . And when ever a gang of criminals attack someone , they don't bring along a lawyer with themselves .

These security guards were instructed by the lawyer to scale the wall and get inside the compound . Now this was a grave error on the part of the lawyer to instruct so .

Now , if someone wants to evict a person(s) from his property , the legal way of doing this is to file a civil suit against the person occupied . After winning the civil case , the owner needs to inform the occupant of the Court Order . If the occupant relents , then the owner has to file an Eviction Case against the occupant int the Court . After winning the Eviction Case , the owner needs to show the Court Order to the concerned Police Station , pay the Eviction Fees as prescribed by the Govt , and then the Police will evict the occupant off the owner's property .

I know this because , a relative of mine , who is a lawyer himself , evicted the occupants off his property , in the above manner , less than a year ago .

Why the lawyer in this case went about evicting the occupants in such an illegal way , that too in the middle of the night is beyond me .

The way Mamta Agarwal reacted initially to the situation , was necessary . Under those circumstances a person cannot be expected to bother legalities of the Arms Acts and Rules .

After the initial firing , when the so called "bouncers " scattered away and hid themselves in the school classrooms , the lady and her guard should have ceased their firing and call the Police . Instead the lady and guard went on a shooting spree and shooting the security guards in their heads blowing their brains out . And all this action was captured on the CCTV cameras . The cameras also recorded the lady tearing off her clothes to paint herself as victim . My question is , what is the need for her to paint herself as the victim , if she is indeed a victim ?

What Mamta Agarwal did was use of unnecessary and excessive force .

The lawyer was arrested on the spot . The lawyer was engaged by the owner of a construction firm and a senior official of a Property dealer . The owner of the construction firm has been arrested from the airport while trying flee the city ; the senior official of the Property dealer is at large .

Mamta Agarwal and her guard have been charged with murder .
The owner of the construction firm & the senior official of the Property dealer have been charged with trespassing , unlawfull assembly & criminal conspiracy .

It needs to be seen which charges are proved in court and what punishments are awarded .

I think this the update till date .

F-N-Five-Seven

[farook]

There is one aspect of this case that appears to be overlooked. Mamta has on record complained repeatdly to the police that something like this may happen. The authorities as usual ignored her. I do understand that she has over reacted to the situation but we all do have a rage factor in us..

[bennedose]

Just curious. With shotguns it should be possible to aim for the legs and disable rather than kill. Would that not be a better option - if it is known that the intruding party has no firearm? Of course with a pistol or rifle the chance of hitting anyone's legs is dismal - in fact it is easy to miss a human at close range with a pistol unless one is practising.

[FN-Five-Seven]

Just curious. With shotguns it should be possible to aim for the legs and disable rather than kill.

Yes . Why not ?
IMO , that's what Ms Agarwal should have done .

Would that not be a better option - if it is known that the intruding party has no firearm?

Indeed . Unless the intruder or attacker is under some high dosage of drugs , it's very very rare the he will continue on with his assault with his knee blown off .

F-N-Five-Seven

[goodboy_mentor]

If someone starts thinking on such lines probably he or she is risking more than necessary. Your residence is your territory. Why someone is house breaking or trespassing? 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.

[farook]

I would say rage factor good boy mentor, range factor....Request all members to spend your valuable time and watch these two episodes if you have not already. We can learn by others mistakes and save our selves our own...


[youtube][/youtube]


[youtube][/youtube]

[Vikram]

Bennedose and FN,

I understand where you two are coming from. 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. 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.

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.

The bottom line is not commit yourself to any one particular line of action and exercise enough situational awareness so as not be afraid or hesitant to do what needs to be done. JMHO.

Best-
Vikram

[timmy]

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.

+1

It always amazes me how some people are expected, in situations where they feel they are in control of a situation and are surprised by a sudden occurrence, say, a car pulling out in front them, or person in their house, or even someone who suddenly makes a sharp comment, there is alway a host of people around to offer up: "Why, you should have done such-and-such!"

Why is it that we human beings always have such a tendency to exhibit 20-20 hindsight vision when it comes to judging others?

[bennedose]

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.

[farook]

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.

[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

[bennedose]

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.

[farook]

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....