THE GUN FORUM

THE GUN FORUM

Exclusively for Serious Gun-Enthusiasts and Outdoorsmen
 
It is currently Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:41 pm

All times are UTC + 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Self Defense and legal implications!

Sniper

Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 3:54 pm
Posts: 1389
Location: Karachi, Pakistan
What is the law regarding self defense and what options do I have for legal cover in an SD/HD situation..?

Being a lawyer I have been asked this question many a times and explaining this is pretty difficult because it is a scenario based question; mainly because circumstances of each and every case decide it was culpable to a SD or not. BUT if it is a HD scenario just kill that ####### if he has entered your home. NO EXCUSE to it, it will almost always become a SD if he is dead.

In a SD scenario BEST option will always be .. Take a decisive action without fear.. translate it in urdu.. CHORNA MAT USSKO ..

The SD scenario will always have to have a story line as what has happened.. you will have to explain that what were you doing there and what really happened.. WHY was it that you took out your gun and killed that SHARIF insaan..
Many a lawyers these days cross certain limits to save the client after all that is their duty.. (here client means BG).. if he is alive.. BOTH sides will say that the other person is the BG. SO if ONE is dead; all the other has to do is explain his story.. maximum police will take the weapon and ask for you to get a court order.. YOU will CERTAINLY need a lawyer here, this has happened in Karachi but here the story is different from anywhere in Pakistan. LEAVING a BG is seriously dangerous.. more than anything because you will surely be in a fix by the same BG that you shot.
Secondly there are self defense sections in the Pakistan Penal Code. i.e the law the sets the punishments of crimes and defines what event is specific crime and the reasons.. I am copying here the sections relating to self defense.

IN HD if you kill that trespasser he wont be able to say anything that will be a lie or wont be able to mingle his version of story into the truth that you say.. heck he can even say that "mera iss ki behan/ beti say ishq tha. aur ghar par bulaya baat karnay kay liye aur goli mar dee.. yeh unlicensed pistol bhi unhon nay hee rakha hai." explaining that will surely put you and your family at peril. Any one that trespasses MUST be dealt with swiftly and decisively; it is absolutely legal till this point.. and if you happen to kill his friend/ second adversary outside then drag his body inside so that excessive usage of force is not implied. You may not have a problem with the killing of the person inside.. but the person who did not enter inside yet you killed him would tantamount to a culpable murder meaning life term. The law is like this .. and you have to follow the law no matter it doesnt appeal to your mind or seems illogical.

Relevant sections of Pakistan Penal Code:

96. Things done in private defence:
Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.

97. Right of private defence of the body and of property:

Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in Section 99, to defend;

Firstly: His own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body;

Secondly: The property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.

98. Right of private defence against the act of a person of unsound mind, etc.:
When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.
Illustrations
(a) Z, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill A; Z is guilty of no offence, but A has the same right of private defence which he would have if Z were sane.

(b) A enters by night a house which he is legally entitled to enter. Z in good faith, taking A for a house-breaker, attacks A. Here Z by attacking A under this misconception, commits no offence. But A has the same right of private defence against Z, which he would have if Z were not acting under that misconception.


99. Act against which there is no right of private defence:

There is no right of private defence against an act which dose not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done by a public servant acting in good faith under colour, of his office, though that act may not be strictly justifiable by law.

There is no right of private defence against an act which dose not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office though that direction may not be strictly justifiable by law.

There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities.

Extent to which the right may be exercised:

The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.


Explanation 1 :A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant, as such, unless he knows, or has reason to believe, that the person doing the act is such public servant.

Explanation 2: A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant, unless he knows, or has reason to believe, that the person doing the act is acting by such direction, or unless such person states the authority under which he acts, or if he has authority in writing, unless he produces such authority, if deemed.

100. When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death.
The right of private defence of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in the last preceding section, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely:

First. Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;

Secondly. Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;

Thirdly. An assault with the intention of committing rape;

Fourthly. An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust,.

Fifthly. An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting;

Sixthly. An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under circumstances which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he be unable to have recourse to the public authorities for his release.

101. When such right extends to causing any harm other than death.
If the offence be not of any of the descriptions enumerated in the last preceding section, the right of private defence of the body does not extend to the voluntary causing of death to the assailant, but does extend, under the restrictions mentioned in section 99, to the voluntary causing to the assailant of any harm other than death.

102. Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of the body. The right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence though the offence may not have been committed; and it continues as long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues.

103. When the right of private defence of property extends to causing death. The right of private defence of property extends, under the restrictions mentioned in section 99, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm, to the wrongdoer, )f the offence, the committing of which, or the attempting to commit which, occasions the exercise of the right, be an offence of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely;
First. Robbery;
Secondly. House-breaking by night;
Thirdly. Mischief by fire committed on any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling or as a place for the custody of property;
Fourthly. Theft, mischief or house-trespass, under such circumstances as may reasonably cause apprehension that death or grievous hurt will be the consequence, if such right of private defence is not exercised.

104., When such right extends to causing any harm other than death. If the offence, the committing of which, or the attempting to commit which, occasions the exercise of the right of private defence, the theft, mischief, or criminal trespass, not of any of the descriptions enumerated in the last preceding section, that right does not extend to the voluntary causing of death, but does extend, subject to the restrictions mentioned in section 99, to the voluntary causing to the wrongdoer of any harm other than death.

105. Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of property.
The right of private defence of property commences when a reasonable apprehension of danger to the property commences.
The right of private defence 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.
The right of private defence of property against robbery continues as long as the offender causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint or as long as the fear of instant death or of instant hurt or of instant personal restraint continues.
The right of private defence of property against criminal trespass or mischief continues as long as the offender continues in the commission of criminal trespass or mischief.
The right of private defence of property against house-breaking by night continues as long as the house-trespass which has been begun by such house¬breaking continues.

106. Right of private defence against deadly assault when there is a risk of harm to innocent person.
If in the exercise of the right of private defence against an assault which reasonably causes the apprehension of death, the defender be so situated that he cannot effectually exercise that right without risk of harm to an innocent person, his right of private defence extends to the running of that risk.

Illustration

A is attacked by a mob who attempts to murder him. He cannot effectually exercise his right of private defence without firing on the mob, and he cannot fire without risk of harming young children who are mingled with the mob. A commits no offence if by so firing he harms any of the children.

Extent of right of private defence: The law relating to self-defence has made the victim of such an assault the Judge of his own peril and permitted him to repel the attack even to the taking of the life of his assailant so the Courts are to judge him by placing themselves in the same position in which he was placed. If the harm caused to the offending party is out of all proportions to the harm which may be received or which is threatened by the other party, and which gives occasion for the exercise of that right of self-defence will stand completely negatived.
It is no offence to arm oneself in anticipation of an attack.

This right is available only if it is rooted in good faith. Person cannot be expected to weigh his blows in golden scales while exercising his right of private defence. Right of private defence continues so long as apprehension of hurt or grievous hurt continues. Right of private defence or property commences when an act which is an offence of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass is committed or an attempt to commit such an offence is made. However, this right ceases when thief has reiterated with property.

This means that a person when acting in self defence is absolutely under the law when delivering his blows TILL the time he feels that he is absolutely sure that the threat has subsided where he DOES NOT feel in danger.. it is an open question to be answered according to the circumstances.. IMHO if you keep on shooting at the bad guy and DO NOT KNOW whether you have hit him more than ONCE even then you are covered.. BUT it all depends on what has really happened.

FYI: some of the portions of this post have been taken from the law books such as PLD ALD and PCrLJ. I have removed the citations so that it doesn't seem confusing for the people who read.
If a situation arises of SD and a BG is dead.. first call a lawyer and then secondly call 15.

_________________
SI VIS PACEM, PARABELLUM

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Graffiti in ruins of Pompeii (in the basilica): The one who buggers a fire burns his p....


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Self Defense and legal implications!

Sniper

Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 3:54 pm
Posts: 1389
Location: Karachi, Pakistan
Well BG will always be a BG no matter what; as the saying goes "Chor chori say jaye hera pheri say na jaye."

1)What will a SD/HD person do if the BG after getting well comes after him to take revenge??
2) WILL a person want to allow a BG to stand in court and throw filthy insults such as.. "Mera chakkar iss ki behan/ beti kay saath tha." and get away from his role as BG and convert the person in SD situation on a attempt to murder under section 324 PPC.
3) leaving BG alive raises another option of solving the FIR(of 324 PPC) or possibly a 22-A PPC petition an impossible feat as it would turn into a HUGE legal Battle spanning in most circumstances over a year.. normally.
4) Leaving a BG alive will demoralize and put the entire family to live in fear of back lash.
5) BG is better dead.. one less filth on the road. (Ignore this line..)

NEXT is the thought that maybe killing the BG may lead his accomplices to attack the SD/HD person?? THIS NEVER happens as they are starkly concentrated on those who they can rob and NOT a person who in SD has already taken down. They will NEVER want to face an adversary who was already prepared and killed one of their kin. NOW after one incident the SD/HD person will be WELL prepared because of fear of back lash.. simple words "ek tayyar banda oopar say chirrrh diya gaya ho, woh ab tau bilkul tayyar hoga aur close support kay saath." "A person who has already been iven a hard time, is bound to be absolutely ready with his close support near at hand."

Second is the though of his family coming after SD/HD person: This is far fetched as after the loss of one person the family just wants to end it there, if any more attacks happen and SD/HD happens again.. then all the whole family of BG will be roped in and will pay HUGE amounts to police and face sections 6 and 7 of the A.T.A (Anti- terrorist Act).

Explanation to the above is:
Section 96 read with Section 100 simply means that "If you fear for your life and imminent danger is perceived, shooting a BG is covered by self defense; even if you shoot him dead. THE ONLY EXCEPTION is if you see a government officer such as a police officer who is discharging his duties and IDENTIFIES himself as being a government official then and only then you cannot shoot him. HOWEVER if he tries to enter your home without giving a search warrant you can shoot him as he is acting against the law. The proper cover of Law is provided here to the HD person."

Secondly on the road you need to have the paper work completed no matter what you think.. about government officials. MOST important of all is the original license, CNIC and the Section 144 Cr.P.C permit with you, as well as a copy of it in your car as well as a copy at home. It may seem not so important but carrying a weapon when restrictions to carry are imposed becomes a crime even though you have a valid license with you. The carry condition as is mostly said by the police mean NOT on YOUR BODY condition. i.e. inside the car in glove compartment, console or under the seat or inside the door compartment. The gun should always be in a concealed condition because terrorism and the political parties have made it a habit of brandishing heavy licensed weapons leading a fear of insecurity to the masses. Hence this awkward conceal carry is imposed which has NO support from the Legislation and LAW.. the ONLY support it has comes from the notifications under the Home Department only. NO ONE has yet challenged it in court but untill someone does and wins the legal battle till then we do have to follow the notification and carry a gun with 144 permit duly issued by the department.

_________________
SI VIS PACEM, PARABELLUM

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Graffiti in ruins of Pompeii (in the basilica): The one who buggers a fire burns his p....


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Self Defense and legal implications!

TGF Managing Committee

Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 5:49 pm
Posts: 1499
Location: Karachi, Pakistan
Very interesting information. Will read the entire post and definitely get back to you with worried. Thanks for your efforts

_________________
Hooyah !!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Self Defense and legal implications!

TGF Market Guru

Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 1:33 am
Posts: 1688
Location: Karachi, Pakistan
I kinda like the "Chorna mat usko" idea...

_________________
Our lives begin to end the day we stop caring about things that matter!
(Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Self Defense and legal implications!

Standard Shot

Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:00 pm
Posts: 160
Location: RWP/ISB
Atiq bhai very informative, I have a couple of questions please:

1. What if the BG/BGs that entered your house with the intentions of robbing/harming etc. and they were not in uniforms and if you have killed them, then what will happen.

2. What if the BG/BGs tried to stop/mug you on the road/street etc, and they were not in uniforms and there were no means of identifying them as LE officers, and you have shot them fatally, but not a single round was fired by them, what happens to you then.

I only ask these two specific questions because I have heard things like these on the news and from close friends also , e.g in a few cases dacaoits were captured and latter on they turned out to be cops, will appreciate your input.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Self Defense and legal implications!

Sniper

Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 3:54 pm
Posts: 1389
Location: Karachi, Pakistan
@HB.. here are the answers.. they are not always the same and depend on the scenario and cannot be confirmed as to be always the same.. This is a very challenging thing as sometimes even little things may make things feel a lot different and till the time they are cleared it will be a huge issue to tackle.

1)If ANYONE tries to enter your home.. and is IN uniform or not.. WITHOUT your permission.. you HAVE the right to shoot him. Once they are down FIRST call your lawyer.. then call 15. Remember one thing.. you have to show that you acted in self defense and were afraid that BG was going to hurt you. For e.g. if the BG came in by breaking the lock of the door and has a gun in his hand. YOU just shoot the ####### with multiple quad taps till he is down for good. Look out for his accomplice. When the police arrives tell them the real story and add just one like that "I was afraid severely and i asked who it was and he didnt reply and he broke the door and entered; when i saw him i felt very afraid and shot him to save my life."

These words will convert the story with proper words to consider it a self defense.. Then since the BG is unknown to you.. the home invasion as far as intention to dacoity will be presumed confirmed. leaving no space for criminal case to be registered against you.. HOWEVER since there has been a death.. even of a BG .. the police will have to do their share of work and register an FIR and then bring it to logical end by getting it confirmed as C class in most cases. Please read in detail the explanation 2 in section 99 in the first post. Police always enter AFTER they have knocked on the door and identified themselves as POLICE. MAIN reason being the legal formality of warrant entry or warrant less entry upon information of imminent crime.

2) If on the road two persons stop you on a motor bike in civilian clothes just shoot them.. SUPREME court and high courts have numerous times termed such stopping as illegal and malafide (filled with bad intention). IF they identify themselves as police officers then ask for identification document EVEN while you are pointing a gun at them. IF they fail then you have all the option open.. such as asking them to get down on road and surrender.. if they dont and you feel afraid they are about to attack .. you should shoot them without giving any second thought... This i am saying because YOU DID give them a chance to proove themselves and compliance of section 99, that is all you have to do..
Police will maximum register a case and take away the gun and the license.. (Always keep updated copies of license in spare at home and office) then in the court all you will have to do is explain what happened and claim self defense.

When police arrests the dacoits and they proove out to be police men.. IT DOESNT chance their status as dacoits.. the victim will press for an FIR and VICTIM is the person who is pressing for a legal case to be registered against BG.. it will make no difference of him being a police officer. IF the PS doesnt register a case.. file a petition against the SHO under section 22-A Cr.P.C and force for registration of FIR..
HERE one thing is important.. the BG will try to force the victim in all possible manners NOT to go this way so you will have to stand your ground and go ahead..

_________________
SI VIS PACEM, PARABELLUM

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Graffiti in ruins of Pompeii (in the basilica): The one who buggers a fire burns his p....


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Self Defense and legal implications!

TGF Managing Committee

Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 4:31 pm
Posts: 2033
Location: Karachi, Pakistan
Very informative thread atiq bhai, mind boggling, yet very informative. Maybe its my lack of understanding, or maybe some other reason, but after reading your post, i believe there are so many loop holes in our legal system that BGs may use to their advantage. But i like your line " after he is dead, all you have to do is tell your side of the story, convincingly." Thanx for taking out the time to educate us.

_________________
Death smiles at us all. All a man can do is smile back.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Self Defense and legal implications!

Sharp Shooter

Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 9:45 pm
Posts: 980
Location: Karachi, Pakistan
Thanks Atiq bro....will take sometime to digest!
Questions could follow.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Self Defense and legal implications!

TGF Expert Panel

Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 10:59 am
Posts: 3950
Location: Karachi, Pakistan
Very good insight on the law Atiq bro. We needed such a thread.


atiqmassan wrote:

2) If on the road two persons stop you on a motor bike in civilian clothes just shoot them.. SUPREME court and high courts have numerous times termed such stopping as illegal and malafide (filled with bad intention). IF they identify themselves as police officers then ask for identification document EVEN while you are pointing a gun at them. IF they fail then you have all the option open.. such as asking them to get down on road and surrender.. if they dont and you feel afraid they are about to attack .. you should shoot them without giving any second thought... This i am saying because YOU DID give them a chance to proove themselves and compliance of section 99, that is all you have to do..


My personal opinion aside, I would still not advocate such suggestions. This is highly not lawyer-like! In your place, I would have simply put it this way that the law allows us or gives us the provision to protect ourselves using deadly force in such cases! I would not suggest someone to do so. That is his call. Suggesting someone to go that route, in advance, could itself be challenged in the court of law. I am sure this is what we should be discussing or suggesting on open forums. A few discussions must be left for the private meetings!

Please take this opinion of mine in a positive note, although you, or anyone else, are free to disagree.

_________________
Some times words are not enough...
A punch is necessary.

(Great Boxer Muhammad Ali).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Self Defense and legal implications!

Sniper

Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 3:54 pm
Posts: 1389
Location: Karachi, Pakistan
Saif wrote:
Very good insight on the law Atiq bro. We needed such a thread.
atiqmassan wrote:
2) If on the road two persons stop you on a motor bike in civilian clothes just shoot them.. SUPREME court and high courts have numerous times termed such stopping as illegal and malafide (filled with bad intention). IF they identify themselves as police officers then ask for identification document EVEN while you are pointing a gun at them. IF they fail then you have all the option open.. such as asking them to get down on road and surrender.. if they dont and you feel afraid they are about to attack .. you should shoot them without giving any second thought... This i am saying because YOU DID give them a chance to proove themselves and compliance of section 99, that is all you have to do..


My personal opinion aside, I would still not advocate such suggestions. This is highly not lawyer-like! In your place, I would have simply put it this way that the law allows us or gives us the provision to protect ourselves using deadly force in such cases! I would not suggest someone to do so. That is his call. Suggesting someone to go that route, in advance, could itself be challenged in the court of law. I am sure this is what we should be discussing or suggesting on open forums. A few discussions must be left for the private meetings!

Please take this opinion of mine in a positive note, although you, or anyone else, are free to disagree.


@Saif Nicely put here..
was wondering if the gun forum would be a good place to write up the entire citations and orders of the Supreme Court on WHY a civilian on a motorbike cannot STOP anyone on the road and what should a person do when he feels something fishy and suspicious about them.
I have coloured RED the words you did give them a chance to proove themselves. THERE is a HUGE wisdom behind this LEGAL advice that GIVE them a chance to proove their identity. THIS is in compliance of Law as in sections 99 of P.P.C.
I absolutely respect your advice that you would not advice someone of taking this road in advance.. plz take a note to tell him AFTER the incident that he and his wife/ daughter has been mugged and dealt with by someone like Ali Hajiano. He will surely respect your advice and accept surely that he should have followed your advice.

Saif wrote:
This is highly not lawyer-like! In your place, I would have simply put it this way that the law allows us or gives us the provision to protect ourselves using deadly force in such cases! I would not suggest someone to do so.


I absolutely respect your words that as far as my advice is not lawyer-like.. Thank you for setting me on a straight path of how to be a lawyer and what to say and what not... BTW: A Professional Lawyer would always say.. "When you have passed through an incident, come to me after it. If you were just a victim or killer of a BG doesn't matter at all".

Last but not the least.. This thread is about informing legal implications of SD scenario and is based on actual LAW itself and is not dependent on our discussion making our points of view super imposed over the sections of PPC. I would follow and take refuge in the sections and comply with the basic requirements of law regarding SD rather than sit on my hands and cry later.

Sugar coating the words would CONFUSE the reader and it is better to tell it straight to face and then also tell what to do next. Sugar coating will make a person have false confidence and NOT telling/ knowing the exact law about SD is itself IMHO a nonsense thing for a lawyer to do.

When you are facing a BG and carrying a weapon and life and honor may be in danger; is a situation where legal implication are bound to arise, be it after you are a victim or a killer of BG. Start standing to the reality of life and face the Court, fearing the hassle and taking a short cut will never be the right thing. START thinking with your mind and read the LAW again and AGAIN and whatever questions arise I being a practicing lawyer on the criminal side will be more than happy to answer with all the legal citations and court orders. Following a Lawyer, Doctor, Pharmacist or an Engineer on their opinion of what the law lays down is the decision of the person who wishes to choose so.

_________________
SI VIS PACEM, PARABELLUM

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Graffiti in ruins of Pompeii (in the basilica): The one who buggers a fire burns his p....


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Self Defense and legal implications!

TGF Expert Panel

Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2010 2:32 am
Posts: 5541
Location: Arizona, US
Bottom line.
" it is better to be judged by 12 strangers, then to be carried by 6 of your friends. "

_________________
Larry - a Gun Smith


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Self Defense and legal implications!

Site Admin

Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 9:58 pm
Posts: 7950
Location: Karachi, Pakistan
I'm moving this thread to our legal section whilst leaving a mirror thereof in SD section. I believe it has relevance in both the sections.

_________________
Parcham-e-sitāra-o hilāl, Rahbar-e-taraqqī-o kamāl, Tarjumān-e-māzī, shān-e-hāl, jān-e-istiqbāl!, Sāyah-e-khudā-e-zu-l-jalāl

Bolt actions speak louder than words

Sometimes adding 175 grains of boat-tailed diplomacy speeds up Peace Talks


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Self Defense and legal implications!

Master at Arms

Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 6:02 pm
Posts: 5253
Location: Karachi, Pakistan
A must read for every member.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Self Defense and legal implications!

Rifleman

Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:00 pm
Posts: 9
Location: Karachi, Pakistan
Heavy Stuff.. can I get a translator plz? i.e. someone who can summarize the points in a few lines.. Thanx! :)

_________________
"I don't call it violence when it's self-defense, I call it intelligence." - Malcolm X


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 

All times are UTC + 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Template made by DEVPPL -
phpBB SEO