A LAWYER ATTACKED IN BROAD DAYLIGHT – SHINING EXAMPLE OF BULLISM

A LAWYER ATTACKED IN BROAD DAYLIGHT – SHINING EXAMPLE OF BULLISM 11/03/2012
ODISHA NEWS:
SAMBALPUR:


It is always said that lawyers are conscience keeper of the democracy. If they are targeted the broad daylight it a matter of shame, unjust, unproper, obnoxious, outlandish and unfair.


An important member of the Sambalpur Bar Association, an attorney,Mr. Siddhartha shekar Dash who is always ready for a genuine cause being assaulted in the broad day light dt 09/03/2012 ( Holi Day) while coming from visiting with some of his relatives in a narrow road named ‘ Bairo Gali’ of Daliapara a local hooligan named “Kanha”under the influence of drugs assaulted him . The learned Attorney felt from his bike, thereby sustaining injury and excruciating bodily pain. Without any hard arguments the culprit started showering fist-blows. However some locals intervened he didn’t pay to heed. Then somehow the dignified the attorney went away from the place of occurrence further saying any words.


This shows the how sorry, saddening and utter callousness of the so called intellectuals of the society. When a lawmaker in a broad day light is being targeted – this puts a hallmark/question on the security and life of common citizen of the society.

Somehow a case had been registered in the TOWN PS NO. 36(09) OF 2012.

You need to make a serious decision right now. And that is decided if you are willing to use lethal force to protect yourself -- because your life is on the line. Not threaten to use. Not "well it depends." Not "well if I have to". Nor is "can't I just scare him away by waving it around?" an acceptable answer.


Yes or no.

And if you choose yes, then you are accepting the responsibility that you will be acting with dedication and commitment to take another human life. If you ever do that, you will have to the music of life for the rest of your life. And that is not easy. Therefore a 'yes' answer is not an act of bravado or macho, but a rational, calculated decision to take responsibility.


If you are not, that is an acceptable answer too.


However, it is important to realize that when it comes to robbery/ carjacking/ aggravated assault it can be, and often is, a life and death issue. You can either become a killer or be killed. And it can happen in a blink of an eye. If you have not made an informed decision before finding yourself in such a situation, then the odds are seriously against you being able to do it in the middle of a crisis. And by extension, the odds are against you being the one who will survive.
As the decision has been made in advance, so too has the research been done when you are legally allowed to use deadly force.


Recognize right up front, that no matter what his motivations really were when he pulled the trigger, when he is facing the police, every scum bucket has claimed it was "self-defense." In fact, there was one precedent setting case in California, were an armed robber claimed "it was self-defense" when the person he was attempting to rob pulled a gun to fight back and the robber shot him. Now maybe in whatever alternative reality he lives in stabbing someone fifteen time for insulting him is "self-defense" but that definition doesn't hold water with the police, much less the courts.


Unfortunately, both sides claiming it was self-defense make up about 99% of the cases the police see. And it isn't just one side lying, it's usually both. That old clich? About "taking two to fight" is true. This means in that same 99% both sides were actively fighting and are now not only blaming the other, but protesting their ‘innocence.'
Therefore, even in the most "clean shooting" it's going to be an uphill battle trying to prove to the police and the courts that your actions were justified. And that your claims of self-defense are not just another case of someone trying to wiggle out of the repercussions of committing a murder. This battle is going to be even harder if you were doing something stupid/illegal/ borderline illegal /inflammatory or participatory. In other words if you were part of the problem. A problem that resulted in a body hitting the floor.


This is why you had better do your homework and discover exactly how narrow of a spectrum it is that you are legally allowed to use deadly force. And then make sure that your actions fall within those boundaries.


There is literally nothing more dangerous to you and your family than not understanding what is meant by "immediate" or "imminent" (depending on which term your state uses). This idea cuts through all emotions, fears, thoughts and suspicions and defines when you are - in the eyes of the law - justified to use lethal force.
If he isn't trying to kill you right now, you aren't justified to use lethal force.
It doesn't matter if he is standing there screaming and threatening to kill you, or if has said that he is going to come back and get you or -- in many states -- has just pointed a gun at you, demanded your wallet and is now running away -- those are not considered "immediate threat of death or grave bodily injury." Because he isn't trying to kill you at that exact moment.


Not understanding the meaning of this term will put you in prison for murder. At the very least it will endanger everything you own to litigation....and, odds are, you will lose if you pulled the trigger at the wrong time.


In theory, someone standing across the room waving a knife threatening to kill you isn't offering you an immediate threat. Which means that you cannot legally shoot him? On the other hand, when he starts charging across the room, then you are in immediate and imminent danger of death or previous bodily harm. The reason being is that a knife is a close range weapon and by rushing at you, he is now capable of harming you. Now granted his brandishing the weapon in a threatening manner is in and of itself a crime, but not enough to warrant shooting him.


Now that is theory, in reality this is somewhat of a grey area. Not only does it depend on whose lawyer is better, but also the laws of the particular state (or country), what the legal precedents are there and what is the current local interpretation is. In one court you might be acquitted for shooting him while he is drawing the gun, whereas in others you will be convicted if you shoot before he has fired the first shot.


At the very best of times it is a very, very slippery slope.
Unfortunately, a situation that has spun so far out of control that deadly force was used is very seldom the best of times.

I would lastly conclude by opining that is a simple, but profound statement. Because it is both the greatest strength and the greatest weakness of the criminal and the violent. Strength because it usually gives him an overwhelming degree of focus and dedication. Weakness, because it makes him both predictable and easy to out think -- once you understand how he thinks and acts.


All too often the subject of criminal and dangerous behavior -- especially the aftermath -- is muddled up with ideology, rhetoric and even politics. Often the actions of the criminal and violent person are explained away as a result of injustice, oppression or societal failure. However, by looking at crime and violence from the perspective of extreme selfishness and lack of concern for others, you begin to see more of the 'charging lion' nature of the subject.
And make no mistake, that criminal coming at you is like a charging lion ... intent on eating you alive.

SIDDHARTHA SHANKAR MISHRA, BUREAU CHIEF, THESE DAYS, ODISHA