Most people already saw what happened on video where rangers were reported to have killed an unarmed civilian in Karachi in cold blood. I saw the actual video clip on YouTube, not the version edited by news agencies and I'm not going to embed it in the post in compliance with blogger's terms of service.
I also had a discussion about it while chatting on the phone with one of my friends. It appears the public opinion is on the side of the victim and his family and totally against the rangers- with good reasoning but not entirely.
As mentioned I saw the entire video and also worthy of mentioning is that it's probably the first time I've seen a human being gunned down. Judging from the video, I concluded that both the victim and the shooting ranger were at fault.
Everyone seemed to be focused that the ranger fired at the victim when he was unarmed and seemed to pose no threat. I partially agree, especially that even after unnecessarily shooting him once he fired a second time.
But nobody focused on the fact that the victim refused to comply with the rangers orders and surrender. When they repeatedly raised their guns at him and told him to stay away from them, he continuously rushed towards them.
Nobody takes into consideration that he was accused of being a thief. Weather true or not, arresting a suspect usually requires at least one armed personnel in case the suspect poses a threat.
So already under the impression that he was a thief, the rangers kept their guard but instead of using his common sense and at least keeping his distance, the victim kept trying to snatch one of the rangers' guns. He was warned multiple times and even physically pushed back to keep him at a safe distance which he refused and continued to try and snatch the gun.
Whichever country such kind of an incident takes place in, a suspect who tries to resist arrest and trying to physically disarm a law enforcement personnel will be treated with additional suspicion by resisting.
In some countries resisting arrest is considered a crime and a suspect can be additionally charged for that. And if the law enforcing officer fires after more than one warning, he/she may not be held accountable for shooting the suspect.
That was the fault of Mr Asfar Shah. He should have at least kept a distance as he was ordered to if not keep his hands raised and be searched, questioned and then released when no evidence can be found to launch a case against him.
That was his fault. The fault of the ranger was using excessive force. For his own good he should have fired a warning shot before actually shooting the victim.
And even if he was justified under the law of shooting in possible self-defense because the victim would not keep his distance even after being warned, he still fired a second shot unnecessarily.
He is clearly guilty of using excessive force and added to that it was the rangers' responsibility for getting him medical aid as ensuring public safety is their job.
The courts decision to punish the rangers is quite justified after it is clear excessive force was used and the victim was left to die.
But the public as usual only saw the entire incident with the rangers as the aggressors while completely disregarding the fact that the victim was partially to blame for the shooting. As usual the public placed the entire blame on the rangers. This is actually part of the public greater game of always blaming everything on the government.
Conclusively I am in favor of punishing the rangers for such a misconduct but I wished to point out the facts that partially led to the victim's tragic death.
I also had a discussion about it while chatting on the phone with one of my friends. It appears the public opinion is on the side of the victim and his family and totally against the rangers- with good reasoning but not entirely.
As mentioned I saw the entire video and also worthy of mentioning is that it's probably the first time I've seen a human being gunned down. Judging from the video, I concluded that both the victim and the shooting ranger were at fault.
Everyone seemed to be focused that the ranger fired at the victim when he was unarmed and seemed to pose no threat. I partially agree, especially that even after unnecessarily shooting him once he fired a second time.
But nobody focused on the fact that the victim refused to comply with the rangers orders and surrender. When they repeatedly raised their guns at him and told him to stay away from them, he continuously rushed towards them.
Nobody takes into consideration that he was accused of being a thief. Weather true or not, arresting a suspect usually requires at least one armed personnel in case the suspect poses a threat.
So already under the impression that he was a thief, the rangers kept their guard but instead of using his common sense and at least keeping his distance, the victim kept trying to snatch one of the rangers' guns. He was warned multiple times and even physically pushed back to keep him at a safe distance which he refused and continued to try and snatch the gun.
Whichever country such kind of an incident takes place in, a suspect who tries to resist arrest and trying to physically disarm a law enforcement personnel will be treated with additional suspicion by resisting.
In some countries resisting arrest is considered a crime and a suspect can be additionally charged for that. And if the law enforcing officer fires after more than one warning, he/she may not be held accountable for shooting the suspect.
That was the fault of Mr Asfar Shah. He should have at least kept a distance as he was ordered to if not keep his hands raised and be searched, questioned and then released when no evidence can be found to launch a case against him.
That was his fault. The fault of the ranger was using excessive force. For his own good he should have fired a warning shot before actually shooting the victim.
And even if he was justified under the law of shooting in possible self-defense because the victim would not keep his distance even after being warned, he still fired a second shot unnecessarily.
He is clearly guilty of using excessive force and added to that it was the rangers' responsibility for getting him medical aid as ensuring public safety is their job.
The courts decision to punish the rangers is quite justified after it is clear excessive force was used and the victim was left to die.
But the public as usual only saw the entire incident with the rangers as the aggressors while completely disregarding the fact that the victim was partially to blame for the shooting. As usual the public placed the entire blame on the rangers. This is actually part of the public greater game of always blaming everything on the government.
Conclusively I am in favor of punishing the rangers for such a misconduct but I wished to point out the facts that partially led to the victim's tragic death.
No comments:
Post a Comment