| > Well, that's really good for you then. I highly doubt you and our friend have much in common. Correct. You just made my point. For starters better judgement would prevent me from putting myself in a position of compromise as your friend has seemingly done. > Yes, this strikes to the heart of this case, but frankly it is none of your business. The only thing that matters is that it did.
> And if you keep rejecting evidence that does not support your hypothesis on how things really are out of hand then you'll never be able to change your point of view. There has been no evidence presented either for or against at this time. Just hearsay, primarily your account of events. > So the fact that you can not imagine something or that it has not happened to you or is not something you have heard about happening does not preclude such a thing from being real. I clearly stated in my previous comment that there is likely an element of truth in what you say. Your response by not taking the time understand what has said clearly indicates an emotional response. Your judgement is this particular matter is clearly clouded. > Only against those particular Indians that have in this case bent the law to suit their purpose, to unjustly pursue one that need their protection and not their persecution. Your credibility as it may be on HN has no standing in a court of law. You are neither a witness nor a defendant. I would very must like to see this particular case go to court and the full extent of truth be revealed. From your responses it is clear that you prefer this not be the case. "Satyamev Jayate" (Truth prevails) is inscribed on India's national emblem. I have far greater faith in the Indian constitution, than your ranting and raving on this forum. > But keep in mind that I have not railed against India or against Indians in general.
>Of course it hurts that in a country that you hold dear there is corruption. Yes you have. Your claims of police brutality, collusion of state institutions, corruptions and other such are railing against India. I requested you to stop this. I have no interest in your or your friends particular standing/stake in the matter. |
You are making a lot of claims here without knowing any of the details of this case. My friend did not have any opportunity at all to change anything about themselves or to exercise 'better judgement' that would have prevented any of this from happening. Their only alternative to being prosecuted would be to give themselves up, and I hope you will agree with me that that is not an option.
> There has been no evidence presented either for or against at this time.
HN is not a court of law, you are not a judge and you have no right to any evidence.
> Just hearsay, primarily your account of events.
You will notice that:
1) 3 long time HN'ers with an impeccable reputation have confirmed this, 4 if we include the subject, but since they've posted anonymously in this thread (and they should) we'll exclude them from the tally.
2) A reputable Delhi lawyer thought the case was serious enough to take it on, on extremely short notice.
3) Two judges agreed with our view of the case.
Those things alone would seem to have enough weight to counter your incessant unbelief. I find it hard to imagine that in light of that you would persist. So if you have no dog in the fight, why would you be so categorically denying something happened if you don't have all the facts?
> I clearly stated in my previous comment that there is likely an element of truth in what you say. Your response by not taking the time understand what has said clearly indicates an emotional response. Your judgement is this particular matter is clearly clouded.
I took out more time than I am obliged to give you as level headed a response as possible.
> Your credibility as it may be on HN has no standing in a court of law.
HN is not a court of law. But in a real court of law not one but two judges agreed with my view of this case. What makes you think you can trump their judgement?
> You are neither a witness nor a defendant.
That did not stop me from contributing to the case. The fact that I did make myself available as a witness (as did Daniel) and helped to arrange for a lawyer shows you that I am more than peripherally involved.
> From your responses it is clear that you prefer this not be the case. "Satyamev Jayate" (Truth prevails) is inscribed on India's national emblem. I have far greater faith in the Indian constitution, than your ranting and raving on this forum.
Well, truth prevails, but light is the best weapon you have in case truth is about not to prevail and there is more to this world than your limited view of it. Arraigning a young person after forcibly moving them from their home without representation and with submarine claims against them is a surefire way to make the truth not prevail. I sincerely hope that you won't ever have your bubble burst because it will likely be a rude awakening. If such should happen feel free to call upon my help, I'm not going to hold your ignorance here against you.
Going to court does not automatically mean that justice will be done. It's a distinct possibility but by no means a certainty.
> Yes you have. Your claims of police brutality, collusion of state institutions, corruptions and other such are railing against India.
Of course it does not rail against India, but that is what you want to hear. You are essentially making a straw-man argument here, and in the process you have revealed something that I had a question about so far: Why is it that within India people are not standing by each other in a situation like this? You have helped me by supplying a partial answer to that question.
They are simply facts.
Facts you do not like, but facts nonetheless.
> I requested you to stop this.
Asking me to stop this is asking me to deny the facts. That would be a very dangerous thing for me to do, and it goes against my nature.
> I have no interest in your or your friends particular standing/stake in the matter.
No, that much is clear. So then maybe you should not engage those familiar with the facts of this case and pretend that you know more about it than we do.
Because I DO have a stake in the matter, my friends' standing is of importance to me and the injustice that is being done to her is as well. What you believe or do not believe is utterly irrelevant.