The Innocent Kid from Sopore:"Police Killed my Grandfather"

[RIP Pak LAW]

Contrary to your belief, our history is full of enquiries and court martial being handed over to army men deployed in Kashmir. If you want I can cite many examples, but be prepared to tell even a single name from Pakistan army who was accountable for any human right violation in any insurgency hit pakistani area.

There is more transparency in Pakistan than in India. Especially Kashmiri related incidents are kept hidden.

Courtmartials you are talking about do happens here as well. We have active parliamentary debate over missing persons issues in Balochistan. Lots of cases are running in courts over army action in Baluchistan.

Had similar incident happened in Pakistan, entire media would had got bizurk. Infact one similar incident did occurred last year in Sahiwal when elite Punjab police killed 4 people in a car thinking them as terrorists. What followed afterwards in media, protests , sacking of officials, bad press to the Govt is history.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Dude really? You think a 3 yr old will say he dont know who killed his grandad when he saw an encounter with policemen doing a lot of shooting around him?

But I can gauge your seriousness and intent when you had to bring in Modi while responding to s simple query.

Listen feku. I'm not here to debate childhood developmental traits with you.

Let's keep it simple one last time. Take it or leave it. Here is how a 3 year old computes events.

Children can't see bullets. A 3 year old cannot gauge that a bullet has originated from a particular direction. If a red blotch appears on someone and they drop dead, the child won't be able to think abstractly enough to understand that it'd come from a projectile from a particular person or direction unless he saw it happen from start to finish with the gun pointing at the target. At that age, he would need to see that a firing sequence occurred within a single frame of view,I.e. a close range execution. If it was a crossfire killing by accident, he would not be able to track the shooter and confidently say it was x or y - he would say "I don't know" or he'd guess and you would be able to read it on his face and in his hesitation.

What is the point even explaining this to you? You've made your mind up that the kid is wrong. So be it.

Other CRPF soldiers in frustration stopped this poor car and pulled out the grandfather and shot him dead.

Very plausible. This is deliberately designed to instil fear in and punitively/collectively punish the people for "protecting passively" the rebels or just simply for being kashmiri. This is a classic occupier's tactic in fact.

 

[Rollno21]

Listen feku. I'm not here to debate childhood developmental traits with you.

Let's keep it simple one last time. Take it or leave it. Here is how a 3 year old computes events.

Children can't see bullets. A 3 year old cannot gauge that a bullet has originated from a particular direction. If a red blotch appears on someone and they drop dead, the child won't be able to think abstractly enough to understand that it'd come from a projectile from a particular person or direction unless he saw it happen from start to finish with the gun pointing at the target. At that age, he would need to see that a firing sequence occurred within a single frame of view,I.e. a close range execution. If it was a crossfire killing by accident, he would not be able to track the shooter and confidently say it was x or y - he would say "I don't know" or he'd guess and you would be able to read it on his face and in his hesitation.

What is the point even explaining this to you? You've made your mind up that the kid is wrong. So be it.


Very plausible. This is deliberately designed to instil fear in and punitively/collectively punish the people for "protecting passively" the rebels or just simply for being kashmiri. This is a classic occupier's tactic in fact.

True up to 60% of your post and let me tell you why the other part dsnt add to what you conclude.lets assume the kid saw the gun point at his grandfather and being shot ,will the kid go to the same people when called for during the encounter ,did you notice the kid was clear in his narrative and when it came to who killed his grandfather he is not that clear and it clearly tells he was told who killed his grandfather.And tell me who will ask such questions to a 3 year old to record and post it in social media other for propaganda.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

True up to 60% of your post and let me tell you why the other part dsnt add to what you conclude.lets assume the kid saw the gun point at his grandfather and being shot ,will the kid go to the same people when called for during the encounter ,did you notice the kid was clear in his narrative and when it came to who killed his grandfather he is not that clear and it clearly tells he was told who killed his grandfather.And tell me who will ask such questions to a 3 year old to record and post it in social media other for propaganda.

If one is to be completely scientific, your version cannot be completely ruled out. However, on balance of probabilities, my version is more likely. It is not clear at all that any "coaching" took place. With a 6 or 7 year old, coaching can be done and the child can lie seamlessly but with a 3 year old, they would make it very obvious if they were coached through a number of non-verbal cues.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ps.../media-spotlight/201702/when-children-lie?amp

I.e. Three years olds can lie, but it's very obvious when they do, especially when explicitly coached (rather than producing the lie in their own imagination).

Ask a three year old if they ate the cookie that they were forbidden from eating and watch them try to lie about it.

I'm getting embarrassed now that this conversation keeps repeating itself. If you've made your mind up that the three year old is lying on demand, so be it. Anyone observing objectively would tell you that the opposite is much more probable.

lets assume the kid saw the gun point at his grandfather and being shot ,will the kid go to the same people when called for during the encounter

Again here, you're failing to comprehend a 3 year old's mind. He will very much go to whichever adult is nearby and uses an appropriate voice/tone to instil confidence in that child, even if he just shot the child's grandpa. It's totally in keeping with their developmental state and ability to rationalise mechanisms to fulfil short term needs only. The kid needs to be "safe" relatively speaking and yes, will go to the soldier even if that exact soldier shot grandpa as long as the soldier calls him over in a certain way. The child of 3 does not think abstractly enough to formulate a moral judgement against a murderer but instead bases his opinion of the soldier on whether he feels the person calling him over can provide him with a safe place and immediate comfort. This is a 3 year old, not a 13 year old. They don't "hate" at this age.

@jaibi would you agree with the psychological analysis above of 3 year olds in such a scenario?

 

[Rollno21]

If one is to be completely scientific, your version cannot be completely ruled out. However, on balance of probabilities, my version is more likely. It is not clear at all that any "coaching" took place. With a 6 or 7 year old, coaching can be done and the child can lie seamlessly but with a 3 year old, they would make it very obvious if they were coached through a number of non-verbal cues.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/media-spotlight/201702/when-children-lie?amp

I.e. Three years olds can lie, but it's very obvious when they do, especially when explicitly coached (rather than producing the lie in their own imagination).

Ask a three year old if they ate the cookie that they were forbidden from eating and watch them try to lie about it.

I'm getting embarrassed now that this conversation keeps repeating itself. If you've made your mind up that the three year old is lying on demand, so be it. Anyone observing objectively would tell you that the opposite is much more probable.


Again here, you're failing to comprehend a 3 year old's mind. He will very much go to whichever adult is nearby and uses an appropriate voice/tone to instil confidence in that child, even if he just shot the child's grandpa. It's totally in keeping with their developmental state and ability to rationalise mechanisms to fulfil short term needs only. The kid needs to be "safe" relatively speaking and yes, will go to the soldier even if that exact soldier shot grandpa as long as the soldier calls him over in a certain way. The child of 3 does not think abstractly enough to formulate a moral judgement against a murderer but instead bases his opinion of the soldier on whether he feels the person calling him over can provide him with a safe place and immediate comfort. This is a 3 year old, not a 13 year old. They don't "hate" at this age.

No I am not saying what the kid saying Is a lie ,he repeated something which he saw and some thing which he was told.

You tell me will you ask the same question to the 3 year old to film it and post it on social media with in few hours of the incident.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

No I am not saying what the kid saying Is a lie ,he repeated something which he saw and some thing which he was told.

You tell me will you ask the same question to the 3 year old to film it and post it on social media with in few hours of the incident.

I'm not clear, are you accusing his family of coaching him to lie? Or is your concern that his family filmed it and put it on social media?


I have no problem with the latter in view of the context here. His testimony on social media is powerful and may well be the only chance his family has of justice being served. IA would naturally try to suppress such testimony.

 

[Rollno21]

I'm not clear, are you accusing his family of coaching him to lie? Or is your concern that his family filmed it and put it on social media?


I have no problem with the latter in view of the context here. His testimony on social media is powerful and may well be the only chance his family has of justice being served. IA would naturally try to suppress such testimony.

No I am not accusing anyone ,I was asking you to judge comparing it to yourself.will you do it.

Regarding family getting justice terrorist was sent to hell and the family got justice and as you feel it's crpf who did it ,I am all for hanging the soldier if guilty.

 

[Jf Thunder]

Way to go champ nice work providing ammunition to Indians.

How can you even compare two Incidents? Sahiwal Incident had a bloody terrorist sitting inside the car with that family. Here they pulled out an innocent civilian from the car and shot him just for a photo op. You can debate Sahiwal Incident to be a poorly executed op but the fact remains they had a terrorist in the tow knowingly or unknowingly.

ah yes, the terrorist story was given after giving a dozen different version in the hopes that one would stick

 

[Pandora]

ah yes, the terrorist story was given after giving a dozen different version in the hopes that one would stick

You dont need to be genius to know that this thread is not time or place for your allegations. If you cant get it through your thick brain then keep it up bcz i am not going to waste my time feeding your delusions.

 

[terry5]

I noticed that you didn't respond to any of my previous assertions. @IMARV but rather you just had a pop.

He’s a pussyhole Indian busy fantasising about raping Sri Devi in a park with Bollywood song playing in the background.

1. Family members confirmed it.

2. A boy most definitely knows what a policeman looks like, a guy in uniform.

3. How nice, the CRPF didn't kill him but are standing on his body.

4. Who pulled him out of the car, it can clearly be seen his body is close to CRPF.

Bunch of thugs!

No need to explain

these same guys where masturbating on video of little asifa who was raped in mandir in Kashmir

gutter mentality from years growing up watching there Bollywood movies actors forcing themselves on innocent women in parks with super hit Bollywood tune in the background in there Bollywood movies

there superhero movie stars macho men were rapists and we’re idolised by millions of these pussyhole Indians

they believe anything Indian authorities say

like sheep they do what they say live falsehood life nodding there heads side to side like brainwashed slaves who have no say

**** them pussyhole Indians

just these pussyhole Indians not all just these meek skinny little far right facists who take a modi blow up doll to bed ( the one with the moving part ) to have a good night sleep

 

[Jf Thunder]

You dont need to be genius to know that this thread is not time or place for your allegations. If you cant get it through your thick brain then keep it up bcz i am not going to waste my time feeding your delusions.

I wouldn't be posting this if Justice was even remotely served

 

[Areesh]

ah yes, the terrorist story was given after giving a dozen different version in the hopes that one would stick

No it wasn't anything like that

@Pandora is right. They were traveling with an ISIS affiliate knowingly or otherwise

But then you consider all encounters to be fake and all terrorists to be innocent

 

[Pandora]

No it wasn't anything like that

@Pandora is right. They were traveling with an ISIS affiliate knowingly or otherwise

But then you consider all encounters to be fake and all terrorists to be innocent

Dont feed him that idiot single handedly derailed entire thread. I mean if you have issues then open another bloody thread rather than posting in a thread with one of the biggest tragedies that has recently happen to Kashmirs. Here we are discussing human rights abuses of Indian and that idiot is posting about an unrelated incident.

 

[Jf Thunder]

No it wasn't anything like that

@Pandora is right. They were traveling with an ISIS affiliate knowingly or otherwise

But then you consider all encounters to be fake and all terrorists to be innocent

then why the hell did the story go from a "kidnapping", to them "shooting back" then to "the driver was a terrorist" only.
and the terrorist was part of the Dolphin Force?
dont they do any background checks before induction?

 

[jaibi]

I agree; I don't think it should be controversial for anyone to know that seeing this isn't good for any child's well-being.

If one is to be completely scientific, your version cannot be completely ruled out. However, on balance of probabilities, my version is more likely. It is not clear at all that any "coaching" took place. With a 6 or 7 year old, coaching can be done and the child can lie seamlessly but with a 3 year old, they would make it very obvious if they were coached through a number of non-verbal cues.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/media-spotlight/201702/when-children-lie?amp

I.e. Three years olds can lie, but it's very obvious when they do, especially when explicitly coached (rather than producing the lie in their own imagination).

Ask a three year old if they ate the cookie that they were forbidden from eating and watch them try to lie about it.

I'm getting embarrassed now that this conversation keeps repeating itself. If you've made your mind up that the three year old is lying on demand, so be it. Anyone observing objectively would tell you that the opposite is much more probable.


Again here, you're failing to comprehend a 3 year old's mind. He will very much go to whichever adult is nearby and uses an appropriate voice/tone to instil confidence in that child, even if he just shot the child's grandpa. It's totally in keeping with their developmental state and ability to rationalise mechanisms to fulfil short term needs only. The kid needs to be "safe" relatively speaking and yes, will go to the soldier even if that exact soldier shot grandpa as long as the soldier calls him over in a certain way. The child of 3 does not think abstractly enough to formulate a moral judgement against a murderer but instead bases his opinion of the soldier on whether he feels the person calling him over can provide him with a safe place and immediate comfort. This is a 3 year old, not a 13 year old. They don't "hate" at this age.

@jaibi would you agree with the psychological analysis above of 3 year olds in such a scenario?