I feel bad for tapu - Page 7

Originally posted by: SRKLuvr

she can be tried for conspiracy to murder yes but it depends on alot of things like ichha's statement and all😊

Originally posted by: ankit111

@SRKLuvr i nothing missed jii. we hd argument over it and u decided tht its confirmed tht she is not guilty. why yr own decision u r generalizing. and those so called professionals r mere a veeya fan. as u r claiming tht u r law student, thn u sd know tht a law expert sd talk unbiased according to law and not as veeya fan. in which law it is said tht a attempt to murder can be forgiven becoz she hated someone or she was poisoned by someone????? and even if talk to tht suicide case, why u r sticking to the the particular event. from video and other evidence it can be easily proved tht she was constantly instigating a drug edict, not mentally strong person, which led to his suicide. if u started studying law at the age of 13 (as u claim of being 17 yr old and 4 yr already studing) thn i can appreciate yr talent, but dont try to impose yr thought to other with mask of professionals.😆

Originally posted by: ankit111

whn its come to clear cut criminal case u start talking abt proof. either u sd be either veeya fan or a professional. both is not possible together. a professional cant be biased or fan of anyone.🤣🤣

Originally posted by: SRKLuvr

😆 If I was Tapu's lawyer this is what I would be stating😊 When it comes to law I know fully well what to do. Conspiracy to Murder is what Tapu can be tried for NOT instigation. I have already explained why! In any crime...even taking manslaughter or culpable driving...there needs to be a wrong act against the law - the actus reus - and an intention to create harm - the mens rea. Now u tell me....Vansh came in pointing the gun at Tapu - immediately it is obvious in the court that Tapu acted in self defence but the instigation had no intention and that is clear from the look on tapu's face and when she didnt know that he was suicidal then she has no culpability. Areyy that psychiatrist from Delhi said that drug addicts were prone to self harm - Ichha would testify about his mad behaviour and even I would get Veer to testify about that morning of 25th May when Tapu clearly made certain she thought Vansh did not have the guts to hurt himself. Tapu did not say to kill himself any lawyer would say that a gun was pointed at her head and it was her intention to talk him out of shooting her. Look...please dont teach me law. Abettment to suicide and instigation is when you have a clear INTENTION to do it! Tapu only said the truth that day and Vansh couldnt take it. ALso dont forget that the gun being there itself would prove that Vansh was dangerous as having the gun on him proved that he was intending to use it on someone.

Originally posted by: SRKLuvr

😆 If I was Tapu's lawyer this is what I would be stating😊 When it comes to law I know fully well what to do. Conspiracy to Murder is what Tapu can be tried for NOT instigation. I have already explained why! In any crime...even taking manslaughter or culpable driving...there needs to be a wrong act against the law - the actus reus - and an intention to create harm - the mens rea. Now u tell me....Vansh came in pointing the gun at Tapu - immediately it is obvious in the court that Tapu acted in self defence but the instigation had no intention and that is clear from the look on tapu's face and when she didnt know that he was suicidal then she has no culpability. Areyy that psychiatrist from Delhi said that drug addicts were prone to self harm - Ichha would testify about his mad behaviour and even I would get Veer to testify about that morning of 25th May when Tapu clearly made certain she thought Vansh did not have the guts to hurt himself. Tapu did not say to kill himself any lawyer would say that a gun was pointed at her head and it was her intention to talk him out of shooting her. Look...please dont teach me law. Abettment to suicide and instigation is when you have a clear INTENTION to do it! Tapu only said the truth that day and Vansh couldnt take it. ALso dont forget that the gun being there itself would prove that Vansh was dangerous as having the gun on him proved that he was intending to use it on someone.

Originally posted by: ankit111

i think u r not reading my post fully and started commenting. u always stick to the event whn Vansh pointed gun, but forgetting earlier instigation which she was doing since his marriage and and she hd accepted it before Vansh and i think it was in video too, except tht there r a lot witness and evidence which can prove tht she was instigating him since his marriage which led his suicide. i dont know wht Australian law say abt this but in India if it is proved tht someone instigated which caused suicide, its criminal case. we hv a lot of such cases, if u read INDIAN NEWS PAPERS😆

Originally posted by: SRKLuvr

😆 earlier instigation has no role in this😆 please dont teach me law. If you knew law you would know there is no case made without these two basic principles of Mens rea and Actus Reus. And u should also know if you have studied law that the defence of SELF DEFENCE is a complete defence which if proven allows you to use any reasonable force to defend yourself.