Possessing or using a firearm in riotous situations is dangerous and may cause death to the user of the weapon. Such situations call for calmness and tactfulness in dealing with the agitated mobs.
In 2002, Ehsan Jafri, a former MP from Gujarat faced a totally unknown riotous mob agitated over burning of 59 Hindu pilgrims in the Sleeper Coach a Godhra. Normally a peace loving man, Jaffri came out of the house and when the mob was shouting, instead of pacifying them, he took out his weapon and fired at the mob. The already agitated mob got into a frenzy an lynched him to death.
Unless absolutely necessary to protect oneself in situations of performing one's duties or extensive travels at untimely hours outside the populated areas, one should not carry the dangerous weapons and face situations where that might be used.
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] Shanti Bhushan in Sanjay Dutt's Defence !
To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] Shanti Bhushan in Sanjay Dutt's Defence !
Dear Pavan
When Communal riots are taking place and you are the target, I hope you remember your brave words for section 99 IPC.
Section IPC essentially says that a citizen shall have to bear all the zulm and brutality of any public servant acting under the colour of his office unless it is likely to cause death or grievous hurt -EVEN IF THE.PUBLIC SERVANT IS NOT ACTING STRICTLY WITHIN THE LAW
The net result of clauses like section 99 is that public servants have been elevated to positions where they cannot be questioned or bashed up.
Sarbajit
When Communal riots are taking place and you are the target, I hope you remember your brave words for section 99 IPC.
Section IPC essentially says that a citizen shall have to bear all the zulm and brutality of any public servant acting under the colour of his office unless it is likely to cause death or grievous hurt -EVEN IF THE.PUBLIC SERVANT IS NOT ACTING STRICTLY WITHIN THE LAW
The net result of clauses like section 99 is that public servants have been elevated to positions where they cannot be questioned or bashed up.
Sarbajit
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 9:58 AM, pavan nair <pavannair1@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sarbajit,The US had to amend its Constitution, the second amendment whereby the right to bear arms was made legal. We do not have any such provision on our statute. We can argue in favour of such a law but till such time it is passed, possessing an unlicensed weapon is illegal and procuring it from the same lot of people who were a part of a larger conspiracy in which hundreds of lives were lost is downright criminal (in the legal sense). The right to self-defence under Sec 97 is qualified by Section 99. Sanjay Dutt could have approached public authority which he did not. Case closed. Pavan Nair
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:Dear Naveen
Shri Shanti Bhushan has laid down the LAW.
You can argue with Mr. Bhushan but you cannot argue with the LAW.
If the State fails to protect a person, he is in his rights to acquire ALL MEANS REQUIRED TO DEFEND HIS LIFE
Mr,. Bhushan ECHOES IAC when we stand for right to bear arms freely and defend ourselves.
Mr. Bhushan's legal basis is IDENTICAL with IAC's because IPC is a 150 year old law almost as old as IAC (or Mr. Bhushan)
SarbajitOn Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 7:36 PM, naveen tewari <nct.lko@gmail.com> wrote:
Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net"Dear All,Shanti Bhushan has certainly gone beyond senility and is showing signs of Dementia. His long article in the Hindu of 26th march is the latest example of that. Here he is with all his remnant legal acumen misplaced to the hilt, arguing for a summary reprieve for Sanjay Dutt. In this venture mr. Bhushan quoted the judgment of the supreme court wherein the court has mentioned that Sanjay Dutt's reason for possessing those prohibited guns and arsenal was self defence. Mr. Bhushan argues that it is not a crime to defend oneself even if the ammunition possessed by one is without licence.What a wonderful logic by this legal luminary who was once our Law Minister. I can only feel ashamed as an Indian that people of such calibre find there way to top positions in the country where they can play with the destiny of the people of this country. I am also deeply distressed that such people still manage to find a place in the public discourse no matter what level of atrophy their brain has reached.The Hindu, my most favourite newspaper, is also springing surprises like these every now and then.I request you all to read this article by Shanti Bhushan and react to it.regardsnaveen tewari
Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net"
Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists"
Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user
WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in/
Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net"
Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net"
Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists"
Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user
WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in/
Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net"
Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net"
Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists"
Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user
WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in/
Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net"
Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net"
Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists"
Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user
WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in/
No comments:
Post a Comment