Armed citizen successfully defends himself

[brihacharan]

IMHO....
1. With all the vehicles moving - how come this 'happening' recorded by a camera - whoever had the presence of mind to capture the moment..
2. Was it captured by a CCTV?
3. With motor-bikers specifically 'zeroing' on this particular car - is it a contract assault?
4. The intention of the shooter (who dismounted from the bike & came with his gun) appears not to rob but to injure / kidnap or probably kill the car's occupant...
5. The quick response of the guy in the car appears justifiable (to protect oneself against an armed assault)
6. After he had immobilized the assailants he should've driven to a police station & registered a complaint....
7. The video doesn't show that...but left to our imagination.....
8. Finally it goes to show that the guy in the car is fully justified in defending himself against a threat that could've led to him being seriously injured or even dead!
Lastly what lesson can we draw from this? Every country has its own way of dealing with such events....
Maybe it gives the common tax paying citizen to form a collective opinion & approach the government to take an open view of the dangers that lay out on the highways or cities & the right for the common man to bear arms to protect himself / herself against such eventualities...
Briha

[ankur_ank007]

IMHO....
1. With all the vehicles moving - how come this 'happening' recorded by a camera - whoever had the presence of mind to capture the moment..
2. Was it captured by a CCTV?

4. The intention of the shooter (who dismounted from the bike & came with his gun) appears not to rob but to injure / kidnap or probably kill the car's occupant...

6. After he had immobilized the assailants he should've driven to a police station & registered a complaint....
7. The video doesn't show that...but left to our imagination.....

Lastly what lesson can we draw from this? Every country has its own way of dealing with such events....
Maybe it gives the common tax paying citizen to form a collective opinion & approach the government to take an open view of the dangers that lay out on the highways or cities & the right for the common man to bear arms to protect himself / herself against such eventualities...
Briha

Dear Brihaji,

I noticed a barricade (similar to a barricade usually seen at lanes in toll plazas) retracting in the very beginning of the video. This gave me an idea that this may be CCTV footage. The camera angle remains completely still by all the length of the video, which means the camera was mounted on a immovable surface. However the camera in the right side of the screen is (the second camera which is recording from a distance) is moving, and zooming in-zooming out a couple of times. This is a bit confusing.

The intention of an assailant is always evil. A law abiding citizen who believes in the law of the land will not attack someone like this.

After immobilization, the victim may have gone to the Police Station, but since the camera is a CCTV type fixed camera, it was unable to capture it. However, it shows the victim securing the battleground before leaving so that an injured assailant cannot retrieve and attack again to retaliate or to accomplish their initial mission.

This is what I noted from the video. Kindly correct me if I have missed something or misinterpreted the whole scenario.

Regards
-Ankur

[Commonwealth_of_PA]

Armed citizen beats off carjackers

I nominate this for worst thread title of 2015.

It may just be an American colloquialism thing, but I don't plan to beat off any guys, least of all car jackers

[Armed Defence]

Kshitij,

This is what make me think that it was not in India. Here we can't keep the crowded areas under surveillance forget about in the middle of the road. Besides the car is also a Left Hand drive.
Even if it was India and every thing was recorded on camera he would still have had to run around in courts for a year or two to prove his innocence.

Atul

Ohhh... I didn't noticed the Steering Wheel's side....

Now, I am also sure its not India. But the fact is, we are fighting in India for the "Rights" which in many other countries are already being guaranteed by the Courts and relevant law enforcement agencies....

Regards

Added in 1 hour 4 minutes 34 seconds:

What is the procedure in India when use your licensed weapon for self defence? can anyone shed light on it

Hi Walibaa,

There is no certain set of procedures on how to you use your licensed weapon in a tensed environment of combat for self defence. However in case of such sudden and unforeseen situations remember to:

1. Keep calm.
2. Never Panic
3. Observe the surrounding and look for suitable places to take cover or easy exit points if there is a combat situation.
4. Mock Surrender as noticed by Abhijeet ji (as you can see in the video footage) and it's advisable too, as keeps the assailants calm.
5. Take the assailants by surprise.
6. Don't let your guard down, even after it seems that the threat has passed.

Apart from this you always need to be prepared for unforeseen circumstances. For that:
1. Gun in easy reach and can be accessed without needing to look.
2. Gun kept in ready to fire condition, safety on and concealed from the eyes of people around.

Always remember, when you have shot a person in self defence, the burden of proof shifts from the prosecution to the defence. You will have to prove that there was a reasonable threat to your life which will justify your action.

1. Never use excessive force. (Like shooting a fleeing criminal from the back side)
2. Shooting an considerably unarmed (armed with a club, knife etc.) to kill, when simply a few non-lethal wounds would have done the job.
3. If they are armed with deadly weapons such as firearms, shoot to kill. Simply practise to shoot twice on the same place (near to the heart or anywhere in the flank) and place a third shot on the skull. These 3 shots are to be placed within a couple of seconds. This is my personal advice because in India, firearm for self defense available to a common man is normally of a very low calibre like .32 ACP. If the distance is more than 20 feet, or the assailants are wearing heavy clothing, they will only be wounded, may be non-lethally and they may shoot back. And you are not Dirty Harry carrying a 44 magnum, so he can MAKE YOUR DAY.... so before he does it... MAKE HIS DAY.

Regards,
Ankur

You said that shooting a fleeing criminal from the backside is excessive use of force. But what if he is fleeing away with our property? Read the Section 105 of Indian penal code, given below.

"105. Commencement and continuance of the right of private defense of property

The right of private defense of property commences when a reasonable apprehension of dancer to the property commences.

The right of private defense 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".

According to the law, robbery is also a type of theft. See Indian penal code, section 390:

"390. Robbery

In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.

When theft is robbery- Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carving away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint".

[ankur_ank007]

You said that shooting a fleeing criminal from the backside is excessive use of force. But what if he is fleeing away with our property? Read the Section 105 of Indian penal code, given below.

"105. Commencement and continuance of the right of private defense of property

The right of private defense of property commences when a reasonable apprehension of dancer to the property commences.

The right of private defense 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".

According to the law, robbery is also a type of theft. See Indian penal code, section 390:

"390. Robbery

In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.

When theft is robbery- Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carving away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint".

Agreed with the definition, however in case a thief or a robber is fleeing with your property you can shoot to injure him or immobilize him. This is what as per the Judgement of Honourable Supreme Court in Darshan Singh vs State of Punjab the 'principle of self defence' are....
In case of robbery if there are any chances that even after you shot the robber and he is in a position to shoot back or hurt you or some one else or atleast you percieve so (on solid grounds) that he may do so, you can shoot him lethally.
But, for an example, if a robber has robbed you on and is fleeing away, he has a knife or machete etc, you shot him in his legs etc to immobilize him, he is in a position that he can not attack or retaliate even then you lethally wound him will not be considered as an act of self defense.

I hope I am not wrong somewhere as I am not a lawyer....

Regards

[aadhaulya]

Ankur, in India it is pointless to have a gun unless you get into serious trouble and have no other option. This normally doesn't happen in the cities with anyone unless you have a serious enmity with some one or are a criminal yourself.

Atul

[mundaire]

Ankur, in India it is pointless to have a gun unless you get into serious trouble and have no other option. This normally doesn't happen in the cities with anyone unless you have a serious enmity with some one or are a criminal yourself.

Atul

That is incorrect - regarding cities, I mean. Almost every Indian city has a higher rate of violent crime than the surrounding countryside. It is human nature to "feel more secure" in places where there are other humans (blame evolution), however this is a false sense of security.

You are much more likely to fall prey to violent crime in a city than you are in a rural area.

Regards,
Abhijeet

[aadhaulya]

Abhijeet,

By cities I meant a normal situation in the day to day life, like dropping your kid to school, going to the market or picnic for that matter because every place is so crowded.
Most vulnerable are lonely places where one has to be careful specially at night like travelling down a highway.
As per the various topics discussed here no one has come across a situation where one needed a gun, except may be your uncle (as you mentioned somewhere, I think) whose revolver got flicked while sleeping on the terrace, he survived by the presence of his mind by pretending to continue sleeping. But the gun didn't help him either.

Atul

[goodboy_mentor]

except may be your uncle (as you mentioned somewhere, I think) whose revolver got flicked while sleeping on the terrace, he survived by the presence of his mind by pretending to continue sleeping. But the gun didn't help him either.

Atul

Probably you are confusing with the following post http://www.indiansforguns.com/viewtopic ... 74#p229517

[aadhaulya]

My mistake GBM, I was referring to the post pointed out by you.

Atul