Fundamentally wrong

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

aparnauma

@GoodDoc_2105

Trailblazer

+ 4

Posted: 9 years ago

#41

What is criminal negligence?

Anandi was doing her duty as a responsible citizen of this society when she went to stop Akheraj's son's wedding with Pooja.

She wanted to reach in time to stop the procedings and she felt that she did not have time on her hands.

But she did feel that her baby will not come to harm because of police presence.

She didn't go there with no protection.

This is not criminal negligence.

If Anandi's role in Nandini's kidnapis defined as criminal negligence then Mangala's role in the shaoing up of that child's life amounts to a series of criminal activities starting with concealing a crime then committing a crime of doing child marriage then not informing the auhorities about the abuse.

For all these she can be held responsible.

She will come into comparison as long as she thinks of herself as the child's mother and prevents the child from meeting her mother.

Quote

SPuja

@SPuja

Rocker

Posted: 9 years ago

#42

Originally posted by: leavesandwaves

😛 I point out a character's mistakes with precision - I think that is what we have to do in forum - discuss the characters. And now I understand what u r doing - targetting me - a forum member. Against the rules and so, I end it here.

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

SPuja

@SPuja

Rocker

Posted: 9 years ago

#43

Arguing armed men with an infant in arms was criminal negligence, not going away after police arrived was criminal negligence, watching bullets tamasha with a child in arms was criminal negligence. There was no need to do so even after if we presume that she had no time to drop the child home.

Quote

leavesandwaves

@leavesandwaves

Sparkler

+ 3

Posted: 9 years ago

#44

Originally posted by: SPuja

When I point out your mistakes you start playing victim card and saying I am targetting member. I am not targetting you personally. I am targetting your thought process. If you cant take what you give, why blame me?

Edited by leavesandwaves - 9 years ago

Quote

aparnauma

@GoodDoc_2105

Trailblazer

+ 4

Posted: 9 years ago

#45

Was she arguing with them because it was her hobby?

Or was she trying to get them to stop what they are doing?

She knew that police would come there.

She moved away when the talks failed and armed fight started.

She moved from the site of action as far away as she could and was standing behind the wall to protect her baby and herself.

It would have amounted to criminal negligence if she dropped the baby out of fear and ran.

She was trying to do everything she could to keep her child safe.

Quote

leavesandwaves

@leavesandwaves

Sparkler

+ 3

Posted: 9 years ago

#46

Originally posted by: SPuja
Arguing armed men with an infant in arms was criminal negligence, not going away after police arrived was criminal negligence, watching bullets tamasha with a child in arms was criminal negligence. There was no need to do so even after if we presume that she had no time to drop the child home.

Just take some legal opinion about what you are saying.

She was not seeing any tamasha. She was looking when the criminal will be overpowered by the efficient police and make her safe.
As for arguing with armed men, she was telling them what they are doing is unlawful.
How can you say when to go away or when not to? ? She was waiting for the right time. Even if she had tried slinking away, what was the guarantee that she wont be followed ?

Quote

leavesandwaves

@leavesandwaves

Sparkler

+ 3

Posted: 9 years ago

#47

My only point is to stick to the present. Is Jagya right as a lawamaker accountable to the people and to the CM to take a minor kid as a last resort to a highly dangerous criminal who is threatening, armtwisting and employing all the tricks to get what he wants? Even if the kid herself wants him to do so.

Quote

aparnauma

@GoodDoc_2105

Trailblazer

+ 4

Posted: 9 years ago

#48

Originally posted by: leavesandwaves
My only point is to stick to the present. Is Jagya right as a lawamaker accountable to the people and to the CM to take a minor kid as a last resort to a highly dangerous criminal who is threatening, armtwisting and employing all the tricks to get what he wants? Even if the kid herself wants him to do so.

Jagya as a law maker is accountable to people.

But here the people whom he is using to get his wife released from captivity are those people whom he considers as members of his family.

For him Anandi is part of family with whom he shares a relationship which has no name.The girl is not a stranger but family to him though the girl herself doesn't know it yet.

Anandi and her daughter are not some random people who are nobody to him and they are putting themselves at risk whole heartedly completely trusting him to ensure that no harm comes to them.

Quote

Awfulggt

@Awfulggt

Voyager

Posted: 9 years ago

#49

Originally posted by: Missesha
[

In Anandi's case even if Pooja's marriage had happened, there was always an option to nullify it later. For that, a poor little infant need not be sacrificed.

This! And imagine blaming God 12 years later😳 and acting like a victim while making the girl believe that she was abandoned.

Quote

Awfulggt

@Awfulggt

Voyager

Posted: 9 years ago

#50

Anandi could end Urmi's marriage in a jiffy. A marriage that resulted in pregnancy. The gir was carrying and the parents of both sides fully supporting it.

But the same Anandi could not think of ending kundan-Pooja's marriage 10 minutes after it happened(after having the child bride's mom's support) . She had to run there within that fixed time with a sick child in hand ...and had to stand and argue. What a loving mother one has to be, to do that

EDIT: and I believe that's not being selfless. It is being cruel towards a helpless baby.

Edited by The_Alchemist. - 9 years ago