Break the Silence
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2010
- Messages
- 1,187
- Reaction score
- 0
Dear Sir,
I am sorry, I cannot join you in your sentiments. What Mr. 'Adam Gilchrist' did was unpardonable. We don't need paper tigers, Monday morning quarterbacks to tell people on the spot what to do. Let him put up or shut up; if he's from a defence family, what's he doing in civvy street? And if he's in civvy street, and hasn't heard a shot fired in anger in his life, what business does he have to comment?
If it is a question of flaunting our defence background, as if it makes a difference to the quality of our comments, those who do so might pause to reflect that inevitably there might be those in the audience who have a different orientation. Personal prejudice is not a suitable foundation on which to make these puerile observations.
It is galling to hear a popinjay strut about and offer free advice on how a or b or c should have behaved; this is a 'tale, full of sound and fury, signifiying nothing'. Those in this forum who have an exposure to Shakespeare may fill out the preceding part of the quotation to get a full measure of the contempt that I have for such egregious behaviour.
Sincerely,
Respected Sir,
I am not going to put any comment from now on in this thread. But what I was trying to do convince Adam And other mates who are criticising Our police Personnels has been clarified by you it self in your following lines..
Nor can an unarmed policeman, or even an armed policeman armed with an ancient bolt-action SMLE. The armed policeman is trained to fire from a rank of policemen lined up at a violent, rioting mob, not to take cover and start shooting at AK47 wielding terrorists.
Evidently the fact that a policeman wears uniform has confused you.
As I pointed out in an earlier post, a policeman is nothing but an unarmed civilian, just like anything unarmed civilian, unless he belongs to a specific unit trained for the job of resisting terrorists or insurgents.
Please try to remember, once again, that a policeman has four duties, and three of them do not involve anti-terror or counter-insurgency measures.
Please try to remember:
a policeman
maintains law and order under ordinary circumstances, against, say, people quarrelling outside a bar because they are tipsy, petty thieves quarrelling over the distribution of loot; even, in extreme cases, communal violence, and resultant riots;
regulates traffic;
detects crime and seeks to prevent it. Here we are talking about crimes such as robbery, assault and battery, cheating, running gambling dens or houses of ill fame, and so on.
These roles do not include terror or insurgency, or the prevention of organised violence by specialised perpetrators of violence, like terrorists and insurgents.
It is NOT the job of ordinary or regular policemen to prevent terrorism or insurgency; this is the job of the armed police.
It is NOT the job of a traffic policeman to stop a terrorist in a vehicle trying to get away; this is the job of the armed police.
For your information, a normal, regular policeman cannot, for instance, regulate traffic; unless specifically trained and tasked for it, he cannot do it. In addition, in India, he is not authorised to make traffic arrests. A little investigation of cognisable and non-cognisable offences, and the necessity of an FIR to authorise arrests or a warrant in the case of non-cognisable offences, would help the discussion along.
Please try to understand: a postman also wears uniform, a post man and a beat policeman are equally well-equipped to stop armed terrorists.
In brief, it appears that your criticism, unlike that of the FBI, is based on your own understanding of the law and of law enforcement. This differs radically between the US and India, so no direct comparison is possible. Handcuffing is standard in the US; it is forbidden in India.
And thanx a lot for your wise comments.
