[ebonho]

Originally Posted by DerAlte

It may have been about the threat perception of the cop who pulled out his gun. Everything about it is "may have been", since all comments here are without actual knowledge of facts. Everyone here has commented at a high level, and expressed - in their opinion - what is to be expected in a decent thinking society. It is equally probable that anyone from this group, in the same cop's shoes, would have pulled out his gun, as it is that he might not. That does not mean that the members who might pull out a gun, come from a less mentally evolved background.

What threat perception are we talking about when a boy is shot in the back? That is a fact that is not open to conjecture or debate, even if others per you have less than complete information bordering on circumstantial evidence to comment definitively on.

The rest of your post comes across as more of a personal opinion than having a direct bearing on the thread to really warrant further comment from my side. We would only be going around in circles, and that can only end badly for one of us.

Cheers, Doc

[DerAlte]

Originally Posted by ebonho

What threat perception ...

You, perhaps being more qualified medically, psycho-analyze - yet you ask? "Threat perception" is not qualitatively judged, right? Nor judged at all? There is no right or wrong about a "threat perception", nor good or bad - it does depend on the person's background, but like opinion everyone has it, is entitled to it and not questioned why he has it. It is the end-result that is to be questioned, and the lack of discipline that might have led to that situation.

Originally Posted by ebonho

... The rest of your post comes across as more of a personal opinion than having a direct bearing on the thread ...

If you had read carefully (not every expression is an opinion), you would have perceived the warning. Maybe I had worded it too mildly - apologies. Let us not lose civility, intellect and culture, shall we?

[SS-Traveller]

Originally Posted by ebonho

What threat perception are we talking about when a boy is shot in the back?

Considering that the deceased person was 19 years old at the time of his death, by no stretch of imagination & under no law of the country can he be called a boy. Terms like 'just a kid', 'victim', 'boy' etc. cloud dispassionate judgment of a situation and the circumstances leading up to it, and fan the sympathy and benevolence of the reader, thus resulting in a spade being called many other things but a S-P-A-D-E.

[mayankk]

There's a hilarious view of the city going on here, based,ifeel, on information as professed by newspaper and TV, probably aajtak. Also, in not some small measure from movies too. (Delhi underbelly, rdb, etc. )
Eternally myopic stereotyping, and I see that the usual responders have correctly thought it best to disregard the same. Kudos, guys.

[AbhishekB86]

It is hard to fathom that a community may be called names and repeatedly so ,post a warning a few days back and this continues in a forum which has zero tolerance for such language.

As mentioned by a member above this does amount to Internet trolling.

But why just stop at that? Clearly the gentleman has gone a few steps ahead and labelled us very nicely. If it makes him happy let us just admit to being corrupt, indecent and hardcore criminals who get a kick out of committing crimes and hence we deserve the cops we have. We have been fortunate enough to dodge those bullets to be still posting. Yes.

We don't have a 'regular' life that the gentleman does. We're fortunate enough to be stealing through the day (we call it work) and going back home and looking forward to the next day fully packed with action where the city isn't held hostage, well how can it be if the entire community is like that - do feel free to correct me if I'm deviating from your evaluation

Edit : If the above has met satiated the need to troll, may we please get back to the thread and it's relevance. A kid lost his life and law & order failed. A bigger crime (shooting) cannot pardon a smaller crime (literal rioting). You have to look at both of those things with perspective. Nothing justifies the kid getting shot and nothing justifies you labelling an entire community. What you call an opinion need not be a statement. When you put it like a statement, people will take offence. Free speech and having an opinion is one thing and abusing it another.

[gd1418]

Very well said. The law-enforcers are quite a patient lot when upholding the law is concerned. They just don't go baton-wielding or shooting at the drop of the hat. There something called water rising above your head.

Primarily, the bikers are/were at fault. The rest of the things come later.

Originally Posted by ebonho

Yes, who gives them the rights to make a mockery of the law? Who is responsible for upholding the law? Who has been unable to curb their rise and spread while they openly flout the law? Pertinent questions that any law abiding citizen should and would ask.

The rod should have been wielded at home. It has become a fashion of indulging parents to hand over keys of bikes/cars to their immature kids just to appease them.

I didn't get to drive my first scooter till my second year of college and then got my first Bullet after completing graduation. It is a syndrome of getting too much and some more before time.

According to me what it seems here that we all have picked up the inputs from what the media has fed to us and are debating. Have any one of us tried to get the first-hand version of the Police also? No. We've already passed judgement on their trigger happy attitude.

According to the media the deceased's mother said that she went off to sleep and didn't know when her son slipped out of the house. Now the rod was spared at home itself. The boy must have done so in the past and had gotten away. But this time his luck ran out.

This in no way justifies the shooting. The question that arises is whether the shooting was with the intention to kill, or injure or deflate the tyre. This is a grey area that needs to be investigated.

Please understand that Delhi is the capital of the country and has suffered terrorism over the years. Even for a small matter such as water-scarcity people from neighbouring states land up and hold the city to ransom.

The police is at its nerve's end (I'm not justifying or apologising on their behalf). At the drop of a hat a red-alert is sounded.

Amongst all this we don't want a bunch of delinquent, rowdy bikers running amok and terrorising the general public which is already on the edge of their seat.

Originally Posted by ebonho

Exactly. Who holds the rod in Delhi? Who spared it and let the child run amuck? And who finally (and belatedly) decided that the rod wasn't going to work so a gun was the answer, when the child went beserk?

All because the rod was not used. Not on time. Not big enough. Not near enough.

You see when you get down to it, short of the umbrage some of you have taken to your city being called out, we are really not all that divergent in our viewpoints.

[suman]

Originally Posted by ebonho

Delhi is a city of 19 million people.

What percentage of that do those taking offence here represent?

Do they even count in the larger scope of things? Either politicaly or in terms of the law?

No. You (we) are the cream in your (our) ivory towers. There is a different and very ugly world down there, which plays out day after day, night after night.

My personal opinion is that you are living in a fools paradise if you believe that the "percentage" of law abiding citizens and regular white collared people in Delhi is very small. But I guess you need to make some wild assumptions to uphold your "theory" so you continue to propagate incorrect percentages and assumptions.

Originally Posted by mayankk

There's a hilarious view of the city going on here, based,ifeel, on information as professed by newspaper and TV, probably aajtak. Also, in not some small measure from movies too. (Delhi underbelly, rdb, etc. )
Eternally myopic stereotyping, and I see that the usual responders have correctly thought it best to disregard the same. Kudos, guys.

Very well said Mayank

Originally Posted by gd1418

According to the media the deceased's mother said that she went off to sleep and didn't know when her son slipped out of the house. Now the rod was spared at home itself. The boy must have done so in the past and had gotten away. But this time his luck ran out.

And you know the best part about the media reports BCG? I was reading another one the next day which mentioned that the mother had actually locked the door to try & prevent him from going out but he managed to slip out nevertheless. Kind of puts things in perspective.

Not that he deserved to die but its not that he was an innocent, blemish-free youth.

[pgsagar]

Mr Ebonho, please stop referring to the biker as 19 year old boy. You make it sound like a bunch of harmless school kids were returning from school and a cop came up from behind and shot one of them point blank. You only speak about cop's shooting but are silent about the biker's misdeeds. Please also make a mention of that. You accuse police of being judge, jury and the executioner. Well, you are doing the same. You have delivered a "guilty as charged" verdict on cops. This victim was 19 years old. Which means he was major. Not minor. So he is fully accountable for his misdeeds and misconduct. If he is old enough to commit a crime, he is old enough to be prosecuted.

Contrary to your belief, police are not as trigger-happy as you would like us to believe. How many such incidents have you heard of? None, so far, I'm sure. This is the frist time I ever heard of such an incident anywhere in India. If police really were so trigger-happy as to shoot every minor traffic violater, half of this country's population would have been shot dead by now.

The facts of the case would only be known to the involved parties and both sides will always have their own version of the story. In the absence of any eye-wtinesses, it is very difficult to establish the exact course of events that unfolded at that time. However, in a fight between police and criminals, we must always support police and believe in police. A policeman's word against a criminal's. I would always go with the policeman's word. It has become a fashion in our country to speak about criminals rights and to question policemen while not condemning a single act or criminals. I am sure this demoralises police big time. Trust me, Indian police is the least trigger-happy in the world. They may be corrupt ( again not all ) but trigger happy and viloent they definitely are not. I remember having seen a Hindi movie long back where Amitabh says to the judge, if I wake up in the middle of the night and see a man standing outside my house with a gun in hand, I would pray it were a policeman, not a criminal.

And laslty, imagine, just imagine that you were a policeman out on a night patrol in a group of three. And suddenly a group of 20 -30 men attack you. What would you do? W-H-A-T W-O-U-L-D Y-O-U D-O? Please do not tell me you will call in reinforcements. You will not have the luxury of doing that because every second makes all the difference between life and death. Would you or would you not use your weapon in self-defense? Why police, any citizen can take other man's life in self defense if he is about to be killed by that person.

[manolin]

Originally Posted by pgsagar

Why police, any citizen can take other man's life in self defense if he is about to be killed by that person.

But was the policeman (be specific) in danger of his life from that pillion rider? was he? could he have been? especially if the pillion rider was facing away from him? on the back of bike. Feel free to use your imagination and come up with situations - where that policeman could have been in mortal danger from a pillion rider on a motorcycle which is going away from him. (because that is what beyond reasonable doubt test is all about)

[gd1418]

Enough water has flown under the bridge on this. The pros & cons of the incident have been discussed threadbare, stands taken for & against for the biker/policeman etc.

The fact is that a crime has been committed, a shooting has taken place and a human life gone.

A court case has been filed and an inquiry committee formed to investigate the facts. Let us leave it at that than rather working ourselves up.

Our divergent views expressed here are not being read either by the police or the deceased's family or the courts or the inquiry committee.

We have vented our thoughts and I guess now it is time to cease.

[manolin]

Originally Posted by gd1418

Enough water has flown under the bridge on this. The pros & cons of the incident have been discussed threadbare, stands taken for & against for the biker/policeman etc.

The fact is that a crime has been committed, a shooting has taken place and a human life gone.

A court case has been filed and an inquiry committee formed to investigate the facts. Let us leave it at that than rather working ourselves up.

Our divergent views expressed here are not being read either by the police or the deceased's family or the courts or the inquiry committee.

We have vented our thoughts and I guess now it is time to cease.

Yes, agree. I will just add to your words in a different way[, because you know, last words have a way of being last impressions].

The fact is that a traffic offence was committed, a crime was alleged, a police shooting has taken place and a human life gone.

[suman]

Traffic Offense or Hooliganism bordering on intimidation and rioting?

I'm sorry but I don't agree with your summary/last impression

[manolin]

Originally Posted by suman

Traffic Offense or Hooliganism bordering on intimidation and rioting?

I'm sorry but I don't agree with your summary/last impression

With respect to the deceased, you can say to a reasonable certainty that he was party to a traffic offence. If he was party to anything greater, one can only allege, but not say with conviction - because no evidence on this is available publicly.

That he was shot by police, is admitted by police. that he is dead is a certainty.

So what are you not agreeing to? let it be. lets shut this discussion.

The fact is that a traffic offence was committed, a crime was alleged, a police shooting has taken place and a human life gone.

[pgsagar]

Originally Posted by manolin

Yes, agree. I will just add to your words in a different way[, because you know, last words have a way of being last impressions].

The fact is that a traffic offence was committed, a crime was alleged, a police shooting has taken place and a human life gone.

How many traffic offenders have you heard of being shot down before this? I have heard of none. This is not a traffic offence. It is much more than that. It is hooliganism.

[Ricci]

Originally Posted by adroit

Well we are talking about Delhi Police and not US police... they are far more better than DP when it comes to law enforcement.. and yeah, for both (Police & Public).

Sorry to bust that, and it is OT - but from several of regular US/UK folk I am in contact with, those cops too are corrupt, inept and lazy. Not all cops, just like ours, but sufficiently high in proportion to be wary of cops' sense of honesty and integrity.

Originally Posted by tsk1979

I do not agree with many people that police should have fired. But I did not have to attack them, or call them a city of criminals, and what they deserve, and blah blah blah to put forward my argument.

Originally Posted by tsk1979

In a democratic republic is it okay for the police to shoot at an unarmed fleeing person in a public place?

It isn't about democracy at all , it's about the legislation of that country. I have recently been enlightened, that in the US, cops are first supposed to 'uphold the law' and 'protect the citizens' later. If you know how some laws are, it does mean that common citizens suffer unfairly due to cops' directives to 'uphold the law' , even if the said law is in violation of citizens' rights. I downloaded a video, of a female cop shooting an unarmed homeless man, only because he used abusive language. I doubt the cop will face any serious repercussions.

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Its like saying "XYZ has a large number of thieves, so all you XYZers are thieves"

And yet, that's the principle on which laws are made, and passed, even in a democracy, or at least interpreted/implemented. Enough OT.

The use of arms by the cops was unjustified. It would be, if the assembled bikers were attacking them, as I read , with stones. But now I read by BHPians that the area in question is kept spic and span, with no stones lying about loose, but seemingly dumped to make it look like a riot. I also read, that the cop aimed for the tyre but the rider did a wheelie , bringing the deceased pillion at the height the cop was aiming for. These stunters may be a nuisance and sometimes a danger to other traffic, and it is a traffic offence to stunt in public, but the cops conduct was still excessive.

A forensic report of the bullet wound and its trajectory will show if that is indeed true. OTOH, most cops are terrible marksmen from what I read in earlier news reports. That alone, should make senior IPS officers prohibit them from using guns until and unless really necessary.