Salman Khan behind bars - breaking news ! - Page 4

Originally posted by: MrspetloverUS

My being animal lover has nothing to do with Veg or Nonveg people. I understand the saying 'Jivo Jivasya Jivanam". My family in Nonveg and me being Veg I cook it so that is not the point here.

I agree Salman is not the only guilty party and rest should have some consiquences too.

Hope I am clear here.

I did get what u meant MPLji i just needed the orginal message as a quote and didn't wanna go to the first page 😛

my main point in saying the ruling is unfair is the same as urs, that others shld have consequences... i think the issue is that salman has been in a glitch for the past few years, so it is just so much more easier to blame it on him, and say well he was a bad aaple anyways.... i think either the give punishment to everyone involved or release all of them... i think according to law the others shld be punished thru the theory of guilt thru association 😊

Originally posted by: seema_17

I did get what u meant MPLji i just needed the orginal message as a quote and didn't wanna go to the first page 😛

my main point in saying the ruling is unfair is the same as urs, that others shld have consequences... i think the issue is that salman has been in a glitch for the past few years, so it is just so much more easier to blame it on him, and say well he was a bad aaple anyways.... i think either the give punishment to everyone involved or release all of them... i think according to law the others shld be punished thru the theory of guilt thru association 😊

the law should apply to all members involved. so I agree with u on this

😊

thanks friend... i kno that theory applies in canadian law but i am not so sure abt indian law 😊

Originally posted by: seema_17

at the risk of being the odd one out, i think what happened with salman is unfair, there were others who were there, they did not get convicted.... i really understand and feel for the vegetarian people who r upset by the killing, but I as a non-vegetarian would be a hypocrite if i said he should be jailed for killing an innocent animal, because we too kill animals for food, just because we think chickens are for eating that doesn't make them any less in the eyes of god. we might not directly go and kill the animal but by buying the meat we contribute to the problem.... so i would play the devil's advocate and say that what happened with salman is unfair

Dear Seema

It is not because Salman killed an animal he is getting punished.
He has killed Blackbug (2) & Chinkara (2), both of them are protected animals are Forest protection act 1980 because they are endangered species. It invites a rigorous punishment of 3-7 years.
He is also guilty of hiding facts & trying to subvert the court.
He also has been charged with illegitimate possession of firearms, tell me what would have happened to a common if he had done the same.

Originally posted by: MrspetloverUS

With Inidan law anything goes. Or they make it as they go along just like SRGMP Ya😉 ????

hehehe

sooo tru, just look at our government and politics, when the roots r messed up, i suppose we r expecting too much if we expect good fruits...😛 but i think its abt time things change now 😊

Originally posted by: friend17

the law should apply to all members involved. so I agree with u on this

😊

does it not depend on the degree of involvement too?

Originally posted by: seema_17

thanks friend... i kno that theory applies in canadian law but i am not so sure abt indian law 😊

Canada and India both use common law systems, so it should be pretty much the same.

But, does poaching of wildlife come under Civil Law or Criminal Law? Does anyone know?

Originally posted by: N Sinha

at the risk of being the odd one out, i think what happened with salman is unfair, there were others who were there, they did not get convicted.... i really understand and feel for the vegetarian people who r upset by the killing, but I as a non-vegetarian would be a hypocrite if i said he should be jailed for killing an innocent animal, because we too kill animals for food, just because we think chickens are for eating that doesn't make them any less in the eyes of god. we might not directly go and kill the animal but by buying the meat we contribute to the problem.... so i would play the devil's advocate and say that what happened with salman is unfair

Dear Seema

It is not because Salman killed an animal he is getting punished.
He has killed Blackbug (2) & Chinkara (2), both of them are protected animals are Forest protection act 1980 because they are endangered species. It invites a rigorous punishment of 3-7 years.
He is also guilty of hiding facts & trying to subvert the court.
He also has been charged with illegitimate possession of firearms, tell me what would have happened to a common if he had done the same.

yes sinhaji, i get your point, but who is making these rules? us men? we r telling ourselves and our own species, ok this animal is important lets not kill it, and the rest r free game.... i kno they r endangered species, but even in animals we r discriminating. i kno that a common man would be punished the same, but if there were other members involved with the common man, then i would say they shld be punished too.... guilt thru association is and shld be a crime.... tell me truly, is the method of letting the court decide who is guilty and who isn't a very reliable method. if he was the only one involved it would be plain as day, and there would be no problem with his conviction.... as for him hiding facts, it is punishable by law, but i think if i was in his place, and my freedom was at stake, then i might have tied to hide things to protect myself... ofcourse he shld be punished for hiding the facts, but that is something that anyone in his situation would do

Originally posted by: T.

Canada and India both use common law systems, so it should be pretty much the same.

But, does poaching of wildlife come under Civil Law or Criminal Law? Does anyone know?

i think it shld come under criminal, because criminal law matters r between the state and individual

Originally posted by: MrspetloverUS

Ofcourse that is why some of us are saying there should be some type of consequences for the rest for their amount of involvement if any.

but who decides how much they r involved? can we leave it upto the judge, one single person to decide the fate of several people, or shld we get a jury of citizens who will be biased?

that is the issue over there