"Mother of Indian hit-and-run driver in Australia defends son - AFP Dec 12, 2013
NEW DELHI - The mother of an Indian who fled Australia after killing a teenager in a traffic accident five years ago defended her son on Thursday, saying "accidents happen all the time".
She was speaking to AFP outside a court in New Delhi where her son Puneet Puneet, 24, made a brief appearance as authorities seek his extradition back to Australia to face charges over the hit-and-run incident.
"My son is saying that 'yes an accident happened'. But it was an accident and accidents happen all the time," she said.
"I have faith in God and the judiciary.
"So many Indians were killed in Australia probably in cold-blooded ways. What about those?" she added.
A string of attacks on Indian students in Australia in 2011 outraged public opinion in India and led to accusations of racism against migrants, sparking a diplomatic row between the two countries.
Puneet's family has told Australian media that he will not contest the extradition back to Melbourne.
Puneet was a 19-year-old learner driver when he hit two students, aged 19 and 20, as they walked across a Melbourne road in 2008. One of the students died at the scene.
Australian police estimated Puneet was driving at 148 kilometres (92 miles) an hour - more than double the legal limit in the area. He also tested positive for alcohol.
He was charged with culpable driving and negligently causing serious injury, then bailed on strict conditions including the surrender of his passport. But he later fled using a fellow Indian's passport.
Australian police offered a reward in 2012 for information leading to his arrest."
The voice of 'unreasoned'?
Lessons for me are:
1. when one's personal interest is in conflict, one may react in a very 'unreasonable' way as one's actions are driven by 'emotions'. As I have reiterated many times in the past, when 'emotion' gains an upper hand in any situation, rationality has no chance at all even when everyone knows that rational thinking and behaviors are exactly what were needed in those situations!;
2. just imagined the mothers of the 2 students, 19 and 20, at the time of the 'accident', listening to this mother's defense of her son's 'accidental killing of their kids while, until established unequivocally in the court, driving at twice the speed limit under the influenec of 'excessive alcohol'? What would be their responses? If emotion rules, the responses will be very aggressive and bewildered that she could have said: "It was an accident and accidents happened ALL the time!" Not to mention the 'what about those Indians who were killed cold-bloodedly in Australia'?' It will be mayhem and further aggravation of the pains and sense of loss of 2 young lives. The disbelief may then turned into aggression and attacking this Indian's mother is very probable!;
3. YET, if the involved parties can, somehow, practice 'self-control' and 'control their own emotion', these would be what they probably will say:
The Indian mother: "My son was driving under the influence of alcohol, assuming the evidence by the Australian police is true and fair, and at twice the speed limit of the area where the fatal accident took place. He is sorry for the loss of innocent lives. I am sorry about it. He will face the just and fair trial and shoulder that consequence of his actions. Having said that: I do appeal to the court to consider that he was a 19 year old kid living away from his home and have some mercy on him."
The mothers of the 2 dead students: "As mothers, we can understand why the Indian mother is saying what she is saying. We might have done the same. Having said that: It is important to recognize that he was driving under the influence of alcohol according to the police's evidence and he was driving at twice the speed limit of that area where the accident took place. He is 19 years old and he need to take responsibilities for his action. 2 young innocent did died as a result of his behaviors."
That would be great.
That is the type of conversation we probably need to have in the recently erupted first violent riot in Singapore in the last 40 years in Little India on Sunday 8 December 2013 night!
She was speaking to AFP outside a court in New Delhi where her son Puneet Puneet, 24, made a brief appearance as authorities seek his extradition back to Australia to face charges over the hit-and-run incident.
"My son is saying that 'yes an accident happened'. But it was an accident and accidents happen all the time," she said.
"I have faith in God and the judiciary.
"So many Indians were killed in Australia probably in cold-blooded ways. What about those?" she added.
A string of attacks on Indian students in Australia in 2011 outraged public opinion in India and led to accusations of racism against migrants, sparking a diplomatic row between the two countries.
Puneet's family has told Australian media that he will not contest the extradition back to Melbourne.
Puneet was a 19-year-old learner driver when he hit two students, aged 19 and 20, as they walked across a Melbourne road in 2008. One of the students died at the scene.
Australian police estimated Puneet was driving at 148 kilometres (92 miles) an hour - more than double the legal limit in the area. He also tested positive for alcohol.
He was charged with culpable driving and negligently causing serious injury, then bailed on strict conditions including the surrender of his passport. But he later fled using a fellow Indian's passport.
Australian police offered a reward in 2012 for information leading to his arrest."
The voice of 'unreasoned'?
Lessons for me are:
1. when one's personal interest is in conflict, one may react in a very 'unreasonable' way as one's actions are driven by 'emotions'. As I have reiterated many times in the past, when 'emotion' gains an upper hand in any situation, rationality has no chance at all even when everyone knows that rational thinking and behaviors are exactly what were needed in those situations!;
2. just imagined the mothers of the 2 students, 19 and 20, at the time of the 'accident', listening to this mother's defense of her son's 'accidental killing of their kids while, until established unequivocally in the court, driving at twice the speed limit under the influenec of 'excessive alcohol'? What would be their responses? If emotion rules, the responses will be very aggressive and bewildered that she could have said: "It was an accident and accidents happened ALL the time!" Not to mention the 'what about those Indians who were killed cold-bloodedly in Australia'?' It will be mayhem and further aggravation of the pains and sense of loss of 2 young lives. The disbelief may then turned into aggression and attacking this Indian's mother is very probable!;
3. YET, if the involved parties can, somehow, practice 'self-control' and 'control their own emotion', these would be what they probably will say:
The Indian mother: "My son was driving under the influence of alcohol, assuming the evidence by the Australian police is true and fair, and at twice the speed limit of the area where the fatal accident took place. He is sorry for the loss of innocent lives. I am sorry about it. He will face the just and fair trial and shoulder that consequence of his actions. Having said that: I do appeal to the court to consider that he was a 19 year old kid living away from his home and have some mercy on him."
The mothers of the 2 dead students: "As mothers, we can understand why the Indian mother is saying what she is saying. We might have done the same. Having said that: It is important to recognize that he was driving under the influence of alcohol according to the police's evidence and he was driving at twice the speed limit of that area where the accident took place. He is 19 years old and he need to take responsibilities for his action. 2 young innocent did died as a result of his behaviors."
That would be great.
That is the type of conversation we probably need to have in the recently erupted first violent riot in Singapore in the last 40 years in Little India on Sunday 8 December 2013 night!
No comments:
Post a Comment