Thread: Killing of the lawyer of 26/11 accused

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?

Originally Posted by IChange

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Pr0udy

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.

One more terrorist attack in a Bakery in Pune

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.

Neither the killing of Azmi nor Azmi's act are acceptable.

Originally Posted by rk_ragunathan

Neither the killing of Azmi nor Azmi's act are acceptable.

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

Originally Posted by Joy Jacob

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

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.

Originally Posted by rk_ragunathan

Neither the killing of Azmi nor Azmi's act are acceptable.

Brother, you cant accept a path in between. You have to take one decision. It's the need of the day. The middle path has already cost us a lot.

Originally Posted by adrenalin

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.

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.