he didn’t see anything. A prejury case was raised against him, defense lawyers were denied the right to cross-examine him(!!!), but the judge nonetheless based his ruling almost solely on that testimony.And that scrap of, at best, marginally circumstantial evidence is all they had; if a poor man was charged in such no-case circumstances, would you still claim the verdict fair and just? I think not, you would call it for what it is, prejudice.How many people had heard of Chinkara before this case? Not many. How many would have read and cared for the news of one Chinkara dead? Not many. But put Salman Khan into the mixture and voila you have Bishnois on the front page. Hypocrisy?So don’t tell me that Bishnois didn’t seize this golden opportunity to get publicity and money. Would they have persisted the case, with such single mindlessness, if the accused wasn’t Salman Khan? Of course not.The court should be impartial; that means the judge is supposed to base his ruling only on the evidence presented for the particular case and who you are outside that courtroom should be irrelevant, rich or poor alike. The first judge in his ruling clearly stated, in two whole paragraphs, that his verdict and especially severity of the punishment was based solely on Khans social status.Everyone says he is rich and powerful and will buy/get his way out of this, but there has been no evidence to support that charge. On the contrary, government minister publicly said that the government would petition that Khan gets no bail. For those who need translation the minister has publicly admitted (attempting) influencing what is supposed to be independent judiciary. That is a very serious crime.It should also be noted that a) the minister kept quiet when a rapist was recently given bail at the same court and b) doesn’t the minister have more important cases to deal with and when was the last time he spoke against commercial poachers or against any serious criminal.Of course him stepping out would have nothing to do with the fact that Salman is the most popular celebrity and a Muslim in a state ran by Hindu nationalists. Not even a little, right.The fact is that trials to celebrities give an appearance of equal opportunity judiciary, but in fact they are assumed guilty before trial and in sentencing they are treated more harshly to prove a point. Most of the celebrities have no real political power and their wealth is incomparable to true players (politicians and tycoons). But people get involved with these trials; they get to express their self-righteous indignation, without crippling real criminals, and are entertained in the process. So everyone is distracted content.But things should be put in to perspective and looked at reasonably, he is an ACTOR accused of killing what is basically a wild goat. Crime of the century?If he did it, of course he should be punished. But punishment should fit the crime and its point is to reform.If he had indeed killed it that day a) it is unlikely he hunted specifically for that protected specie and b) it happened z years ago, and he hasn’t done it since.A suitable punishment would be a heavy financial fine used to protect the wild, extensive community service designed to promote animal rights and possibly z-z MONTHS in jail.People call him criminal (for killing an animal), they cry out in outrage…and then they sit down for a nice meal of lamb chops and afterwards go for a nice walk wearing their nice leather shoes and carrying their nice leather bag. Hypocrisy? Have you noted the expensive suit that animal rights protecting Bishnois lawyer wore when he rampaged against Khan? Those kinds of suits are made of sheep wool and I will leave it to your imagination how such wool is gained. Hypocrisy anyone? Protecting the wild is a commendable effort, but you wont accomplish it by just randomly, en masse locking people away poor people, who do it either for pure survival and/or because they don’t know better, and a celebrity to teach the masses a lesson.Man has always hunted and used animals (it is in our blood), if we claim to be more civilised these days shouldn’t we endeavour to educate people, instead of locking them up. The money spent to support Khan in jail would better be spent educating children, he would better serve society by being made to talk to children why it is wrong to kill animals. The right of one man to imprison others is ethically questionable (John Rawls), prisons in India are especially inhumane; so prison sentence should be reserved for smugglers who kill animals by hundreds a year, purely for profit. Prisons are only to be used against people who otherwise cannot be stopped to hurt others, for protection. Only when people learn to treat each other humanly will they be ready to extend the same courtesy to the animals. Vigilantes don’t care for the justice of whatever cause they campaign, they are out there only for blood, for sports if you will.Not to mention that such ludicrous people ultimately harm wildlife because they create resistance to what is perceived as oppression and apathy towards innocent animals. The way that M. Gandhi woman runs a lynch campaign against Khan (she said his sentence should be increased to zz years) you would think he commits genocide every weekend. But then he is a safe target, he doesn’t fight back and going against him garners them publicity. If you go after hardcore criminals (people whose lock up would actually benefit ordinary people) dirty politicians, conniving tycoons, mafia dons, rapists, people who kill thousands of protected animals for financial gain they are given bail and let off the hook because if you do they get you.Weather or not he committed the act, Khan is not a serial poacher (for whom the law was made) and him spending z years in jail serves and protects no one. You can hate someone because they are a celebrity, but it is not enough to send them to jail.He is an actor not a hardcore criminal, but people don’t care about the facts of the actual case against him (it is intellectually too strenuous), because they don’t like him, because he is, by their sainthoods found to be, well (oh, my god), arrogant (and they know so because they know him so intimately) and therefore deserves to go to jail.And who could argue with such logic, eh?

wana see free movies n downloas

hi