You must Sign In to post a response.
  • Category: Miscellaneous

    Is it correct to smirch the character of on-duty policemen?

    This thread is a sequel to the just locked thread Who gave cops.....

    The previous thread was locked after the following statement of a very senior member who is the ME of the site:-
    "It is very wrong to smirch a person's character. This discussion has gone far enough before some more muck is thrown at the deceased person and the witness. We will close it now."

    After reading the response, I started thinking. It is right that it is very wrong to smirch a person's character. Very true. At the same time, is it correct to blame the policeman without knowing the incident? Did the on-duty policemen fire at every passing vehicle? No. Then why did they fire at that particular vehicle? The answer is: They had a strong suspicion. They had some doubt.

    Those who are familiar with the working of the police will tell that police use 'naka' (barrier) in a particular area if they get specific intelligence input about the movement of a criminal/gang. In the present case, there was a 'naka' in that area and the deceased man tried to break the 'naka'. So, he was shot.

    We must not smirch one's character. But, at the same time, we should not make an unnecessary comment without fully knowing the incident. Is it correct to smirch the character of on-duty policemen?

    And a well-defined Act and the corresponding Police Manual give the cops the right to shoot under certain circumstances. That is in response to the question raised in the earlier thread.
  • #650241
    I too felt bad when the thread got locked with a comment from Managing Editor Madam. We are not here to smirch or assassinate a person's character. We members should have the freedom to discuss issues raising time to time. We try to analyze and study the issue and discuss it out. We never come to a conclusion as to what is right or what is wrong. Just because the ME is a female, she doesn't want to go against the lady but favour her.

    Our discussion at ISC can help to investigate and find the truth.

    No life without Sun

  • #650242
    Further, I would like to state that the policemen did not fire at all/any other vehicles passing through the 'naka'. They fired at a particular vehicle. Why did they fire at a particular vehicle? Let us try to think.
    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #650243
    On many occasions, I too carried a pistol with me while on duty and had the authority to use my guns as and when the situation warranted. No special orders or permission was required to use my guns. Something must have happened, for the cops to use their guns. We might aim to shoot on the leg. But in a hurry, it could pierce the heart. It is the bad luck that the Apple guy had.

    The police could have fired at the wheels of the car to stop the vehicle and arrest the Apple guy for crossing the barrier without stopping his vehicle. Thus the police could have proved their duty mindedness and got an award from the higher police authorities rather than getting suspended for their action.

    No life without Sun

  • #650244
    1. The policeman were not at the 'naka' but on a bike. The bike had to overtake the car for the policeman to shoot.
    2. Take some effort and see the footage of the car and bike before the murder happened. The Apple executive was driving at a normal pace and the car was not stationary. The timestamps from footage are important evidence how the cops lied throughout. But of course, you need to have a neutral viewpoint to accept the facts. People with blind political affiliations and with misogynistic mindsets will find that quite difficult.
    3. In U.P. there are a sufficient number of reasons to fear police even when you have not done any wrong especially at night and especially if you have a female with you. There is no need to smirch the UP police character, those who have seen them in action (including me) already know that there is a very small difference in illegal and legal goons in the state.

  • #650245
    Please do not close this thread. I would like to post my response to this rather ridiculous post.
    "A love affair with knowledge will never end in heartbreak." -Michael Garrett Marino

  • #650246
    Here the important point is the facts are not known to anyone of us. The police have taken action deemed fit on the police officials involved in the case. The enquiry will go and the culprits will be punished. Only thing is we should wait for the report patiently.
    It is very wrong to smirch a person's character. Police officers are also persons. So blaming a police officer without knowing the fact is also not correct. Universally there is no rule that all persons are correct and at the same time, there is no rule that all police persons are also correct. This behaviour and attitude is a personal trait.
    Everyone will have their own point to support either of the involved. I think it is better to wait patiently for the verdict instead of arguing on the same point again and again. I think it is not possible to come to a conclusion by debating like this on this issue. Anyhow it is left to the choice of the learned members.

    drrao
    always confident

  • #650249
    "People with blind political affiliations and with misogynistic mindsets will find that quite difficult. "-----Was this sentence necessary in this thread? Isn't the sentence hampering the scope of healthy discussion? Just asking.
    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #650253
    May I ask what was the reason that the policemen were more suspicious about this guy.

    Was he doing something wrong with the girl who was sitting besides him in the car?

    What made him so suspicious that he fired on him?. I have seen policemen they normally don't fire if they doubt that the person standing behind them is a terrorist. This is strange.

    Sanjeev

    " It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for what you are not" ... Andre Gide

  • #650262
    Mr Partha,
    You are absolutely correct. Police manual prescribes the right to shoot under suspicious circumstances.
    Situation justified the police action. Lucky that the lady escaped unhurt as the shoot-out happened in Indian city.

    I love chocolates and ice creams!

  • #650264
    Mr. Neeraj: Sometime people ridicule me for my 'ridiculous' threads. Sincere thanks to you for reading my thread carefully and judging it rationally. However, I don't want to comment about the lady simply because I don't have detailed information about her.
    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #650266
    Let me begin by quoting the UP Police DGP OP Singh -
    "We are determined to punish and wean out such rogues in uniform who (make us) hang our heads in shame."

    Brajesh Pathak, the state law minister, is reported as having said, "Let me also make it very clear, I am also seeing that distinguished cops are trying to cover up the matter."

    In a statement, the Chief Minister said it wasn't an encounter. Other ministers from the UP cabinet were seen on national television condemning the incident. According to media reports, the Centre had raised the issue with the State Government. The CM has given the deceased's family 40lakhs and the widow a job, and a promise to provide for the education of the deceased's daughters. That is the highest sum of compensation, ever paid, by a Government.

    The constables involved in the incident have been relieved from the police force.

    Have all the respected dignitaries falsely accused the cops? Are they guilty of smirching the character of the accused policemen? Will you go on twitter to question them? Will, you have the courage to do so or is your bravado limited to forum posts.

    You stated, "…is it correct to blame the policeman without knowing the incident?" Funny that you put that question because you go on to draw conclusions without knowing the facts. "They had a strong suspicion. They had a doubt." This angle has not yet come out in the reports. Why do you that which you question?

    The accused constable was on live television giving statements, claiming his innocence. He was heard saying, he shot the man in self-defence… He also said, "maine goli mari nahin, goli galti sae chal gai." Two contradictory statements. Don't you know a lie, when you hear one?
    Those who are familiar with the working of the police force know that the police don't walk around with loaded guns, with a bullet in the chamber. There are safety mechanisms in place. This is not the wild west, where you draw your gun and shoot. The gun should also have been in the holster. It takes time to pull it out, remove the safety lock, take aim and shoot.

    The police are taught to disarm suspects or immobilise them. They are definitely not taught to shoot, to kill. The constable should have fired at the tyres, to prevent the suspect from getting away. But, he chose to kill him.

    And what did he do after shooting – he ran away! He was so brave a few seconds ago, killing an unarmed man. A few seconds ago, he had a strong suspicion about the deceased. What happened to his sense of duty? Why did he not chase the car, that had crashed just 300 metres away, and take the suspect and his partner into custody? He ran because he was guilty of murder.

    Can you share information on the well-defined Act and the corresponding Police Manual that give the police right to kill an unarmed man? Where can this manual be read?

    Neeraj too has read this manual. Are the two of you suggesting that the State machinery has done the accused wrong, by kicking him out of service and arresting him for murder? How could that happen? If the manual exists then his arrest is wrong. Isn't it? Why is everyone who is somebody, in the Government, doing this to him or allowing this injustice to be carried out? Why hasn't someone shown them the manual and the clearly defined rules? Your disclosure makes them look bad. You don't have to worry about the smear campaign going on here. You have a bigger battle to fight, with all those who have contrived to smirch the constable's name. So, what are you going to do about it?

    I like the way you twist things, from an encounter gone wrong to this. Do you not see the truth, or do you choose to be blind?

    "A love affair with knowledge will never end in heartbreak." -Michael Garrett Marino

  • #650267
    I was going to call it a day, but the previous response forces me to write something in brief.

    "Are the two of you suggesting that the State machinery has done the accused wrong, by kicking him out of service and arresting him for murder? How could that happen?......." What is the relationship between the Police Manual and this particular incident? In my thread, I simply mentioned that cops can fire as per the provisions of the Police Manual. I mentioned this to answer the heading (question) of the previous thread (which is now locked). But I do appreciate the twist given to the simple information in response to a question.

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #650268
    And you know, the police force in UP is not happy with the suspension or dismissal of the two cops. What I feel is - It is an immediate action to safeguard the interest of the Ruling Government in UP. How can one fire accurately and say"maine goli mari nahin, goli galti sae chal gai." I think, it is not a frank statement, but could be a forced statement taken from the cop. A very high compensation to the bereaved widow is appreciated. This will stop the further detailed investigation of the case, I believe.

    @The state government hurried up with defensive action beforehand to avoid the opposition parties raising their voice against them.

    No life without Sun

  • #650269
    State machinery has done the accused right or wrong will be decided by the Court. Prima-facie, the Cop is right in his action.
    I love chocolates and ice creams!

  • #650276
    1. It is true that the State Government has declared a huge compensation for the widow of the deceased along with some other benefits.
    2. It is true that the policemen have been suspended.
    3. It is also true that the probe is continuing, which signifies that the culprit(s) and the sequence of events have not been fully established till now.

    So, we must not blame anybody including the on-duty policemen.

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #650288
    Why was this thread started? I couldn't find anything in the previous thread that even hints at an attempt to sully the policeman's reputation. All that is stated there is what is available in the public domain. However, there was a definite attempt by you, to spoil the name of the deceased and the witness. I was ready with a response, that questioned your inappropriate innuendoes, but by then, another response had been posted and the thread locked.

    You haven't answered any of the questions I posed.

    I like the way you suddenly turned naïve after coming out with all guns blazing. It's a sign of defeat, shrouded, of course, in a veil of innocence. Your query, questions your own asininity. Let me walk you through the connection between the Police Manual and what is being discussed.

    The Police Manual trivia was an ace in the hole. No one could question the provisions sanctioned by an Act. It made your stand correct, after all, it was backed by an Act. This was, I presume, a serious thread. The only way I could read the information is the way I have described in the above few lines. Would you 'simply mention' that cops can fire under the provisions given in the Police Manual if it didn't strengthen your argument?

    I don't understand how your simple mention of this info, answers the title of the thread. Can you expound on it – if you are taking questions and not shying away from them? Shooting someone to death is the last resort. This was nothing short of an execution. And an armed cop should have seized the vehicle, given that the cop fired on suspicion. There could have been vital evidence in the car that could have implicated the deceased and his partner. Does the Police Manual say, shoot and scoot!

    Nothing concerning this incident is in isolation. If the Police Manual has a provision, then explain the actions of the State Government against the rogue cop. Don't question people who are deliberating on what is being shared by the authorities. If you honestly believe in the man's innocence, then take a strong stand and take up the authorities on his wrongful detention and statements made against him. Your campaign, here, is weak and futile.

    And, yes, the investigation is on. I would be concerned if the same had been wrapped up in a jiffy. A thorough investigation takes time and makes the case stronger – the time the probe is taking doesn't prove anything.

    And as Neeraj said, prima facie the cop's action was correct. That means his arrest is wrong, and all that the authorities have said about him is false. Which brings me back to the points I raised earlier. Are the authorities doing injustice to an innocent man?

    There are two premises doing the rounds. One supported by you and Neeraj, that the cop did the right thing (and hence innocent) and the other which is highlighted by Sun, that, "It is an immediate action to safeguard the interest of the Ruling Government in UP". Both theories cannot be correct. So, what is the truth behind this incident? Which is it? Your logic or Sun's? If you stick to your judgement, then Sun's point would be right. And, you'll probably not go with Sun's verdict. What a predicament.

    If I could, I would rename this thread - Between the devil and the deep blue sea.

    "A love affair with knowledge will never end in heartbreak." -Michael Garrett Marino

  • #650289
    This is going to be more interesting and more thought provoking thread as compared to the earlier one and I am not able to resist myself to make a few observations.

    In our country both the parties are casual. We feel insulted and our ego is hurt if a policeman asks us anything. At the same time if we ignore a policeman he also feels hurt rather than just keeping calm and taking an officious decision.

    I remember one incident when I was just turning my car on the crossing to the right and one biker tried to cross me wrongly going to the other side and then he made it and sped away. Meanwhile the traffic lights turned red and I turned fully to my right but by that time the traffic police caught me and took me to the side and gave me a receipt which I promptly paid to him. I casually told him that due to that erring biker it happened. He showed total ignorance about that and still maintained that I was the defaulter.

    So neither we are following the traffic rules nor the policemen are judicious in their decisions.

    So in such a situation, whom can we blame? The people are not abiding by the regulating authorities and the authorities are also not clear what action is to be take when.

    In this comedy of intentional errors people are losing their lives.

    Knowledge is power.

  • #650294
    Dear All,
    I do not justify the cop's firing at the Apple guy.
    My questions are:
    A policeman has all the right to stop any vehicle plying at midnight for a check. (Their nature of duty)
    The Apple guy should have respected the men in uniform and stopped the vehicle and responded to the cops.(Why not)
    The accompanying lady says that he did not stop the vehicle to protect her. (what was wrong to protect)
    Neither the lady nor the Apple guy had a Mobile phone with them to contact others to inform the incident. (why)
    The Apple guy ran over the cop's motorbike. (why)
    Even after receiving a bullet, the guy has driven the vehicle for some distance. (How)
    The statement of the only eyewitness to this incident is not convincing

    No life without Sun

  • #650299
    I am responding here just this once since the thread is about my comments in the locked thread. I am repeating for the nth time - why my gender and role of ME should always be dragged into a discussion I cannot fathom.

    What Juana stated in the opening paragraph of response #650288 is what I wanted to say when I saw this thread, hence won't repeat it. Look up what smirching of a character means which is what was done in that thread with regard to the witness and the executive (and in a disgusting way in the two responses which were deleted) and not with regard to the policemen - their responsibilities as policemen was brought up and not their character.

    When people come at you with their worst, you should come at them with your best (advice given to Selena Gomez by her mother, quoted in Time magazine.)

  • #650301
    This is a total misrepresentation of facts.

    1. I am not at all concerned about the gender of the ME. I have full respect for the ME.

    2. To the best of my knowledge, I never commented anything bad about anybody. I only tried to imagine the sequence of events on that evening.

    Terrible!

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #650314
    My response was to the following references:

    Mentioned by Partha in the text of the thread - "after the following statement of a very senior member who is the ME of the site."

    Mentioned in the first response by Sun - "Just because the ME is a female, she doesn't want to go against the lady but favour her. "

    As for saying "To the best of my knowledge, I never commented anything bad about anybody. I only tried to imagine the sequence of events on that evening." - that is not correct. Your last response in the locked thread was deleted precisely because you implied that if the deceased & the lady-colleague were together and that if they were taken to the police station, both of them would be "in trouble in the office and also at home." and hence he tried to get away - this is not commenting on anything bad?! Isn't this very clearly character smirching? Sun made it even more disgustingly clear.

    When people come at you with their worst, you should come at them with your best (advice given to Selena Gomez by her mother, quoted in Time magazine.)

  • #650315
    It was me. Despite explaining the things and questioning the wrongs, the ME said the words protecting the lady whose statement was doubted. Hence, gender support was brought out, responses deleted and locked. It got repeated in this special thread. Nothing wrong in supporting their own gender.
    No life without Sun

  • #650317
    If a person or a couple is taken to the police station, even today, it creates problem for the person or the couple in the neighbourhood and in the working place. Snide comments come flying. Everybody knows it. Denying this phenomenon doesn't help.

    Only a few days ago, the ME herself stated in another thread that when the Editors participate in a discussion, they do it as members and not as Editors. So, I stated: "after the following statement of a very senior member who is the ME of the site".

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #650321
    It doesn't look like either of you understood about the gender/ME aspect but, instead, are repeating the same thing. Just shelve it now. Let members discuss the topic of the thread if at all anything is left to discuss!
    When people come at you with their worst, you should come at them with your best (advice given to Selena Gomez by her mother, quoted in Time magazine.)

  • #650322
    In the previous thread, you commented as a member and then immediately closed the thread as an Editor. That is the explanation of this: "after the following statement of a very senior member who is the ME of the site".
    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #650341

    At ISC, when a case, especially a criminal case is discussed, we members become lawyers to tell our opinion, views and comments. That won't affect the member or any outsider. In fact, it will help to understand the case better from all angles. There is nothing like disgustingly clear or unclear. We discuss issues without any fear or favour. There is no judge at ISC to hear the case and give their verdict. There should not be any interference from the admin or members unless we use indecent, absusive words that is not acceptable to ISC. If interfered, members lose interest to be active in forum section. Hope the concerned member/editor will act accordingly.


    No life without Sun


  • This thread is locked for new responses. Please post your comments and questions as a separate thread.
    If required, refer to the URL of this page in your new post.