The first comment is : The boy if he really was there as mentioned was doing a wrong thing; Secondly even if this boy was there as mentioned he should have been warned through warning shots in the air: Thirdly should the boy run away he could have been shot below the waist. The entire solution? Educate the masses what they can and cannot do including the army guy!! This what basic education does and which is denied. I also believe that this must be a ploy to try and ferment trouble for the young government of Ms Jayalalitha. She should be aware of this as many would like to create instability and this shot could have very well come from one of the DMK guys!!
Re: Proper procedure!
by Raju Andrews on Jul 03, 2011 07:02 PM
The army is not a police force, so firing a warning shot does not hold good for the army. The boy in the first place should not have been in a restricted area. There are proper procedures in place when entering a restricted area. Please follow them
Re: Re: Proper procedure!
by samudra blr on Jul 03, 2011 07:30 PM
Army is a bunch of goons eating our tax payers money . Even if the boy had trespassed by mistake, he could be warned and let off.
Re: Drunk soldier/trigger happy
by vinod vinod on Jul 03, 2011 06:37 PM
these scums rink 24*7 and try to rape women nearby.when they see soldiers from other coutnries they piss in theri pants
Re: bloody civilians
by kashif zaman on Jul 03, 2011 06:28 PM
could have done warning shot,not once but twice,and even could shoot left or right even then the boy didnt stop could have shot in legs,
Re: Re: bloody civilians
by damietta e on Jul 03, 2011 06:35 PM
Was the boy illiterate and of unsound mind that he didnt know where to venture? Do you think the Army will simply shoot without yelling at the boy? All those calls must have been ignored. Army is justified in its action and should punish the parents of that boy so that next time one understands the issues in a civilised manner.
Re: maybe he was a terrorist collecting information.
by shehbaazahmed on Jul 03, 2011 06:30 PM
13yr boy is minor,and ramakants father or brother must be linked with terrorists so they should be dealt first,this young boy could have been apprehended as the shooters knows he is a minor,secondly not a threat,nor carrying any arm thirdly could have been shot in the legs to incapacitate him,rather this rogue trigger happy and drunk has shot at armless civilian to prove his bravery ,can they show it on naxalites or chinese,phat jayegi.
Re: maybe he was a terrorist collecting information.
by Amarakbarantony on Jul 03, 2011 06:47 PM
what ramakant mentioned is exactly right.Now a days terrorists using children to collect vital information for precise strike.So his background should be investigated to rule out terror link.
Why should acts of indiscipline be condoned? The boys parents, if he is a minor, should also be punished for the delinquency of their ward. Why should the Army, or for that matter any owner/authority permit trespass on its property? The nation, as a whole, needs to re-learn the importance of discipline if it has to reach anywhere. Absolute freedom is the privilege of wild animals only but that is also limited by the will of stronger animals. For humans freedom and responsibility go hand in hand.
Re: teen shot at
by tapan ghosh on Jul 03, 2011 06:42 PM
Mr. Vicky Kamat, you are wrong and playing in the hands of anti Indians. There are many agents of ISI in our country. I hope you are not one of them. Tapan Ghosh
Re: teen shot at
by rajeshwar kaushik on Jul 03, 2011 06:19 PM
What an irresponsible comment! Would you permit trepass on your property, Vicky? The Army has a system in place for dealing with this kind of situations. The trespasser must have been shot at only after failing to respond to repeted warnings.
