Elderly Customer Shoots Internet Cafe Robbers

[Safarigent]

With all due respect, i think its a bit irresponsible to say that you should shoot to kill.
Self defence means just that.
If a bullet to the leg suffices, why do more harm?
If a bullet does not suffice, we can rachet up the response accordingly.
Taking a life should be the last course of action, not a matter of course.

[Bhargav]

With all due respect, i think its a bit irresponsible to say that you should shoot to kill.
Self defence means just that. Only defending yourself, not killing someone when hurting them will do.
If a bullet to the leg suffices, why do more harm?
If a bullet does not suffice, we can rachet up the response accordingly.
Taking a life should be the last course of action, not a matter of course.

Well I believe that "bad guys" are like rats, if you just catch them and leave them alive, they will go to another house to wreck havoc. They should be killed whenever got a chance. This will not only make one less in the pool but will also save tax dollars and govt time.

[Bhargav]

I can understand, its sad state of affairs. This means that a person can never defend himself, as per the law

No it is not like this. Please read this http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 30#p168030 and http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 23#p156759

Thank you for the links gbm.

[Sujay]

With all due respect, i think its a bit irresponsible to say that you should shoot to kill.
Self defence means just that.
If a bullet to the leg suffices, why do more harm?
If a bullet does not suffice, we can rachet up the response accordingly.
Taking a life should be the last course of action, not a matter of course.

Because ,while we are into that analysis/evaluation and trying to reach a decision, the person injured in leg will shoot to kill us. He will not be as generous with time as you would prefer

[Bhargav]

With all due respect, i think its a bit irresponsible to say that you should shoot to kill.
Self defence means just that.
If a bullet to the leg suffices, why do more harm?
If a bullet does not suffice, we can rachet up the response accordingly.
Taking a life should be the last course of action, not a matter of course.

Because ,while we are into that analysis/evaluation and trying to reach a decision, the person injured in leg will shoot to kill us. He will not be as generous with time as you would prefer

Well this brings a very famous dialog to my mind, from the Hindi movie karma.

"dushman ko Dekho parkho phir goli chalao" )

Sorry had to use hindi language but for non hindi folks the meaning goes somewhat like this, see the enemy understand the enemy and then shoot )

[winnie_the_pooh]

If anybody thinks that they will have sufficient time to analyze the situation,consider all the legal implications and then act,he should not even think of getting a firearm for self defence.He will probably be looking down the wrong end of his own firearm.....and will probably end up dead.

In cases where the person shot is known to the person who shot him for eg. in known cases of enmity between the two parties ,the police will definitely register a case and the state will prosecute the fellow.

In cases where an intruder has been shot when he was running away even before he has committed an offense too the fellow will face prosecution.If he is shot in the back it is not going to be easy for the fellow who shot him to convince the judge that it was self defence.

A lot will also depend upon who has been shot.If he is a hardened criminal/history sheeter I do not think any one is going to prosecute the fellow who shot him.

In cases where an offender is shot after he has committed an offense and while he is running away,the chances of a person facing prosecution are pretty slim.

The outcome would also depend upon who is incharge and where the incident has taken place.Down south,there seems to be a greater tendency to prosecute the shooter than say in the North,even if all the evidence points to it being justified.If it happens in an area prone to crime,the fellow doing he shooting might even be hailed as a hero.

The law allows for the use of deadly force for the protection of life and property.It does not quantify the degree of threat.Nor does the law require the force to be proportionate to the threat.The Supreme Court of India has spelt it out clearly in its judgement some time ago, that the person who apprehends a threat to this life is not required to analyze the situation and respond accordingly.

Legs are a small target and easy to miss.A person can die from being shot in the leg as well.

In the present case,where there is CCTV footage showing the details of the crime being committed,had this been in India and had the fellow shot dead both the robbers,he would not have faced any legal action.I would rather expect to see him on prime time tv being hailed as a hero and interviewed about why he did what he did.

[Safarigent]

i am still waiting for goodboy mentors reply here.

[goodboy_mentor]

If possible avoidance of trouble in first place is the best option. I would prefer to avoid making any comments from my side but would request all to read very carefully the ten points summarized by the Supreme Court judgment in Darshan Singh Vs State of Punjab in Criminal Appeal 1057 of 2002. It is mentioned in this post http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 23#p156759

[Ganesh TT]

500 points to Mr. William for smartly handled the situation. I totally agree with what he has done. we doesn't know what the robbers will do if Mr. william doesn't reacted on that situation with his pistol..may be the robbers might have killed someone in that internet cafe for cash or something.