[superbad]

Originally Posted by iamwhatiam

It is not OK to be so easily critical of the dead. And it's especially not OK to criticize their family for demanding compensation and calling it 'extortion'. What would you prefer they do? Silently accept their fate and move on from the deaths of three of their family members, and suffer emotionally and physically for the rest of their lives?

The family doesn't have to be silent of course, they can demand compensation, however it has to be rational. The tone of my post may be callous, however it only reflects an unfortunate malaise plaguing our society - poor judgement costing human lives.

[YashD]

An excellent article by Sirish Chandran, A journalist & Rallyist.

#IAmWithGauravGill

https://www.evoindia.com/blog/gaurav...t-is-dangerous

[McLaren Rulez]

Originally Posted by iamwhatiam

I've thought long and hard about this, however, the tone-deafness of this particular post rankled me enough to write this.

It is not OK to be so easily critical of the dead. And it's especially not OK to criticize their family for demanding compensation and calling it 'extortion'. What would you prefer they do? Silently accept their fate and move on from the deaths of three of their family members, and suffer emotionally and physically for the rest of their lives?

The post you quote, in my opinion, is blunt but speaking plainly about such matters is important too. Those who disregard rules and repeated instructions from the authorities cannot complain when they pay the price for their stupidity. Poverty is not an excuse for this fellow's actions.

Compensation for the family in such circumstances comes out of the goodness of people's hearts. Demanding an absurd sum of money like that makes it pretty clear that this is opportunism.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

I don't suppose it counts in Indian law, although its essence may have been adopted, but there is a famous case in English civil (tort) law which says that if a person goes to a dangerous place, they have no grounds for complaint of they get hurt.

It is many years since I read up such stuff, but a brain cell delivered the Latin, Volenti non fit injuria, which seems to be a legal maxim dating back to ancient Rome, and very much international.

I don't have time to read this now, but it might be interesting: Applicability of Volenti Non Fit Injuria In Sports. This is from an Indian-law site.

[bigron]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

I don't suppose it counts in Indian law, although its essence may have been adopted, but there is a famous case in English civil (tort) law which says that if a person goes to a dangerous place, they have no grounds for complaint of they get hurt.

Even in simple common sense, it makes, errr, sense.

Let me try this with an example in the Indian context.

Suppose someone enters someones farm at night.. And the owner happens to be sitting at the porch or sees the intruder. Upon confrontation if their is a scuffle and the owner ties the trespasser and while doing so the trespasser receives injuries he is not entitled to compensation.

However, if the owner after confrontation throws knife, shoots, or there are live barbed wires resulting in electrocution of the trespasser, he is entitled to compensation despite entering a place he was not supposed to enter.

Ofcourse it is much more complex than this and there are several other variables that come into play.

Compensation for getting hurt while entering something someone is not supposed to enter is a very interpretive subject of law.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by bigron

Let me try this with an example in the Indian context.

Suppose someone enters someones farm at night.. And the owner happens to be sitting at the porch or sees the intruder. Upon confrontation if their is a scuffle and the owner ties the trespasser and while doing so the trespasser receives injuries he is not entitled to compensation.

However, if the owner after confrontation throws knife, shoots, or there are live barbed wires resulting in electrocution of the trespasser, he is entitled to compensation despite entering a place he was not supposed to enter.

Ofcourse it is much more complex than this and there are several other variables that come into play.

Compensation for getting hurt while entering something someone is not supposed to enter is a very interpretive subject of law.

Your example probably works in many national contexts; I think it is roughly in accordance with English law. But it is not what I was saying.

You are talking about a person trespassing, going where they should not go. The concept I was posting about was a person going where they know there is danger. I was not talking about the trespass aspect, or even causing risk to others.

[iamwhatiam]

Originally Posted by superbad

The family doesn't have to be silent of course...

Originally Posted by McLaren Rulez

The post you quote, in my opinion, is blunt but speaking plainly about such matters is important too...

I think empathy is a wonderful thing, in that it comes for free, and requires nothing more than a general respect for human lives. It is, especially important to do that when we speak of people who don't come from the same background as us (whether location, income, education, etc.), because we never can understand their specific context and the drivers behind the decisions they take.

Having said that, I'm certainly not of the belief that typing out a message on forums will change people's opinions or long-held beliefs, so I'll refrain from any further comments on this partially off-topic conversation.

[TROOPER]

Guess one thing no member has mentioned yet is that, this sport, going forward, needs to implement dash cams in their cars. Compulsory. (I have no idea if it is currently implemented)

A dash cam could have settled the debate over the chain of events of the accident.

[swissknife]

Originally Posted by TROOPER

Guess one thing no member has mentioned yet is that, this sport, going forward, needs to implement dash cams in their cars. Compulsory. (I have no idea if it is currently implemented)

A dash cam could have settled the debate over the chain of events of the accident.

Had been suggested here (Gaurav Gill's car hits bike during INRC Rally - 3 dead)
However, I don't think there is a question on the entire incident. There is more to it. Though appeovals were sought and obtained, there seems to be questions on what a "rally" is.

[ank.nsit]

I feel that these incidents are bound to happen in a place like India, where majority of the population is struggling to make their ends meet at one end, and some people have the luxury to enjoy motorsports on the other.

That the deceased did not follow the instructions/roadblocks is definitely their fault, but let me try to relate to their mindset -

Let's say after a long tiring day at work, while going back home I find that my usual route has been closed due to some car racing going en route, and the other alternative route has an extra long traffic jam.
My first reaction would be - 'Just let me go home, I am done for today's hard work and why should I suffer because some people want to race their cars?'

Maybe it was some this kind of thought/anger that made the villagers to pass through the barricades.

[vredesbyrd]

Well, I just hope that the government doesn't ban fast cars altogether...

[SRT_Dwarka]

Originally Posted by bigron

Suppose someone enters someones farm at night.. And the owner happens to be sitting at the porch or sees the intruder. Upon confrontation if their is a scuffle and the owner ties the trespasser and while doing so the trespasser receives injuries he is not entitled to compensation.

However, if the owner after confrontation throws knife, shoots, or there are live barbed wires resulting in electrocution of the trespasser, he is entitled to compensation despite entering a place he was not supposed to enter.

Although this is Off topic, it piqued my interest, do you have any place where i can read a bit more on this? To me it seems like owner should have right to defend his property as he deems fit

[srishiva]

Originally Posted by bigron

Let me try this with an example in the Indian context.

Suppose someone enters someones farm at night.. And the owner happens to be sitting at the porch or sees the intruder. Upon confrontation if their is a scuffle and the owner ties the trespasser and while doing so the trespasser receives injuries he is not entitled to compensation.

However, if the owner after confrontation throws knife, shoots, or there are live barbed wires resulting in electrocution of the trespasser, he is entitled to compensation despite entering a place he was not supposed to enter.

Ofcourse it is much more complex than this and there are several other variables that come into play.

Compensation for getting hurt while entering something someone is not supposed to enter is a very interpretive subject of law.

Some years back, a youth entered the army officers compound in Bengaluru. He was trying to escape from police or something. The officer shot the youth which was fatal. There was no case since he was trespassing. It was not because it was army officer's house.

[bigron]

That officer at the least should have been booked for 304 unless he had a very clear cut case of self defence. He definitely got away because "IT WAS" and army officers house.

[Red Liner]

There was actually another incident where youths who I think were trying to escape the cops jumped into the shooting range which the army uses to train. Obviously they got shot and i think one guy died.

Nothing happened beyond a news paper report.