Latest news with #Section111
Time of India
2 days ago
- Time of India
Cops arrest 6 criminals, seize illegal weapons in Puri
1 2 3 Puri: In a major enforcement drive ahead of Rath Yatra, Puri police busted an arms smuggling racket, arresting six criminals and seizing illegal weapons on Friday. The operation follows intensified security measures for the chariot festival on June 27. "We have seized six country-made firearms and 20 rounds of ammunition from the accused, effectively preventing what could have been a serious security threat during the festival," SP (Puri) Vinit Agrawal said. The accused, all with previous criminal records, were identified as Ramesh Parida alias Denga Muna (29), Babu Das (24), Gudu Panda (27), Harichandan Das (20), Pabitra Behera (25) and Chittaranjan Purohita (23). "Under the new provisions in criminal laws, we are booking the accused under Section 111 of the BNS for organised crime, along with violations of the Arms Act. Our investigation continues to uncover the full extent of their smuggling network," the SP said. Senior police officers said the accused were involved in multiple offences, including theft, robbery, assault, and hooliganism. A senior officer said, "These arrests are crucial for maintaining peace during Rath Yatra, when lakhs of devotees gather in Puri." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Pinga-Pinga e HBP? Tome isso 1x ao dia se tem mais de 40 anos Portal Saúde do Homem Clique aqui Undo A few days ago, police launched a special security drive in preparation for the festival. "All police stations have been directed to enhance night patrolling and maintain strict vigilance. We are leaving no stone unturned to ensure a safe and peaceful Rath Yatra celebration," Agrawal said. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Eid wishes , messages , and quotes !
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump's New Favorite Law for Criminalizing His Opponents
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily. Imagine this: You're in a heated public confrontation with a person on the street. A chaotic scene, raised voices, they shove you and you shove back. The problem is that the person you shoved is an undercover federal officer. No badge. No ID. No uniform. Next thing you know, you're charged with a federal crime by a federal prosecutor and facing eight years in federal prison. Bond denied. Trial delayed. And the government gets to call you a violent criminal on every news channel until your day in court. Now imagine you're a sitting member of Congress. On May 19, 2025, federal prosecutors charged Rep. LaMonica McIver, a New Jersey Democrat, under a little-known federal statute—18 U.S. Code Section 111—for allegedly assaulting and impeding Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers during a visit to a Newark detention facility. The officers refused her entry to conduct a federally authorized oversight visit. It's still unclear whether the claimed assault was alleged to be physical or verbal. But what's clear is that Rep. McIver's prosecution reveals something much larger: Under the current administration, Section 111 is being reimagined as a blunt political weapon. Not to deter violence—but to silence dissent and criminalize opponents. Section 111 makes it a crime to 'forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with' federal officials engaged in their duties. But here's the problem: You don't even need to know they're federal officials. You can be convicted for shoving someone you think is just someone yelling in your face, even just placing them in 'reasonable fear of harm' without physical contact—if they turn out to be a plainclothes agent. That's not hypothetical. That's precedent, courtesy of the Supreme Court over 50 years ago. Which means this: An undercover agent embedded in a protest, a public meeting, even a constituent town hall could claim to have been 'impeded,' and the federal government can treat that moment as a federal crime. Under the current administration's appetite for authoritarianism, that's not a loophole, it's a feature. The right to resist unlawful force, including by the government, is as old as American law itself. As Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia explained, the Constitution's Bill of Rights is 'designed to guard against a spirit of oppression and tyranny on the part of rulers.' The Second Amendment enshrines the right to self-defense as a 'direct check against government oppression.' To this end, courts have recognized the legitimacy of self-defense, defense of others, and deadly force against state officers when force is excessive or unlawful. But by not requiring knowledge that the person is a federal officer, Section 111 erodes that principle, creating a chilling catch-22: Lawfully defend yourself against someone who looks like an attacker, and you could still spend months or years in jail before you are acquitted. Why? Because self-defense is a question for the jury at trial—not arraignment or pretrial. Trial may not come for months or years. Meanwhile, the prosecution insists: We're just following the law. In practice, it's even worse. Federal agents increasingly operate in masks and plain clothes, drive unmarked SUVs, and make arrests without warrants or even identifying themselves. Meanwhile, impersonators are exploiting this ambiguity often without fear of federal prosecution. Despite impersonation being a federal crime, federal prosecutors have not prosecuted ICE impersonators—armed with ICE-branded clothes and SUVs that look just official enough—who have improperly removed people from jail, kidnapped civilians, and terrorized neighborhoods. In many communities, the difference between a rogue officer and a criminal impersonator is nearly impossible to discern. Yet the law criminalizes any mistaken resistance. All of this is politically useful. Because now, prosecutors and politicians don't have to justify the force, the policy, or even the officer's conduct. Prosecutors just have to say, 'We're enforcing the law.' And nontargeted politicians can merely deflect as their colleagues are silenced and worse—as Rep. Don Bacon, A Nebraska Republican, did when asked about Rep. McIver's case, saying, 'I trust our law enforcement. In the end, we've got judges and juries, appeals.' A confrontation becomes a crime. The arrest becomes the message. The criminal charge becomes the narrative: Criminal. Vermin. Thug. Enemy from within. McIver's case is a warning shot. And she won't be the last. Under this administration, Section 111 will be the perfect cudgel: hard to challenge, easy to abuse, and ready-made for headlines. You don't need conspiracy theories when the statute is already written. Congress has a solution: Amend the law. Require that the defendant knew—or at least should have known—that the person they allegedly resisted was a federal officer. That's not radical. That's just fair. Such a requirement would not only align Section 111 with foundational principles of criminal culpability but also prevent the statute's overreach into matters more appropriately handled by state law. Litigating a shove between two people who perceive each other as private citizens in federal court federalizes conduct that lacks any meaningful federal interest. Without this fix, we're one shove away from turning routine political protest, or routine oversight, into a federal crime. This isn't just about Rep. McIver. It's about every journalist, activist, legislator, or citizen who lawfully defends themselves against unlawful force. The government's message is clear: obey or be made an example. And if this sounds like a law President Trump would love—it's because it is.
New Indian Express
09-05-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Jagan Mohan Reddy files petition in Andhra Pradesh HC for Z+ category security
VIJAYAWADA: YS Jagan Mohan Reddy, former Chief Minister and YSRCP chief, filed a petition in the AP High Court on Thursday, questioning the inaction of the Centre and the State government on his plea to reinstate Z+ category security. He claimed that the failure to provide him adequate CRPF or NSG protection violated constitutional norms and requested an independent reassessment of his threat level to restore Z+ security. If unavailable, he sought approval to use his own bulletproof vehicle. Post-government change, his security was significantly curtailed without prior notice, disregarding ongoing risks. Accusing the State of shirking its responsibility to safeguard public figures, Jagan urged the court to mandate Z+ security restoration. The matter is set for a Friday hearing. Sajjala Bhargav Reddy & others get HC relief The AP High Court provided relief to Sajjala Bhargav Reddy, former YSRCP social media head, and other activists in a case over social media posts, questioning the police's use of BNSS Section 111 (organized crime). The court ruled that Section 111 requires a chargesheet from the past 10 years, which was not present, making the case legally untenable. It found the Section 111 charges against Bhargav Reddy and others unwarranted based on initial evidence, and instructed police to follow BNSS Section 35(3). Justice N Vijay issued these directives on Wednesday, calling for prompt government action.
Time of India
08-05-2025
- Time of India
MCOCA invoked on Hiranwars, ACP to probe Bhusari murder
Nagpur: City police on Thursday invoked stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) on Hiranwar gang in connection with Avinash Bhusari murder case . The police have already invoked stringent Section 111 of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) against the gang members for organised crime. Meanwhile, Bhusari murder case probe has been tansferred to assistant commissioner of police, a café owner, was shot dead by Bunty Hiranwar , Shakti Yadav , and other gang members on April 15 to avenge murder of Pawan Hiranwar in January this year. Pawan was cousin of Bunty, who had survived attack by arch-rival Sheikhu gang. Avinash's cousin, Aviraj, allegedly played a key role in Pawan's 15 members of Hiranwar gang are already behind bars, the gang's arms supplier Shaheed Shaikh is still absconding. It was Shaheed who procured the firearms for the gang from Rewa in Madhya Pradesh.
Time of India
04-05-2025
- Time of India
18 criminals held, illegal firearms seized in special drive in Ganjam
1 2 3 4 Berhampur: At least 18 criminals were arrested and 17 illegal firearms and 66 bullets were seized from them in an overnight special drive to prevent possible organised crimes in Ganjam district, police said on Sunday. Most of the arrested persons are seasoned criminals, including members of organised crime syndicate, and several criminal cases are pending against them, police said. "The drive was conducted in areas under Aska, Bhanjanagar, Chamakhandi, Kotinada, Polasara and Sheragada police stations and firearms seized from the accused," said IG (southern range), Niti Sekhar, on Sunday. He said the accused might have sourced the firearms from outside the state. "We will form a special team to bust the supply racket," he added. He praised the proactive approach of preventive policing initiated by the Ganjam SP. The highest six persons were arrested and five firearms seized by Sheragada police followed by Kotinada (five arrests and four country-made guns seized) and Aska ( three arrests and three guns). SP (Ganjam), Suvendu Kumar Patra, said that acting on a tip-off, they conducted the drives in these police station areas and seized the firearms. "Besides registering cases under the Arms Act and different sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the accused in Aska, Sheragada and Kotinada have also been booked under Section 111 (organised crime) of BNS for the first time in the district," he said. "We are also looking at the possibility of seizure of properties acquired illegally by the accused," he added.
