Killing of the lawyer of 26/11 accused

N

National

New Member
Should a person who is responsible in an act of terrorism be defended? If an advocated defends him and tries to acquit him even after knowing about the crime, is he not equally responsible? Let it be a matter of debate as law has given the power to everyone to fight a lawsuit.

Some people and some human right organizations also are of the views that the criminals also have the human rights to defend themselves. But can a person responsible for bomb blast and other acts of terrorism be called a human? Then how can we say that he should have some human rights?

Yesterday, a lawyer named Shahid Azmi was killed by some unknown assailants. He was defending Fahim Ansari who was an accused in the 26/11 terror attack. Was the lawyer killed for defending an accused? Previously, this lawyer was also defending Indian Mujahideen member Sadiq Sheikh in some terror related cases.

Did Shahid Azmi need some police protection? It can be noted that Shahid Azmi was once given police protection when he was defending a terror accused in the 7/11 train blasts cases.

But the question is why he was so interested in defending the terror accused? He should be given police protection for that or should be punished for that? Any comments? Can the acts of Shahid Azmi be justified?
 
IChange said:
Should a person who is responsible in an act of terrorism be defended? If an advocated defends him and tries to acquit him even after knowing about the crime, is he not equally responsible? Let it be a matter of debate as law has given the power to everyone to fight a lawsuit.

Some people and some human right organizations also are of the views that the criminals also have the human rights to defend themselves. But can a person responsible for bomb blast and other acts of terrorism be called a human? Then how can we say that he should have some human rights?

Yesterday, a lawyer named Shahid Azmi was killed by some unknown assailants. He was defending Fahim Ansari who was an accused in the 26/11 terror attack. Was the lawyer killed for defending an accused? Previously, this lawyer was also defending Indian Mujahideen member Sadiq Sheikh in some terror related cases.

Did Shahid Azmi need some police protection? It can be noted that Shahid Azmi was once given police protection when he was defending a terror accused in the 7/11 train blasts cases.

But the question is why he was so interested in defending the terror accused? He should be given police protection for that or should be punished for that? Any comments? Can the acts of Shahid Azmi be justified?
Click to expand...

It's sad that Shahid Azmi was killed. He was just a defender of a terrorist by law. But again, it shows that - patience is limited. Do I smell a Rang De Basanti here?
 
yes, you are right. Patience is limited. There is a limit to have patience. After crossing the limit, each Indian will be ready to act. I think the time has already come.
 
The very act of visible justice in a transparent society makes these justified. If you will not make it transparent you will spread hatred and revenge response in society which is the motive of terrorist for society. But few people use this one in their benefit using the loopholes of law. We should focus on removing these loopholes not the person.
 
rk_ragunathan said:
Neither the killing of Azmi nor Azmi's act are acceptable.
Click to expand...

We have a constitution and several legal documents. Everyone is not aware of the protection they provide to individuals, whether Indian or foreign. Every crime committed in the country shall be tried by the courts of law, ensuring objective application of the legal provisions. Any person, accused of crime remains an accused until his crime is proved in a court of law. The intolerance exhibited by the ill informed is also an expression of distrust in our own legal system. Do we have to disown our system? I would prefer to rely on our established legal system to ensure justice to all.

Joy Jacob
 
Joy Jacob said:
We have a constitution and several legal documents. Everyone is not aware of the protection they provide to individuals, whether Indian or foreign. Every crime committed in the country shall be tried by the courts of law, ensuring objective application of the legal provisions. Any person, accused of crime remains an accused until his crime is proved in a court of law. The intolerance exhibited by the ill informed is also an expression of distrust in our own legal system. Do we have to disown our system? I would prefer to rely on our established legal system to ensure justice to all.

Joy Jacob
Click to expand...

Correct.
There is a legal framework to care of everything. And killing the lawyer is a shameful act. I would also like to add that our laws are decades old, and a major overhaul of this system needs to be done asap.
 
adrenalin said:
Correct.
There is a legal framework to care of everything. And killing the lawyer is a shameful act. I would also like to add that our laws are decades old, and a major overhaul of this system needs to be done asap.
Click to expand...

Yes, a legal framework is there to take care of everything. But it is always delayed. And justice delayed means justice denied. Because of the legal loopholes some people are motivated to take the law in their own hands.
 
Pr0udy said:
Yes, a legal framework is there to take care of everything. But it is always delayed. And justice delayed means justice denied. Because of the legal loopholes some people are motivated to take the law in their own hands.
Click to expand...

Can't be more true. I agree again :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
No shahid azmi should not be accused of anything.he was a true Indian and was protecting innocent people.He himself is innocent and harmless.we should appreciate that and not blame him after such a monstrous murder.we should give him honor of his kindness.
 
How can you be so sure that he was only defending the innocent?
Why does he only protect the accused of Bomb Blast when there are so many other innocent people to protect?
 
Pr0udy said:
How can you be so sure that he was only defending the innocent?
Why does he only protect the accused of Bomb Blast when there are so many other innocent people to protect?
Click to expand...

Dude relax! There are posters who post once and then forget their ID & Password. No need to get hysterical :D
 
The ethical questions are difficult as under the law the accused has a right to defend himself or herself. And in order to undertake this defence the person can engage a lawyer of their choice.

The duty of any lawyer once accepting the case is to do his/her best to defend and if possible get an acquittal or a lesser sentence. The lawyer must act in his clients best interest - whether the client is innocent or guilty.This is the LAW.

The only way out of this is to change the Constitution and say all terrorists or murderers or child molesters MUST be defended only by a specially appointed Public Defence Team. But then how do we know that the accused is guilty before the trial is concluded so how do we appoint the Public Defence Team for that person?

So the present method, though not infallible is in my opinion still the best.

If a certain lawyer is always defending terrorists or criminals - maybe this is a matter for a CBI or a judicial inquiry or maybe it is a case of specializing in a certain field by the lawyer. Does this mean a gynecologist is a sex maniac? People do specialize in certain fields and do whatever job they do best.

The killing of a lawyer is certainly not justified and is a stupid and immature act.

Does this mean one now kills a Judge for "under sentencing" or "over-sentencing", kill the policeman for doing his job, kill the prison warden for locking the jail cell, kill the cook for making a lousy curry consistently?

All the best
Heman
 
Whosoever has killed the lawyer has done a great service to mankind.such people helping extremists should be hanged in public.All honor to group for bold action and activities.
 
Dear fellow Indians ,

It is a shame if a lawyer is killed by a few law ignorant persons . Frustrations begins when the judgment lingers on despite the Theme of law ," Justice delayed is justice denied ,which unfortunately is the general concept of all of us living in this pious land called India .But committing a crime to react for crime is not justified. Self restraint is the Human quality.We will learn gradually.
 
why was he defending so many terrorists?

Either he was involved in group, or was being forced under under threat. individual decision is difficult to explain.
 
All the criminals or accused is having right to fix a lawyer. If he is not having any lawyer as per our rules court will give him a lawyer to defend him. But any persons personnel interest to defend those kind of people is not accepted. since their motive is against our country.
 
In the name of justice it is not acceptable that any body supports anti national elements.It can be discussed that the killing of advocate is correct or not but there should be law for those lawyers also who directly or indirectly supports terrorists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top