[Hatari]

Originally Posted by blue_pulsar

I do not know what his intentions were. And I do not care. He was not entitled to drive in two ways: 1) DUI and 2) without license. He knew it and still he drove. How am I assured that his intentions were right?

We have to take strict stand against DUI. Today it is someone who slept on the footpath. Tomorrow it might be a near and dear one walking on the road. I shudder to think about the consequences.

No one is contesting the fact that it was a big mistake to drive.
But you are probably the only one here (and possibly in the entire country) not convinced it was an accident. DUI would cloud his judgement would it not?

[alpha1]

How in the world does our law and order machinery justify such kind of delays for pronouncing judgements?

Citizen rights in India and legal system is an absolute farce.

[k_ajay]

Originally Posted by Engine_Roars

Saying that those people should not have been sleeping on the pavement, and that is why they got killed is as good as saying that girls should not wear revealing/short clothes, and if they wear its okay to rape them.

I don't see any relation between the two. Poor analogy, IMO, if one was attempted.

Originally Posted by Engine_Roars

That guy was/is a goon. Period. He started this "Being Human" thing for exactly this day, because he knew we Indians are the biggest emotional fools. He killed black bucks, hit a lady, spoiled Vivek Oberois carrier and also do read about constable Patil who was accompanying him on this fateful day(Hint 1: That guy is dead now. Hint 2: He was a witness and he refused to change his stand).

Seems you personally know an awful lot about him to call him a goon. He killed black 'bucks' - how many? And regarding your hints, it would be better if you read your own recommendation. The constable stuck to the truth and Salman's lawyers tried everything to get him to deny the truth. His death however was because of TB. Don't offer hints which aren't related to the case discussion at all.

We are always so fond of lose talk. Salman didn't kill black bucks, he killed 1 black buck and 3 chinkaaras (as per news reported when the incident happened). Has the official count changed since then? He should get the just punishment for those crimes as well, but let us not sensationalize it with loosely worded, judgmental attitude.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This article by Suhel Seth is a must read.. "we are social vultures"..
http://www.ndtv.com/opinion/salman-k...source=taboola

[alpha1]

Originally Posted by alpha1

How in the world does our law and order machinery justify such kind of delays for pronouncing judgements?

Citizen rights in India and legal system is an absolute farce.

In fact let me get amused a little about how people of this thread have taken sides and playing defense lawyer and prosecution.

No one is lamenting or raising stink over the fact that it took more than a decade to pronounce judgement for a criminal case!

Damn you police, and damn you judges.
It is because of absolute ineptness and incompetence of you folks that the country is in a real mess of corruption.
And the high and mighty can get away with anything.

[raghu.t.k]

Really sad to see many claiming it to be a mere accident. An accident is something that happens "beyond" one's control, like a tyre burst, or machinery mal function. or the other party being responsible.

In this case, I am sure that Salman knew that he should not drive without a license, and it is dangerous to drive after a drink, and it could kill or maim someone. Being drunk and not in senses is not an excuse for him to drive. Where was this driver on that day? Being a celebrity, he should have been more than careful as to not set a bad example. If he was not a celebrity and had no connections, he would have been behind the bars on day 1, irespctive of whether he really drove or not, whether he was drunk or not, and only after the judgement or getting bail would he have seen the outside world. Also the whole world would have blamed him on how irresponsible the "driver" was and the speed would automatically be 3 digits!! So lets not bring the argument that he is a victim of his celebrity. With regards to being a changed man, or his repentance, or his charity does not qualify for not being punished. If that is the case, every murder, rapist can claim the same, and could start a charity to become an Angel..! It is his celebrity status, that people actually support him inspite of the crime.

So if he has really changed, let him own up to the mistake, and serve his sentence, come out and then start something that stops others from driving under influence. We need to get away from seeking leniency because he is a celebrity!!

Equally bad is that the legal system needed 13years to arrive at this, or the fact that the poor constable was left to fend for himself when against such powerful people ( as per the wordpress blog) is really inhuman.

[Lalvaz]

Originally Posted by Hatari

No one is contesting the fact that it was a big mistake to drive.
But you are probably the only one here (and possibly in the entire country) not convinced it was an accident. DUI would cloud his judgement would it not?

Everyone knows it is an accident. The point that Blue Pulsar is trying to make is that DUI is a punishable offence, and Salman knew that he was DUI, he knew that he did not even have a driving license, he was warned to slow down by the police bodyguard, he chose to ignore that, he lost control of the vehicle, his rash and negligent acts caused the death of 1 person and injuries to 5 others. The fact that he was DUI means that his judgement was clouded and could result in an accident, which came true in this case.

His actions post accident were even more disgusting where he ran away from the scene of the crime, supposedly to avoid mob violence, but did he go to the police station and surrender? No.

Finally when he was arrested, and charged, what did he do? Pleaded that he was not even at the wheel. His legal team spared no steps in trying to mock the legal system. All those actions are desplicable. He should have been man enough to own up to the accident, take the punishment on the chin and move on. By now he would have been a free man.

[Hatari]

Originally Posted by Lalvaz

His actions post accident were even more disgusting where he ran away from the scene of the crime, supposedly to avoid mob violence, but did he go to the police station and surrender? No.

Finally when he was arrested, and charged, what did he do? Pleaded that he was not even at the wheel. His legal team spared no steps in trying to mock the legal system. All those actions are desplicable. He should have been man enough to own up to the accident, take the punishment on the chin and move on. By now he would have been a free man.

I'm not defending what he did. But can you point out even 3 people who have stood their ground and owned up to running somebody over (even if they are sober) in all the history of road accidents in India for the past 50 years.

Since you are bringing this up, and saying what he should have done, I presume ofcourse that you yourself would have owned up and surrendered to the cops.

Lets not be hypocrites.

[Lalvaz]

Originally Posted by Hatari

I'm not defending what he did. But can you point out even 3 people who have stood their ground and owned up to running somebody over (even if they are sober) in all the history of road accidents in India for the past 50 years.

Since you are bringing this up, and saying what he should have done, I presume ofcourse that you yourself would have owned up and surrendered to the cops.

Lets not be hypocrites.

Your argument is ridiculous, according to that, no one does ever own up to their crime. That is definitely not the case.

John Abraham was involved in a traffic accident. He owned up and was arrested and then let off on bail.

Thousands of Common people have accidents on the road and do own up to their mistakes. They do go through the grind. That is the correct thing to do.

[kartavya]

Originally Posted by Hatari

I'm not defending what he did. But can you point out even 3 people who have stood their ground and owned up to running somebody over (even if they are sober) in all the history of road accidents in India for the past 50 years.

Since you are bringing this up, and saying what he should have done, I presume ofcourse that you yourself would have owned up and surrendered to the cops.

Lets not be hypocrites.

I don't know cases to point out people who have helped someone who they might have run over.

Doesn't make it right though does it?
Its a clear case of Hit and Run. Just because others would have done the same doesn't make Salman not owning up even mildly acceptable.

[srishiva]

Didn't the retrial itself proceed very fast? It was the original trial that had taken too long according to my understanding.

Deserved much more harsh punishment for doing something which you know could lead to something like this (DUI).

[noopster]

Originally Posted by Hatari

Lets not be hypocrites.

Originally Posted by Lalvaz

Your argument is ridiculous, according to that, no one does ever own up to their crime. That is definitely not the case.

You are both correct to some extent. Whether you or I would have gone voluntarily to the cops and owned up to a similar offense however is not the point. That would depend on your confidence in your ability to beat the law and perhaps how much of a conscience you have. In the end everyone is practical and looks out for their own interests. Let's not cloud the issue by dragging in "What would YOU have done?" into this debate.

It's very simple: Salman Khan was a defendant and like every other defenddant he has the right to put up a full defence. Whether that defence was adequately thought through, or full of holes, or self-contradictory, or plain wrong, is not for us to decide. The hon'ble sessions court judge examined all the evidence put forth by prosecution and defence, and arrived at the judgement that he was indeed guilty. That's it.

What I find a little confusing is this: those staunchly supporting Salman and insisting that he is innocent/has been victimized/wasn't responsible for the death since it was accidental are either ignoring or unaware of the law. I haven't seen the judgement myself but from various accounts it does appear as if the prosecution was able to PROVE the following:

1. Defendant was indeed driving the car himself
2. Defendant was in a state of intoxication
3. Blood sample taken for alcohol test was not tainted as alleged by the defence (drunken wardboy theory)
4. Defendant didn't possess a valid driving license at the time of the accident
5. Defendant was explicitly warned about the dangers of driving drunk by his personal security guard who was incidentally the prime witness, although deceased, but ignored the warning

Remove Salman Khan from the equation and consider the above points. Is it UNREASONABLE for the sessions court judge to have returned a verdict of guilty? He could have thrown the book at him and given him 10 years but settled on half of that. More than Alistair Perreira got but I don't know enough about the intricacies of that case to comment. By the way one factor that nobody seems to mention is the deterrent value: Salman Khan is a celebrity and this is a high-profile case: it's not unnatural that the State should want to make an example of him and set a clear precedent to deter normal folks from committing the same act.

There's little point into going into other factors on both sides: how saintly the man is, how much he has done for the underprivileged, how he is being targeted because of Schadenfreude...or on the other hand how much of a monster he is, how he battered the women in his life and killed innocent animals for pleasure etc. etc. That is just irrelevant and background noise from a legal point of view. You may judge Salman the man by those standards if you will, but not Salman the defendant.

[msdivy]

Originally Posted by blacksport

Salman's act is punishable by law and he got the sentence he deserved. But please don't take peasure from his plight. He may be rich and powerful, but he does not deserve vilification for not more than what he has done.

I like some of Salman Khan's movies and watch them over many times. But that is reel-life, created a team of movie makers. In real life, I expect him to lead a life bound by society rules which is same for rest of people like us. But why do you feel we are deriving pleasure by expecting him to abide by the law?

Originally Posted by Hatari

But can you point out even 3 people who have stood their ground and owned up to running somebody over (even if they are sober) in all the history of road accidents in India for the past 50 years.

There are plenty of examples in the accident thread itself where the fellow BHPians took the victims to hospital after an accident involving themselves.

Salman Khan, being a 36 year old adult at that time of the incident and being with his cortège (all adults), ran away from the spot. Instead if he had helped the victims, dead man might have been alive. Salman Khan is a poor example for the society. He is not a hero in real life. He failed when it mattered.

[Hatari]

Originally Posted by Lalvaz

Your argument is ridiculous, according to that, no one does ever own up to their crime. That is definitely not the case.

John Abraham was involved in a traffic accident. He owned up and was arrested and then let off on bail.

Thousands of Common people have accidents on the road and do own up to their mistakes. They do go through the grind. That is the correct thing to do.

I mean instances that resulted in death. This did not.

Originally Posted by kartavya

I don't know cases to point out people who have helped someone who they might have run over.

Doesn't make it right though does it?
Its a clear case of Hit and Run. Just because others would have done the same doesn't make Salman not owning up even mildly acceptable.

Ofcourse not. He is clearly at fault and deserves the punishment.
What I am getting at is if you and I would have done the same thing, why are we being preachy and hypocritical.

Let things be. Since we are not angels, why bash him.

Originally Posted by msdivy

I like some of Salman Khan's movies and watch them over many times. But that is reel-life, created a team of movie makers. In real life, I expect him to lead a life bound by society rules which is same for rest of people like us. But why do you feel we are deriving pleasure by expecting him to abide by the law?
There are plenty of examples in the accident thread itself where the fellow BHPians took the victims to hospital after an accident involving themselves.

Salman Khan, being a 36 year old adult at that time of the incident and being with his cortège (all adults), ran away from the spot. Instead if he had helped the victims, dead man might have been alive. Salman Khan is a poor example for the society. He is not a hero in real life. He failed when it mattered.

What would you have done after you killed a man?
I think we are all passing judgement on what he did wrong.. are we all convinced we would have done things differently if you would have been in his place.

Thats the question worth yourself before we publicly bash away.

[msdivy]

Originally Posted by Hatari

What would you have done after you killed a man?

I can tell what I have done. No point discussing what I would have done. So since I haven't committed that act, I cannot answer your question.

I think we are all passing judgement on what he did wrong.. are we all convinced we would have done things differently if you would have been in his place.

We may or may not have encountered such situations. We are discussing how a responsible citizen must act in such situations.

Thats the question worth yourself before we publicly bash away.

Since you want the answer, I don't think I could have gotten away killing someone. So next best thing is help victims, confess and hope for lesser sentence.

PS: Salman Khan wouldn't have known whether the victims are dead or alive immediately accident. So he made the decision to scout without knowing whether he had killed someone or not.

[Lalvaz]

Originally Posted by Hatari

Ofcourse not. He is clearly at fault and deserves the punishment.
What I am getting at is if you and I would have done the same thing, why are we being preachy and hypocritical.

Let things be. Since we are not angels, why bash him.

Since you have admitted that he is clearly at fault, just accept the verdict and say that Justice took its course.

What is this weird argument that we're being hypocritical? Can you explain what hypocritical comments have people made in this case?