[k_ajay]

Originally Posted by blue_pulsar

Isn't 5 years of imprisonment too low for killing one person and injuring (attempting to kill) four more? This is not an accident. He drove his car under the influence of alcohol.

Sorry, but that is pure nonsense. Since when is driving under the influence of alcohol also considered to be 'attempting to kill'? So should everyone who drive in an inebriated state, be jailed for attempting to kill? I'm glad the law doesn't permit judges to think the way you have.

The court itself has given a part of the offense verdict to be 'culpable homicide 'not amounting to murder''. Let's not go overboard here.

Originally Posted by blacksport

The rule of law is paramount, and if the judge found that he should be jailed for 5 years it is just.

It is an act of negligence and there was no intent to kill. Culpable, yes. Punishable, yes. Yet I feel sorry for him.

Exactly! It was just wrong to drive in an inebriated state, it can be called beyond negligence, but certainly not attempting to kill or murder.

Celebrity or whatever, he made a major mistake (not crime) of driving drunk and he should pay the price for it. Sadly, a person had to also lose his life due to his stupidity. And 3 disabled people.

Also surprised that he didn't have license when he was driving. He should decently do the jail time rather than keep contesting it. He has wronged considerably (drunk, no license). What is sad that he lied that his driver was the one driving. That's a shame!

[shifu]

Originally Posted by Cartman

The driver can be accused of perjury.

Originally Posted by k_ajay

What is sad that he lied his driver was the one driving. That's a shame!

Exactly. And now the driver might be charged with perjury.

Source: http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/salma...charges-760893

[SDP]

Originally Posted by saket77

I am asking if you guys think it is safe to sleep on a footpath? Why the question is so difficult to understand?
Probably because the poor has no other place to sleep.

...

Saket, your question is well understood. What most people haven't understood is why you are asking a question with such a obvious answer. Just for the records, the answer is - "No, its not safe to sleep on a footpath. But sometimes circumstances force some people to do it."

I believe that question was leading to some point. Now that you have the answer, can you please get to that point?

[johnjacob]

Originally Posted by saket77

I feel that sleeping on a footpath also amount to negligence.

You remind me of this famous quote by Anatole France.

Originally Posted by Anatole France

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

[Chetan_Rao]

I see it this way: both parties, victim(s) and accused had the option to make or avoid a dangerous choice (sleeping on the footpath and DUI), and it's a no-brainer who was in a better position to avoid theirs.

[apachelongbow]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

I see it this way: both parties, victim(s) and accused had the option to make or avoid a dangerous choice (sleeping on the footpath and DUI), and it's a no-brainer who was in a better position to avoid theirs.

I agree with you regarding choices on the intentional DUI, its simple abuse of power and wealth coupled with unbridled arrogance, and he must be made to pay, however no one, likes out of choice to sleep on the road or the footpath, i believe rather than choice it is sheer helplessness, because of extreme poverty which compels people to do so. Calling their helplessness a choice is rubbing salt into their wounds.

[saket77]

Originally Posted by SDP

Saket, your question is well understood. What most people haven't understood is why you are asking a question with such a obvious answer. Just for the records, the answer is - "No, its not safe to sleep on a footpath. But sometimes circumstances force some people to do it."

I believe that question was leading to some point. Now that you have the answer, can you please get to that point?

Thank you Sir!

Let me begin by telling that I am myself a big advocate of safety, both on and off the forum, hence in no circumstances I would support DUI. Also, I feel the judge let off Salman lightly.

Coming to the debate, I know the question was well understood, but probably the sympathy for the poor and the dead made that one tricky to answer. Probably the sensibilities prevent us from going against the unprivileged but that does not make it right. Salman is a big culprit of DUI here but there is also a hint of contributory negligence. We cannot turn out a blind eye towards this issue because this was a DUI incident. I have spent a good time of my professional life in Delhi, where the problem remains the same. I had to walk on the roads as footpath would be full of either people already sleeping or preparing to sleep. Or unprivileged children playing there. What if someone walking on the road due to this issue gets killed after being hit by a vehicle?
Have members here not seen even temporary structures being built blocking the footpath? People sleeping on the footpath can roll on the road in sleep and come under a perfectly driven vehicle. If a car brakes fail, what a driver does is downshifting and then scrap on the side to slow down. But you cannot do it because you have people sleeping there. You may lose your life due to this. The issue is bigger than what meets the eye. This was my first instinct when I saw this thread under the Indian car scene sub forum.

The police will never act on people sleeping on footpath because they cannot extract any money from them.

Let us identify the issue rather than just discussing the punishment.

Regards,
Saket.

[Rodie09]

My 2 cents:

I think the whole "sleeping on the footpath" argument that is trying to put the resposibility partially on the victim, falls flat if you look at this way -

what if there were 2-3 people just taking a post dinner stroll on the footpath or just chit-chatting on the pavement, and got rammed by a drunk driver who could not control his vehicle. Will you say that foot path is not a place to take a stroll or chit chat??

I'd have understood that argument if the victim had gone to sleep on a railway track or an airport runway which are prohibited for such usage. Footpath is very much a place where there could be people at any hour of the day. Do you really think it'd have been a completely different matter had the guy been upright on his feet and awake and not sleeping lying down??

That's a lame excuse to run away from responsibility.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

......Calling their helplessness a choice is rubbing salt into their wounds.

You misunderstand, kind sir.

.......no one, likes out of choice to sleep on the road or the footpath, i believe rather than choice it is sheer helplessness, because of extreme poverty which compels people to do so.

This is pretty much what I meant too.

Utopian "nobody needs to sleep on the street" ideals aside, the victims may not have had a (real) choice where to sleep except where they did, but the accused willingly made a choice with no possibly positive consequences, an especially stupid decision when by all accounts he had a sober driver riding shotgun in the SAME car!

[msdivy]

Originally Posted by poloman

Footpath is not the place to sleep, however cruel this statement may sound this is a reality.

They didn't sleep right next to the tar road. Not even on the shoulder. But at least 25 feet from the road edge. Proof, this is the shutter damaged by the hit:

Damage to his Land Cruiser:

Originally Posted by blacksport

But can't ignore that people are extracting pleasure from the sight of a rich and powerful man going to jail.

If rich & powerful commit crime they have to jail. What is pleasure in that? Couldn't get the point.

Originally Posted by Rodie09

what if there were 2-3 people just taking a post dinner stroll on the footpath or just chit-chatting on the pavement, and got rammed by a drunk driver who could not control his vehicle. Will you say that foot path is not a place to take a stroll or chit chat??

Yes sleeping was just incidental. They could just been standing or even walking.

[kiku007]

Originally Posted by msdivy

Yes sleeping was just incidental. They could just been standing or even walking.

That's the key point people who are bringing in the "Shouldn't be sleeping on pavements" argument are missing to see.

Coming to the case as such, something which majority don't get to see are the thousands of cases wherein actual drivers and vehicles are changed to protect the drivers due to DUI, expired insurance or license. Like it or not IT IS COMMON in India. So don't just get excited yet that the rule of law has won in this country. Salman's famous and obviously drew attention to him and so ended up in jail. That's about it.

Talk to any Travels/Tour/Transport Truck Operator and they will be able to provide you a story where driver or vehicle was changed. I'm obviously not supporting it but then that's reality.

[Anghammarad]

Forget people sleeping on the pavements, that's irrelevant to the issue at hand.
He drove.
Drunk.
End of story.
Doesn't matter who he is, and it should not.
I'd like to see more judicious application of the laws of our country to everyone, irrespective of who they are, be they road dwellers or top politicians.

[The Rationalist]

Feeling sorry that few fellow bhpians are trying to portray the verdict as an injustice. Most people would prefer not to sleep on pavements if they had a choice. The number of people who are living on the fringes of our 'civilized cities and towns' is frightening. If a state like mine can produce beggars, I fret at the places with lesser opportunity. Most people don't have pleasures when some rich guy gets behind the bars. What would you do if your kin was slaughtered by a drunk driver? Come up with the excuse that it was an accident?

A DRUNK DRIVER's RIGHT PLACE IS GALLOWS. Beggars and downtrodden are created by the system. Anyone of us can end on a pavement, mocking have nots doesn't suit humanity. I wish bhpians be more righteous, because there are thousands who get influenced by the stands we take. This actor is just another person, he doesn't value life, I would have believed his charity drama if he had accepted his fault. I think his charity was started to show him in a better light as he knew he could prolong this case.

[blue_pulsar]

Originally Posted by k_ajay

Sorry, but that is pure nonsense. Since when is driving under the influence of alcohol also considered to be 'attempting to kill'? So should everyone who drive in an inebriated state, be jailed for attempting to kill? I'm glad the law doesn't permit judges to think the way you have.

The court itself has given a part of the offense verdict to be 'culpable homicide 'not amounting to murder''. Let's not go overboard here.



Exactly! It was just wrong to drive in an inebriated state, it can be called beyond negligence, but certainly not attempting to kill or murder.

First and foremost thing on team bhp is to respect each other's views. Calling somebody's views nonsense is unacceptable. If you disagree with me, let's respectfully agree to disagree.

What do I do if I want to kill someone? Just drink, drive a vehicle and hit another person? He was drunk and he drove. All that matters. Now if he killed someone and was a genuine accident, that is a different story. I wouldn't have made this statement then.

[chohan]

The alleged accident that led to the death of one person and serious injuries to four more who were sleeping on the footpath in the front of American Express Bakery happened on early morning of 28th September 2002. On the 27th September 2002 Bombay Times/ Times of India published the story -

Salman harassing me, says Aishwarya

m.timesofindia.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/Salman-harassing-me-says-Aishwarya/articleshow/23402266.cms