Shame on you Salman Khan, says author Sreemoyee Piu Kundu in her open - Page 28

Originally posted by: hiddenstar

@bold its not a joke ..its the truth .. do u think a case would hav been dragged for 13 yrs and then a verdict wud hav been given where it still hasnt been proved that he the one driving?😆the influential as u say had the money to back them up whereas the poor might not .. is it their fault? wouldnt they save their ass if they got the bucks? what do u expect?😕Salman is out on bail for God's sake ... isnt bail a part of the law or what?? how is he abusing law here pray tell? he dint buy the judge or had the verdict in favour of him then what influential manipulation are u talking about ?? yes i dont follow the indian news and that still dint change what i said .. i guess u dint read what i wrote or maybe u dont understand😆thats not sth i will expect from a established writer😆Good that u follow all the news and so aware, but mere paas itna time hai nahi to waste it writing essays here to take out my <font size="4">frustration... </font><font size="2">keep ur advice to urself ...if no one owns the forum , no one asked for ur 2 cent worth advice either ...lecture dena ata hai toh lecture sunna bhi seekho .. kisi ka baap ka raj hai nahi yaha😆in all ur post, the only thing u are continously screaming about is how the rich got away .. what else does it show than ur frustration at the fact that the rich had the wealth to pull it off...😆</font>

Originally posted by: pallavi25

Here are the FACTS for people in Denial:

What nailed Salman Khan ...

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/what-nailed-salman-khan-heres-what-the-judge-observed-761460

Salman could have provided medical help

The accused had knowledge, being a resident of the same locality, that poor labourers used to sleep in front of the bakery. It was also brought on record that the accused is a regular visitor to the Rain Bar. Khan was also having knowledge that one should not drive a vehicle after consuming alcohol.

The accused was also having knowledge that one should not drive a vehicle without licence. Khan, after the accident, did not wait at the spot, and instead of going to the police station for lodging information, he went to his house. Till 10:30 am, the accused did not make himself available at the police station or go to see the injured in the hospital.

The accused is a well-known artiste, it was possible for him to provide medical help to the poor people, but he didn't. For not visiting the police station, (the reason) is that the accused was under the influence of alcohol.

Valet parking attendant saw Salman in the driver's seat

The valet parking man at JW Marriott, Kalpesh, had given the possession of the car to Khan. There is direct evidence of the same witness who saw Salman sitting at the driver's seat and the accused had given a tip of Rs. 500 to him.

According to Special Public Prosecutor (Pradeep) Gharat, a tip is to be given when one leaves from a place. In such a situation, not producing the parking tagand not examining the main person at the valet parking will not be fatal to the case of prosecution.

Tyre didn't burst; accident was caused by rash and negligent driving

The defence put forth by the accused about bursting of the tyre is also ruled out. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving while turning the vehicle without taking proper care and attention, having knowledge that the people were sleeping in front of the laundry.

Defence argued that for a distance of 7-8 km, at a speed of 90-100 km/h, very little time would be required (to reach the spot from J W Marriott), but according to the defence, 30 minutes' time was required to reach the spot of the incident.

So, according to defence, the vehicle was not speeding. If really the vehicle was not in speed, bursting of the tyre would not arise, and vehicle could have been stopped on the spot by applying the brakes as the car was having ABS (anti-lock braking system).

It means that the vehicle was in speed and while taking right turn on Hill Road from St Andrews Road, the accused lost control and went straight over the people sleeping in front of the laundry; this amounts to rash and negligent driving.

Khan was not even in a position to think, in order to apply the brakes, and the vehicle climbed the stairs after crushing Nurullah and injuring four persons.

Salman must have been a little tipsy

So it goes to establish that the accused must have been a little tipsy because of the drinks he had consumed some time back. It is indeed extremely difficult to assess or judge when liquor would show its effect or would be at its peak.

The prosecution, saying that Khan was under the influence of alcohol, examined the bar waiter and manager (of Rain Bar) who were giving drinks and snacks at the table (where Salman was seated).

Also, the examination of the chemical analyst said his blood contained 0.62 mg of alcohol. While the defence said that he just had water there. One cannot go to a bar just to drink water.

The actor was driving, not driver Ashok Singh

While concluding, I find that it is established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution that the accused was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident.

Therefore, defence of the accused that Ashok Singh was driving is discarded from consideration. Singh is a got-up witness who has come to help the accused on the instruction of Salim Khan, father of Salman Khan.

Originally posted by: blue-ice

I think this point is just common sense...why would Salman's Bodyguard...his friend Kamal Khan...not say that the driver was driving...why would they say that Salman was driving...I mean why...why would an employee of Salman lie to save the driver...why would Salman's friend lie to save the driver...Does this thing not boggle anyone...Does common sense not dictate that if it was the driver driving...it would have been an open and shut case?? Why didn't the driver come out at that time and say...I was driving...he comes and gives these statements after 13 years saying that he didn't know that a case was against Salman for 13 years...Do these questions not bother anyone??😕...

Not everyone against the verdict is "jealous" of Salman's status, wealth and fame.

Salman's not the only person with money. There are wealthy folks that would react much differently in a situation like that. Not because they are fools, but they got a strong conscience (doesn't necessarily make them right and others wrong) they can't live with themselves, if they ran away. Every person is different. Some are against the verdict, because they would react differently in the situation.

It's not a question of wealth, but more of conscience.

Salman's conscience is hard to gauge considering he ran away after the accident. 

You might see Being Human as a sign of inevitable remorse, but someone else might not.  

Fans are justified on their part.
Haters are justified on their part.
The ones in the middle are justified on their part.

But not everyone is a blind hater or so jealous of Salman to oppose him. 

Originally posted by: briahna

😆

i don't know why that Arnab on times now ,didn't  grill bhai's bechaare friends with..

was it charity work or image clean up for your bhai?

Originally posted by: atominis

The language! 👏

You think stuff like laws and judiciary are faltu or waste of time?

Fine.

Don't even argue then if you don't know or did not bother to know.

I see what you called as "waste of time".

So many things are clear now, on celebrity culture and the kind of followers certain celebs attract.

It's corruption my dear.

But then if people are proud of it and wear it on their sleeves then what to say?

A big LOL at being frustrated with so called wealth! 🤣

Originally posted by: blue-ice

I think this point is just common sense...why would Salman's Bodyguard...his friend Kamal Khan...not say that the driver was driving...why would they say that Salman was driving...I mean why...why would an employee of Salman lie to save the driver...why would Salman's friend lie to save the driver...Does this thing not boggle anyone...Does common sense not dictate that if it was the driver driving...it would have been an open and shut case?? Why didn't the driver come out at that time and say...I was driving...he comes and gives these statements after 13 years saying that he didn't know that a case was against Salman for 13 years...Do these questions not bother anyone??😕...