The same was taken into account by the Colombian Association of Capitals, which requested the Court to declare itself suspended, considering that the applicant had not explained why the rights which, in his view, had been violated by the prohibition. In addition, according to the association, the trial was based on a subjective interpretation that the citizen makes of the rule that the carrying of these non-lethal weapons is prohibited in all places, “if the truth is that it is only in some”. The same was said by Attorney General Fernando Carrillo, who had asked the court to withdraw because he felt that the plaintiff did not sufficiently determine the standard, since the citizen interpreted that the carrying of these non-lethal weapons was prohibited in all cases, which is not true. The Pontifical Bolivarian University had a different opinion, telling the court that the ban should be lifted because life and personal security should be weighed against cohabitation, in which case the first two rights should take precedence over the second. The legal standard required is disproportionate, “insofar as it involves more sacrifices in terms of citizens` security than the benefits it represents,” the UPB said. JUSTICE The Constitutional Court has decided not to rule on a lawsuit demanding the free use of pepper spray in self-defence. The Constitutional Court refrained from ruling on a lawsuit demanding the free use of pepper spray, sprinklers and other self-defense items in Colombia in public places. Article 27, paragraph 7, groups them as “sprinklers, sprays, sprayed or pepper sprays” with pneumatic, sharp, air guns, less-lethal weapons or firearms assimilated to firearms. “. Currently, they are used, it is not a problem that we do not know, but their sale is illegal, so we must legalize the use of these devices so that they act or also say, at the time, if necessary, that it was in self-defense.
“In Colombia, there are 22 companies that sell pepper spray and are supervised by the Superintendence. Cristina Duque* says she has pepper spray in her purse. I feel safer to defend myself if they rob me or do something wrong, but especially against thieves. While she assures that she will not be tempted to use it against another person in the event of a personal conflict, she also© recognizes that the person may lose control. Finally, the effect that pepper spray produces when applied to humanity and in an inadequate context is punishable, even criminal, since it is associated with bodily harm in the event of an attack. The High Court refused because it considered that the action did not meet the conditions for a statement because the citizen who presented it gave an incorrect and subjective interpretation of the standard. This decision maintains the prohibition of the 2016 Police Code in paragraph seven of Article 27. This rule establishes that one of the behaviours that threaten the life and integrity of people is to wear these types of items in places accessible to the public where crowds develop, where alcohol is consumed or where it is determined that its consumption was irregular.
The fine for carrying these types of items is about 234,000 pesos, and in addition, those who have these sprinklers and pepper spray can be prevented from participating in crowded events. The police can even destroy these elements. Read also: Court considers lawsuit seeking permission to use `pepper spray` as defense For this reason, Vice President Maxta Irais González Carrillo, a member of the parliamentary group of the Party of the Institutional Revolution H. Congress of Mexico City, II. legislative period, the initiative with the draft decree to reform the first paragraph and add the second and third paragraphs of article 251 of the Criminal Code for the Federal District. with regard to women`s self-defense, the use of pepper spray and teasing has not been regulated, i.e. the sale of pepper spray in Colombia is regulated by the security and surveillance supervision of the Ministry of Defense. (Learn more about how a woman prevented a robbery and what© authorities say.) There are no regulations in the country that specify the conditions under which© citizens are allowed to carry pepper spray. The patrollers consulted in this context point out to ± that, in general, when they find persons with this element, they usually proceed to seize them. Although the Supreme Court declared itself inhibited in this decision, the most important thing it clarified was where wearing is prohibited. The court stated that the plaintiff`s interpretation was incorrect because “the conduct of transporting the above-mentioned objects is considered contrary to coexistence only if it occurs in places accessible to the public where crowds develop or where intoxicating beverages are consumed; If the behavior occurs in places other than those mentioned above, this is not regulated by the police regulations. Thus, the Court specified that the prohibition of these sprinklers does not occur throughout the national territory, including in places accessible to the public, but “only in some of them which are duly limited”.
For the Court, there are many differences between wearing a spray or pepper spray in a study and on a public road with little traffic, because, first, “the risks to personal safety seem to be lower”, since there are many participants, while on public roads there are fewer people, There are not always cameras or surveillance. According to the citizen, the fact that a law prohibits the wearing of pepper spray, sprinklers and sprinklers as contrary to coexistence violates people`s rights to self-defense, life and liberty.