DEATH SENTENCE to the Ranger who KILLED Sarfaraz Shah...the REST get LIFE!

[diwana]

Re: DEATH SENTENCE to the Ranger who KILLED Sarfaraz Shah…the REST get LIFE!

@Mirch

When the boy was caught and made to stand against the bus he should not be jumping around like he was , that poses a threat to those who have guns , they can take it that this guy is looking for an opportunity to snatch a gun and use it against them. Any guy who got a little training in self defense will tell you that. When a guy has a gun at your head then you just stand still you do not move a muscle that is a universal law.

If you see the video, at the time he was shot, he was not snatching the gun.

Also the kid was unarmed.

Many others were armed and were not the sissy girls who can say the kid was killed in self defence.

The boy/kid was in panic. You are assuming that a person who is in the center of all guns pointing at him will act rationally. He was not really trying to snatch gun that would be really stupid for him to assume he would get away with that when other guards had guns.

He pleaded mercy. (Listen to his words and how he begged). Mercy was denied.

That was the most pathetic act.

@TLK

I am purely talking legality of the sentence. According to wiki, the elements of common law murder are:

1. Unlawful
2. killing
3. of a human being
4. with malice aforethought(a deliberate and premeditated killing of another motivated by ill will)

The way I see it, number 4 was missing. it was not a premeditated killing.

OK.

Here is the excerpt frrom this link.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/murder

The **definition of murder **has evolved over several centuries. Under most modern statutes in the United States,

…murder comes in four varieties: (1) intentional murder; (2) a killing that resulted from the intent to do serious bodily injury; (3) a killing that resulted from a depraved heart or extreme recklessness; and (4) murder committed by an Accomplice during the commission of, attempt of, or flight from certain felonies.

Some jurisdictions still use the term malice aforethought to define intentional murder, but many have changed or elaborated on the term in order to describe more clearly a murderous state of mind. California has retained the malice aforethought definition of murder (Cal. Penal Code § 187 [West 1996]). It also maintains a statute that defines the term malice. Under section 188 of the California Penal Code, malice is divided into two types: express and implied. Express malice exists “when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature.” **Malice may be implied by a judge or jury “when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.”

---

**Basically, intention to kill or take life is only one variety of murder. Its ‘expressed’ absence does not elminate the term ‘murder’ altogether.

When the boy was denied much needed medical help, the **implied **intention to kill (Intentional serious harm to him) became **expressed **intention.

By the way it was illegal to shoot him as he was unarmed and did not pose a threat to guards.