DomainK Posted February 3, 2013 Posted February 3, 2013 What makes you feel so certain about celebrities being punished even if proven guilty? One such precedent is Sanju "baba" who got away scot-free after being booked under TADA!! For storing weapons and aiding in waging war against India!!! In comparison' date=' what are a few homeless slum dwellers killed by a drunken celebrity?!?[/quote'] So let me get this clear, you think he should be jailed just because he is a celebrity supported by the fact that you are dissatisfied with the way another celebrity was treated by the law? What kind of logic is that?
gs Posted February 3, 2013 Posted February 3, 2013 So let me get this clear' date=' you think he should be jailed just because he is a celebrity supported by the fact that you are dissatisfied with the way another celebrity was treated by the law? What kind of logic is that?[/quote'] No, but prosecute him fast and be done with it. It's already been 11 years now!! Indian justice system sucks when it comes to enforcing the law with respect to celebrities and I only mentioned about Sanju baba as an example in this context. Once again my gut feeling is nothing will happen with Sallu either even if he is proven guilty, but I am happy to be proven wrong. I understand your law point and all, but are you ok with how Sanju baba and his TADA issues were handled or the way the alleged drunk driving/manslaughter case of Sallu is being handled?
The Outsider Posted February 3, 2013 Posted February 3, 2013 What makes you so sure that he is guilty? Some special evidence you have seen that others have not? Why would initial eye witnesses lie about who was driving?
DomainK Posted February 3, 2013 Posted February 3, 2013 Why would initial eye witnesses lie about who was driving? Probably no reason. Witnesses are known to have lied in the past for a variety of reasons. May be he is guilty, may be he is not. But lets not judge him and brand him a criminal before he gets his day on court. Let a qualified judge see the evidence and take a decision.
The Outsider Posted February 3, 2013 Posted February 3, 2013 Probably no reason. Witnesses are known to have lied in the past for a variety of reasons. May be he is guilty' date=' may be he is not. But lets not judge him and brand him a criminal before he gets his day on court. Let a qualified judge see the evidence and take a decision.[/quote'] LOL at your trust in "qualified" judges! The judiciary system is as corrupt and as defunct as any other.
DomainK Posted February 3, 2013 Posted February 3, 2013 LOL at your trust in "qualified" judges! The judiciary system is as corrupt and as defunct as any other. Yup, we have a corrupt judiciary, so lets judge people ourselves. Great idea.
The Outsider Posted February 3, 2013 Posted February 3, 2013 Yup' date=' we have a corrupt judiciary, so lets judge people ourselves. Great idea.[/quote'] Yeah, nothing wrong in using common sense to make a judgment rather than relying on a system which takes 15 years to convict someone found with sacks of currency at his home, and that also when he became politically irrelevant.
Raghav_12 Posted February 3, 2013 Posted February 3, 2013 Yeah' date=' nothing wrong in using common sense to make a judgment rather than relying on a system which takes 15 years to convict someone found with sacks of currency at his home, and that also when he became politically irrelevant.[/quote'] World over jurisprudence is based on evidences. You don't convict based on "common sense". Also we blame all delay in court cases on judiciary without realizing that court will give judgement based in the things presented in the court, not on the things presented by Arnab Goswami. If prosecution is weak, judiciary can't do much.
The Outsider Posted February 3, 2013 Posted February 3, 2013 World over jurisprudence is based on evidences. You don't convict based on "common sense". Also we blame all delay in court cases on judiciary without realizing that court will give judgement based in the things presented in the court' date=' not on the things presented by Arnab Goswami. If prosecution is weak, judiciary can't do much.[/quote'] Yeah and Laloo Prasad is innocent of all corruption charges and Tytler and Kumar had nothing to do with the '84 riots. :hatsoff:
gs Posted February 3, 2013 Posted February 3, 2013 Yeah and Laloo Prasad is innocent of all corruption charges and Tytler and Kumar had nothing to do with the '84 riots. :hatsoff: Couldn't agree more. It's one thing to talk about the theoritical aspects of law, but we have to be pragmatic considering the current state of judiciary or for that matter any branch of government in India.
Crookbond Posted February 3, 2013 Posted February 3, 2013 Yeah and Laloo Prasad is innocent of all corruption charges and Tytler and Kumar had nothing to do with the '84 riots. :hatsoff: I agree to your overall notion of "common sense" but how do you use it with cautious discretion?
Desi Cartman Posted February 3, 2013 Posted February 3, 2013 Yeah and Laloo Prasad is innocent of all corruption charges and Tytler and Kumar had nothing to do with the '84 riots. :hatsoff: Do you remember many years ago they had to break open Gavaskar's locker in delhi's club and they found 15k USD which gavaskar couldnt even be bothered to worry about even after getting notices to vacate the locker. So what happened to that investigation ? So India mein sab chalta hai New Delhi: Tax officials have questioned Sunil Gavaskar, the batting legend of India, over the recovery of foreign currency from a club locker in Mumbai, the Press Trust of India (PTI) reported on Friday.Gavaskar was summoned to the offices of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Thursday, PTI reported, but did not give further details. "Gavaskar was summoned by us. We asked him certain questions to seek some information", the news agency quoted high-level sources as saying.Media reports said foreign currency and traveller's cheques worth $ 15,000 were recovered from Gavaskar's locker at the Mumbai Gymkhana club last year during renovation of the premises.Gavaskar was reportedly out of town when the locker was broken after repeated reminders by the club management to clear the locker went unheeded.
Nova Posted February 3, 2013 Posted February 3, 2013 ^ That was legit money, he received as allowances, from companies... so was his claim. Paperwork shown to authorities and case closed.
DomainK Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 Yeah' date=' nothing wrong in using common sense to make a judgment rather than relying on a system which takes 15 years to convict someone found with sacks of currency at his home, and that also when he became politically irrelevant.[/quote'] What you think is common sense is in reality nothing more than guesswork. You are just trying to figure out what must be the most likely scenario. And that depends on how much you actually know about such cases. Subconsciously you are letting some prejudices influence your mind in the guesswork. Interesting to note that whenever a celebrity, especially someone who has lived a larger than life, extravagant and eventful life and is known to be involved in controversies in the past, is accused of a crime, the first public reaction is to believe that he must be guilty. Character assassination takes advantage of the public's this very sentiment - their weakness towards the sensational. The ability to accuse a big man of something heinous and throwing abuses at him at every available opportunity often overpowers the ability to think rationally. Salman Khan should be treated equal to any other Indian citizen. And under Indian law, every accused in considered innocent until proved guilty. Salmak Khan should be no exception.
DomainK Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 Yeah and Laloo Prasad is innocent of all corruption charges and Tytler and Kumar had nothing to do with the '84 riots. :hatsoff: And this post proves what I just posted above. Your opinion that "some powerful people tend to can get away with crimes", has created a prejudice in your mind and whenever a celebrity is accused of a crime, you believe that he must have done it and you believe that he will eventually get away using his powers. You will refuse to believe that he could be innocent because it does not vindicate your subconscious opinion of the rich and powerful. There are no parallels between the Lalu case and the Salman case except that they are both known names in their respective fields and both are powerful. Is there a possibility that Salman could actually be innocent? Of course there is. Should he then get the benefit of doubt till he gets a fair trial? Why not? That's his right.
DomainK Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 I agree to your overall notion of "common sense" but how do you use it with cautious discretion? I would appreciate someone's opinion based on common sense if that someone has some reasonable knowledge of experience of what he is talking about. How many times we hear about a film star accused of a brawl or some other petty crime and we think "oh, he must have done it. These film stars are so arrogant!" Do we ever stop to think that sometimes even film stars can be victims of their own fame? Can a common man accuse a star of something bad just to get his name in the papers? It's possible, but we all have a tendency of giving in to the sensational.
Raghav_12 Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 I would appreciate someone's opinion based on common sense if that someone has some reasonable knowledge of experience of what he is talking about. How many times we hear about a film star accused of a brawl or some other petty crime and we think "oh, he must have done it. These film stars are so arrogant!" Do we ever stop to think that sometimes even film stars can be victims of their own fame? Can a common man accuse a star of something bad just to get his name in the papers? It's possible, but we all have a tendency of giving in to the sensational. All people advocating "theory of common sense" should watch '12 angry men".
The Dark Horse Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 I would appreciate someone's opinion based on common sense if that someone has some reasonable knowledge of experience of what he is talking about. How many times we hear about a film star accused of a brawl or some other petty crime and we think "oh, he must have done it. These film stars are so arrogant!" Do we ever stop to think that sometimes even film stars can be victims of their own fame? Can a common man accuse a star of something bad just to get his name in the papers? It's possible, but we all have a tendency of giving in to the sensational. If I am right, he has been accused several times for different incidents for breaking the law. It's natural that people accuse him because he's a star. That's because they want him to be treated as a normal man and not as someone special.
The Outsider Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 And this post proves what I just posted above. Your opinion that "some powerful people tend to can get away with crimes", has created a prejudice in your mind and whenever a celebrity is accused of a crime, you believe that he must have done it and you believe that he will eventually get away using his powers. You will refuse to believe that he could be innocent because it does not vindicate your subconscious opinion of the rich and powerful. Isn't it true that powerful people get away with crimes? The country has witnessed massive corruption with the amount involved rising with each scandal which comes up. The country witnessed some of the most gruesome riots in '84 and '02. Did these things happen on their own as everyone is innocent and there have been hardly any convictions? There are no parallels between the Lalu case and the Salman case except that they are both known names in their respective fields and both are powerful. That's a pretty strong parallel - being powerful and influential. Laloo has not been found guilty either. Do you consider him to be innocent? Tytler and Sajjan Kumar have not been found guilty either. Do you consider them to be innocent? Is there a possibility that Salman could actually be innocent? Of course there is. Should he then get the benefit of doubt till he gets a fair trial? Why not? That's his right. A very slim possibility. LOL at free trial. You call the sham of a judicial system we have free trial. Why did the initial witnesses claim that Salman Khan was driving? Why did he initially claim that he was not drinking and later tests found alcohol? Why did he flee the scene of the accident? Why does Salman Khan have such frequent brushes with the law? Common sense will tell you that Salman Khan is guilty and common sense will also tell you that being rich, powerful, and influential he will most likely get away. If we go by the pathetic conviction rates in the Indian judicial system, India will be a model nation with little or no crime. The reality tells you otherwise and someone is committing these crimes and those someones are getting away with them with alarming regularity.
Recommended Posts