The public opinion is divided but tends towards negative due to the historical and religious sensitivities involved. There is significant apprehension about involving the Golden Temple, a major religious site, in military precautions amidst India-Pakistan tensions. People express frustration over political manipulation and demand transparency and accountability from governments. Meanwhile, cultural ties and shared histories resist personal animosity between citizens of both nations, highlighting a desire for peaceful resolutions instead of exacerbating hostilities.

Indian Government

Pakistani Government

Sikh Religious Authorities

I recently struck up a conversation with a Pakistani taxi driver. I mistakenly guessed that he was Indian and apologised profusely, thinking that that would have been offensive considering how "Pakistanis and Indians hate each other".  
  
He said that they don't really hate each other and that the media persists with the narrative of division.

spottyPotty

The Partition to split the Muslim and the Hindu population apart was not the cause of the hostility. It happened *because* of it. 

The way it happened was disastrous, but it happened because there were 2 populations that already hated each other with political leaders that didn't want to compromise.

La-Boheme-1896

\&gt; Why wouldn't they just hate the Brits? 

&amp;#x200B;

The answer is in the way India got its independence from Great Britain, through a largely non violent struggle, that did not leave much of bloodshed or hatred behind.   


Pakistan was favoured by the British as its last outpost against the Soviets in what is known as the 'great game'.

gfxd

I'm going to answer the question you ended up asking in good faith, since it does have a ELI5 simplistic answer. I do think your question is badly formulated and subjective and can't have an objective answer, since no one can explain to a 5 year old in objective terms why 2 groups hate each other, much less 2 nations. To avoid trivialising the experiences of both parties, a lot of complexity and nuance needs to come in, for the explanation not to be insulting.

Here goes - A lot of people in India and Pakistan hate the other country (but not necessarily individuals just the symbolic idea) **because** they've been in constant conflict for the past 75 years, with thousands of lives lost to armed conflict and terrorism. That tends to foster hatred over time. 

Do note - both India and Pakistan are geo-politically complex nations, and there's no single national consensus on anything in either country. Think about how fractured the UK was on Brexit, or US is on gun control or reproductive rights, as a comparison. However wars and terrorism have fed the traditional rivalry over the years, and a mostly national consensus on both sides. 

Neither country hates the Brits since neither has had an active armed conflict with them in that time period. Indians have a lot of reasons to hate the colonial British *legacy*, and they do. There's a fair amount of material around it online. No one hates current Britain though. We do wish the Brits would acknowledge their problematic colonial legacy and apologize for some stuff - the [Jallianwala Bagh massacre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre) for instance.

That's the ELI5 answer.

I'm going to rant a bit now about what I suspect was your actual incredibly subjective question which was - Why do both countries hate each other and *hence* have had a bunch of wars. This is insulting since you're trivializing a billion people's motivations and thousands of deaths in conflict to "they hate each other so they fight". This exactly the same kind of reasoning originally used to rush through partition. "These savages can't govern themselves and won't co-exist" was a popular Western opinion. No rational country goes to war over simple hatred, it's always a question of resources and power politics. I'm not even sure how one would explain complex geo-politics to a 5 year old. And I'm not going to try, not being a scholar on the topic, and your question wasn't actually "why have India and Pakistan had a lot of conflict over 75 years".

You can't actually overview the conflict *from outside* without considering the larger SE Asian geo-political history and then political state in both countries - the British in Afghanistan, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, China, [Bangladesh independence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Liberation_War), Afghanistan, Afghanistan (again). All of which resulted in the US/NATO pumping billions of $ in military aid to Pakistan, especially to the ISI. You can guess where military aid money goes to. Armed conflict.

*Full disclosure: I'm Indian*

dysfunctionallymild

It is a mistake to simplify it as 'hate each other'.

It is not so. You can call it a struggle between Islamism and Secularism. Just as Capitalism struggled against Communism / Fascism.Pakistan was founded on an ideology known as the 'Two Nation theory' which states that Hindus and Muslims are two different nations and can never live together in a single state-nation together. While India is founded on the idea that a secular liberal democracy is possible with the world's most diverse, multi cultural, multi religious, multi linguistic, pluralistic society is not only possible, but the only way ahead for the sub-continent that houses one sixth of humanity.

One of the key contention is the state of Jammu and Kashmir. It was a ruled by a Hindu King, but had a Muslim majority. The state was free to join either India or Pakistan, but the state had a stand-still agreement with both India and Pakistan.

Pakistan attacked Jammu and Kashmir using proxy tribal warriors - the world knows them now by the name of Taliban, but these were frontier Pashtuns, the same who make up the majority of Taliban today. The sudden invasion even with the stand still agreement shocked the King of Jammu and Kashmir, who had no other option but to petition India for military assistance. The invading force made its way to Srinagar, the capital, but on the way, the horde stopped to loot, rape and rampage.

Meanwhile, India told the King that unless the state joins the Indian Union, they cannot help. The king signed the Instrument of Accession and the state of Jammu and Kashmir joined India. India then airlifted its military forces which drove out the Pakistani invaders, but not completely before an UN ceasefire came into force.

The line of control now divides Jammu and Kashmir. The UN Security Council resolutions call for Pakistan to withdraw their forces completely so that India can hold a plebiscite, but now it is too late, Pakistan never withdrew its forces and recently, the state was reorganised as two Union Territories (federal territory)  - one is Ladakh with a majority Buddhist population and other is Jammu and Kashmir (remaining part).

Pakistan believes Jammu and Kashmir should have rightfully become a part of Pakistan which was created for Muslims as a Islamic stronghold. Pakistan has become a garrison state with a very large Army that runs the show.

Peace was almost reached multiple times, but the Pakistani Army, which stands to lose clout and importance if a peace treaty with India is reached with freezing the borders have also scuttled it by many means.

Also, Pakistan follows a policy of death by a thousand cuts - using Islamic Terrorism as state policy and methodology to attempt to defeat India just as the US used Mujahedeen against the Soviet Union.

Edit: Added references  


1. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-nation\_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-nation_theory)
2. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani\_War\_of\_1947](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1947)
3. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument\_of\_Accession\_(Jammu\_and\_Kashmir)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_of_Accession_(Jammu_and_Kashmir))
4. UN Security Council Resolution 47 [https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/111955/?ln=en](https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/111955/?ln=en)
5. More on India-Pakistan relations [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93Pakistan\_relations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93Pakistan_relations)
6.

1. Pakistan is a country that was made for muslims. India still has a muslim population larger than pakistani muslim population. Pakistan wants to carve out more land for itself in the name of Indian muslims. The reason - Zamindari System. The economic arrangement where there are feudal lords and the way to economic development is to conquer more land. India immediately after Independance cracked down on the zamindari system and removed the powers of Indian Kings (India was divided into more than 500 princely states before its independence) , while Pakistan in a way celebrated it (the reason why the Hindu King of Sindh decided to join Pakistan instead of India). The Pakistani army is actually a feudal lord conversion program where during and after your service you end up owning a lot of land. They regularly feed the idea to their population that when they win the war with India they will occupy the country and become the overlords of its resources. Who doesn't like easy money while 'saving' fellow Indian muslims from the Kafir Hindus (Being non Muslim makes the Hindus bad). This is what the poor Pakistanis are told when they question their government. 
2. There is indeed some friction between the Hindus and Muslims of the subcontinent but it is not so much that they want to destroy each other completely. If this was the case then India and Bangladesh (Earlier East Pakistan) would have been at war now. Pakistan was made politically possible by Indian muslims who migrated from India to Pakistan. The people of Balochistan, Sindh and other states of Pakistan other than Punjab were not so keen on Partition as Congress used to win the elections there instead of Muslim League (Balochistan wanted to become a separate country).  So because they are already invested in the Idea that - Hindus and Muslims cant live together hence Pakistan is needed, they keep doubling down on this Idea by supporting hostilities with 'Hindu' India. 
3. Economically both the countries are blocking each others business routes , east for pakistan and west (middle east) for India. If the hostilities come down then the business houses in both the countries will push for a subcontinent political block unified in some way. This will shake up the political structures that people have invested a lot of time and money to build. So to protect their political ambitions and designs both the countries keep up with the hostilities. 
4. Gazwa-E-Hind : According to a particular Hadis (Islamic scripture) , forces from Khorasan (Afghanistan, uzbekistan... all the stan countries were part of a geography with same culture called Khorasan) will capture Delhi. Some believe it has already happened. Mughals came from the same place, Samarkand... Some use this Hadis to suggest a future battle that is to be fought and won and use this to keep up the hostilities and make profits out of it. 
5. Pakistan's religious scholars are not happy with the governing structure and the only way army legitimizes its power is by saying to them  they are fighters of Islam protecting against the Hindu India. If there was no animosity against India then the Mullahs would have taken over like they did in Iran as the army could not justify their secular rule over Islamic republic of Pakistan. Similarly Hindu nationalist parties need a Pakistan to stir the citizenry to realize their Hindu identity and choose these parties to rally for the safety of Hindus.

atruskhiladi

They already had hatred when the British arrived.  The British saw it as a useful tool and promoted the division.  Then there was partion and more reason to hate.  And conflict and genocide after so yet more reason to hate.  There are still occasional terrorist acts, false flag terrorist acts and pogroms, the modern leaders still find the religious divisions a useful tool.  People like to hate what's close to them.

[deleted]

Explain it like you're my 5 year old?

They used to be one country with 2 religions. They hated each other's different religions and have split themselves into two countries. They still hate each other.

IAmInTheBasement

Hey Indian here!

I hate not the people but the concept of pakistan, a state created on the basis of religion, I am an atheist and resonate with the state being kept absolutely secular, in addition I'm also Bengali, so pakistan committing a genocide against the Muslim Bengalis after a Bengali won the national elections is also kindof a contributing factor.

Upstuck_Udonkadonk

Citizens of each country don't 'HATE' each other. There is a lot of animosity yes and particularly over the state of Kashmir and the fact that the Pakistan army has sponsored terrorism in India (Mumbai attacks of 26/11). 

However, there is tremendous amount of shared history. I have met many Pakistanis over the past few years and all of them talk about their extended families on the other side of the border with great fondness. We also have people (and particularly Muslims) all across India who chose to stay back in India and have families ont he other side. 

Many of the posters above have called it absolutely right - there are genuine religious reasons that led to the division of Hindus and Muslims. There was animosity over land, cultural differences and the British did their part to stoke the fire repeatedly (I am not blaming them at all).

I just wanted to point out one thing to everyone about the sub-continent. it is nearly **2 Billion people overall.** Every thing you comment on the sub continent you will find the opposite to be true as well (lots of religious animosity but also a lot of brotherhood).

I think we all agree on a few things though - the British suck, Shahrukh Khan is amazing, we hate the Australian cricket team and we have the best food in the world.

masala_mayhem

The British just played off pre existing ethnic/religious conflicts in the region, it didn’t create the animosity.

Muslims and Hindus have been at war with each other in the Indian subcontinent for like, 700 years.

The Pakistan / India conflict is just making an international conflict out of one that used to be internal.  The partition was terribly executed and probably doomed to failure, but was done with the goal of reducing conflict.

Vic_Hedges

It is a matter of boarder dispute. The northern parts of the British Raj had mostly a Muslim population while the rest were mostly Hindu. The British knew that without a big empire to rule the cultural differences would cause a civil war. See the Balkan wars or the Somali wars, or countless other religious/cultural civil wars following empire collapses. So the British would separate the Muslim areas from the Hindu areas and create three different countries. The problem with this was that after centuries of being under the same empire people had moved around freely without regard for any natural or administrative boarders. So there were Hindu and Muslims living in the same apartment buildings. It was therefore not possible to draw the boarders between the countries without upsetting people as they would end up on the wrong side of the boarder.

The biggest issue was in Kashmir, a province with a majority Muslim population but with a sizable, and more powerful Hindu population. The British allowed them to decide for themselves what country to join. The Muslims feared that the Hindu had enough power to make Kashmir join India. And so they started a rebellion to remove the Hindu from power. Pakistan and India joined this fight and so the war started. It also does not help that Kashmir is a rich area with lots of nutritious farmland thanks to mineral runoffs from the Himalaya, which also make it a possible site for mineral extraction. So it is not just about the people but also about the resources in the area.

Gnonthgol

Imagine America’a black and white race politics, and place about 250 years of misinformation and rage baiting, false flags, secret deals. And you have a broken civilization ripe for the picking for the colonial powers.

India was a melting pot, before colonial powers arrived, India had been in the center of the world’s trade. They did trade with the bactrians, they hosted some Persians fleeing Islamic conquest. Eventually Islamic expansion touched India and India was slowly defeated (due to a series of lazy empire too prideful to set aside petty differences for a common cause). Then after the Islamic conquest the colonials incited revolutions and rebellions with smaller kingdoms against Mughals.

India has been fighting for “my land my land” for 3000 years at least, they have gained more varieties of people than lost.

Party_Director_1925

The death toll of the Muslim conquests of India is estimated at an unbelievable [80 million](https://kulveersamra.wordpress.com/2017/02/02/the-unrecognized-genocide-of-islamic-conquests/). It was an outright genocide against the Hindus with incredible brutality.

These populations were already at each others' throats. Britain's rule just put a temporary pause on it.

___Tom___

Coming from a 21 yo Pakistani -


The people don't hate each other, not even the older generations as far as I'm aware. No one besides the governments really cares about the "rivalry" beyond cricket matches. I myself visited Delhi and Srinagar, and I intend to visit again when the opportunity arises. 


As much as I'd rather not admit it, there isnt really much competition to be had between us and India beyond the nuclear equalisers. Our country was founded on a flawed ideology. Islam being pervasive is in many ways the reason for our downfall; corrupt politicians use it as a shield when necessary, the hardcore followers are hellbent upon returning us to the sixth century, and everyone else is profoundly aware of the risks that would come with moving for change. With the way our economy is declining, I don't see this country being livable for more than a few decades more. 

Everything else mentioned on this thread is a good summary of the history behind it. We have always been the aggressors and the losers as far as armed conflicts go, if one looks at unbiased records. A sad state of affairs, really.


Worst part is, the younger generation is more radicalized than any other before it. There is no escape from the whirlpool of Islam.

Donquicksoat

Hey, I'm Indian, and I'd like to explain this situation more clearly.

Imagine 3-4 families living in a beautiful house together: Family A, which is a little bit darker, and Family B, which is mostly normal.

Despite having some cultural differences, they actually share each other’s language, festivals, and eat together from the same plate.

One day, a tenant came to rent one room. He said he'd need security and wanted to install 2-3 guards outside the room. Later, he offered to pay more and was ready to take 3 more rooms if they could adjust in a smaller space. Those who agreed were unaware that this person was about to hijack their entire house and loot their resources. His guards acted like an army, torturing every family member in the name of self-declared law and order.

While they did some good things, like renovating the house and beautifying the garden, this tenant was sending or selling all the precious resources of this house to his own home.

One day, all the family members decided to march against the tenant and killed 2-3 guards. The tenant knew that unity among the families was bad for him. So, he invented a plan to create a divide between these families. He started making reforms to make people from Family A and B jealous of each other.

He told Family A they were in the minority and in poor conditions because Family B had all the resources and they hated them. To Family B, he said, 'Family A invaded your house xxx years ago, destroyed your worship places; get rid of them.'

Not everyone believed the tenant, but some so-called intellectuals started thinking about it. A leader from Family A began a '2 family theory', saying that a family of multiple cultures cannot live together. They wanted their separate house by dividing their existing house.

Some leaders of Family B denied this offer and said they would sort out their matters. But some other sub-leaders wanted their home quickly because the tenant offered to work as a mediator and promised to leave this house forever.

The tenant hastily drew a line between the houses, resulting in total chaos. Children were lost from their parents, families torn apart, and people didn’t get time to rush to each other.

To prevent going to each other's houses, they started killing each other. Imagine a house where celebrations and prosperity of culture, knowledge, and wealth were there, now a blood river is flowing from there.

There was a small area in the house which was very beautiful like heaven. The tenant never provided any solutions for that, and both families kept fighting over this place.

Both Family A and B were insecure, so they hired their guards and fought a full-scale war three times. 

Both families opposed each other in front of relatives and tried many times to form peace, like sharing water or making a special entry route, but due to their insecurity, they never resulted positively.

Some extremists from Family A often hurt people from Family B; they never want peace, and Family B accuses Family A of protecting its criminals.

Family A accuses that in Family B's house, people from Family A were never treated right and were harassed and tortured.

Despite the conflicts, people from Family A and B still share the same past, culture, language, music, food, and lifestyle.

India and Pakistan went to war three times due to the Kashmir issue, leading to constant tension between these two nations.

But you can see Indian and Pakistani people in Dubai, USA, literally sharing a room, food, and lifestyle.

They don’t typically hate each other, but some politicians and warmongering media make money out of it.

Of course, there are some more important events that resulted in this bitterness, but a common man wants peace and prosperity. 

Political stability is crucial in Pakistan; since independence, no prime minister completed their entire tenure in Pakistan.

It is said that we can choose our enemy, but we can’t choose our neighbors. Hence, peace is the utmost option for these two nuclear-powered nations for the sake of their people and the global community.

Sorry for the long one

Namansharrma

Politicians in both countries generating a narrative to blame the ‘other’ to distract from their own corruption/incompetence and the sheeple getting carried away. Social media has made it much more toxic. Nationalistic and religious emotions are easy to trigger and most people don’t have access to a balanced history, just their own nationalist narrative and are too incompetent to do their own fact finding.

Renerovi

People are going to point to the last hundred years of history between the two countries, but the immediate issue of today that is driving a wedge is that there are very frequent border incursions and attacks on Indian cities, civilians and military bases by terrorists operating out of Pakistani soil. Pakistan's official stance is to condemn these groups, but Indians allege that they aren't serious about tackling the problem and even sponsor it themselves.

IMovedYourCheese

Pakistan is mostly a non-issue now. Current young population doesnt care. Its economy is garbage tier. Nothing to pay attention to.

Simple-Fisherman-354

I'll try to dictate it from memory so please bear with me.

Well when India was made independent and a part of it was divided into Pakistan, a some parts of modern day India and Pakistan were under the rule of local kingdoms, called the Princely States. After the independence, they were given 3 choices, join India, join Pak or stay independent.

Jammu and Kashmir was one among those, the Maharaja Hari Singh was indecisive on what state to join. The region of Jammu was predominantly Hindu, while Kashmir was Muslim. Ladakh was Buddhist. Joining any one could be an issue as the other religion could feel left out. Hence, Hari Singh didn't make a move, even after the Viceroy and Gandhi made visits.

Now Pakistan thought that since J&amp;K had a Muslim population, they should take control of it completely. That is why they armed and supported(and by some reports, even dressed some of their own soldiers as) tribesmen who invaded the state of Jammu Kashmir. Now, Hari Singh was facing an issue as his soldiers were being pushed back. India agreed to help, but it couldn't just send its soldiers right in, as it would be justification for Pakistan to do so too. So, Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession, making it a part of India. 

After a long war aside, the state ended up divided into what is globally recognised as Indian-administered Kashmir and Pakistan Administered Kashmir. Both the nations still recognise the whole state as their own.

This state caused wars in the future as well, as Pakistan invaded India twice over Kashmir in 1965 and 1999 (the 1999 wasn't openly admitted by Pakistan officially afaik, they claim it were terrorists.)

Feel free to correct me, my memory can be hazy.

Cat_Of_Culture


**Please note these rules:**

* If this post declares something as a fact/proof is required.
* The title must be descriptive
* No text is allowed on images/gifs/videos
* Common/recent reposts are not allowed

*See [this post](https://redd.it/ij26vk) for a more detailed rule list*


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

I've seen this picture used a lot to depict the vault. I think it's an artist's impression or a repurposed picture. I don't believe a photo exists of the real vault possibly due to photography being banned inside the temple?

Rogermcfarley

I’m interested in curse, what are the parameters?

onlinesafe

The real treasure has always been inside you.

Feroand

CosmicShuttlecock

There ain’t 1 trillion in there, government would’ve taken it already lol

Rjmz718

It’s probably empty. That’s why they don’t want it opened as it would reveal there is nothing inside.

Crazy_Canuck_8888

Dutchwells

If it should never be opened, then why install a door?

Funny-Eye-1735

I mean. With how my life is going right now I’d probably open it.

Copy Paste from Wikipedia:

As of April 2016, vaults B, G, and H along with their several ante-chambers were yet to be opened; while inventorying of the items in vaults C, D, E, and F were completed (in August 2012) and formal inventorying of vault A had commenced.\[79\] Several hundred pots and other items made of gold, that are used for daily rituals or intermittently for ceremonies in the Temple, were not inventoried as the Temple-priests expressed strong objections.\[79\] Over 1.02 lakh "articles" had been retrieved from Vault A and its ante-chambers, till that point, though only a small part of them had been inventoried then. An "article" could be either an individual item, or collections of several items, examples of the latter being a cache of 1.95 lakh 'Rassappanams' (Gold coins) weighing 800 kg and sets of Navaratnas (collections of nine different kinds of diamonds).\[80\] There are over 60,000 fully precious stones set as parts of larger pieces of gold jewellery among those items inventoried as of March 2013.\[80\] The results of the inventory are not to be released until the completion of the whole process by order of the Supreme Court of India.\[78\]

Plot twist, they opened vault B at the beginning of 2020

pezx

Vault B has not been opened presumable for centuries. The Supreme Court appointed committee members opened the metal-grille door to Vault B, and discovered a sturdy wooden door just behind it. They opened this door as well, and encountered a third door, made of iron, which was jammed shut. The observers considered forcing their way in, but deemed this improper; they decided to hire a locksmith. Then, in mid-July, before the locksmith came, the royal family got an injunction from the Supreme Court against opening vault B.

mezuki92

It is said that only when someone chants the Garuda Vashikaran Mantra will they extricate the Naga Bandham (snake binding spell) &amp; only then can the door be opened. For it is said to be guarded by Lord Vishnu. And anyone would opens it will Die and a curse will be unleashed apon the entire world.

Furthermore it is believed that no sage exists of such holy caliber right now in this world to be able to chant the mantra.
And that one day there would be born a holy child who is destined to open it.

Never stopped anyone in Egypt or central America.

Elfere

Righhttttt 1 trillion but we aren’t gonna open it miss me with that

Ramusxx

Is the price of those treasures only inflated because the story behind the vault itself? I mean a gold brick is just a gold brick, but if you say it is from a cursed vault of an ancient temple, now you have a treasure.

rapidpop

I’m already convinced it’s been opened due to the world spiraling with disease, war, and famine

Mawmallama98

Send Geraldo Rivera over.  He's an expert at opening vaults.

TheSilverFoxwins

colbyshores

Treasure worth $1 trillion is sorta a meaningless measurement. If it's a trillion dollars worth of gold, selling that much would drastically lower the cost of gold. Similarly, if it's a bunch of super rare artifacts, dumping thousands of them into an auction seems like it'd devalue the lot.

So there is oil and it should be liberated?

beach_reanolds

First off, the door photo is not how it looks. This one looks out of some mortal Kombat shit. Also, there is a rumor that the royal family (not in power) has been stealing stuff out of that vault. They want to avoid government scrutiny over missing gold and currency.

todayswinner

for anyone wondering, this is not new it happned a few years ago, and im almost positive "da baby" was clear of all charges

glizard45

Three guys are standing around Mr. Baby. We don't know what was being said or not said, but it appears they were conversing. Mr. Baby rushes one, entering a standing melee and pushing the male in a UNC hoodie back. One of UNC's friends, Jaylin Craig, draws a gun from his pocket or a 3 o'clock holster. Mr. Baby is struggling with UNC in a standing fight for about 30 seconds. Craig approaches them. The camera cuts away and we see people running from gunshots, followed by Mr. Baby holstering.

From what we've seen here, the good/bad of this shoot appears to come down to if Mr. Baby had reasonable cause to act with force when he shoved UNC. This camera work is also rather deliberately cut so that we don't see the shooting, which I suspect would show the gun Craig drew being aimed at Mr. Baby and Mr. Baby responding in kind.

Always be aware of media manipulation.

GTS250

This video fuckin sucks, we don't see shit except a couple of little boys hugging and people running away before little boy blue stuffs his gun back in his jammies

BarnyTrubble

Turbulent_Ad6004

Hmmm not sure I’m buying the “self defense” claim here. He is clearly the aggressor and assaulted one of the individuals before drawing and “acting in self defense”. 

Additionally, I doubt he didn’t anticipate the victim or friends would have guns too. 

This appears to be clearly premeditated assault, and not a straight forward self defense scenario.  The one who pulled the gun was potentially intervening to defend a friend changing the whole situation from assault to murder/self defense. 




Edit: changed to show the shooting victim wasn’t the same as the assault victim.

wiredog369

brygeek

The work I do backs up to the live music world. I've worked several shows with this artist. Never met him or dealt with him in person, but both times he was an asshole that the whole site was talking about.

americanmusc1e

One of the men who confronted DaBaby brandished a handgun. North Carolina has stand your ground laws. 

While it looks like DaBaby initially pushed/ shoved as an assault, he had every right to use deadly force after someone confronted him with a gun. 

Correct me if I’m wrong: is anyone more familiar with North Carolina’s stand your ground laws? Are you able to shoot someone who brandishes a handgun as intimidation?

This video doesn't show shit, it's cut out all the important bits. 

The guy never claimed not to have thrown the first punch, he said he was threatened with a gun and reacted. If 3 dudes were surrounding me, my kid, and my wife, and were trying to fight me/threaten me, I'd throw the first strike too.

Akalenedat

Not how I pictured the incident at all. This was eye opening for me.

ch3st3rrr

Nobody has enough information from this video to make a real decision. What lead up to this? Was the shooter just going about his day when someone came up to him harrassing and threatening him? The dude who got hit first had his hands in his pockets. Some dude with his hands in his pockets saying he is going to shoot you just presented a deadly threat. Now somehow a gun got introduced to the situation. A fight over a gun is a fight to the death. 

Who knows what witnesses and other camera angles will show. Simply not enough information to go off of.

DeCaffedNDeLifed

Too many commentators label Da Baby as the aggressor because he threw the first punch. Striking first does not automatically make someone the aggressor. For all we know, the person in the powder blue hoodie could have been threatening Da Baby, or PBH could have been known in the community as a violent person targeting Da Baby. Possibility, PBH walks up to Da Baby and threatens him with physical violence. Da Baby now being confronted by someone threatening him, and believing that person was capable and willing to follow through on those threats, throws the first punch in self-defense. Now the brawl has started, and third-person produces a handgun, and that's a clear cut good shoot

ItsRookPlays

The men who approached him brandished firearms and threatened him.

evagnier

It's pretty obvious who the aggressor was in my opinion. Unfortunately, it looks like a 3rd party person who stepped in go break it up ended up dying.

I think this solidifies the idea of not getting involved in confrontations that you weren't involved in. At least without fully understanding the risk.

This guy probably has plenty of money to hire the best lawyers so depending on the state and their laws he might get lucky. But he is going to need some good lawyers and they will have their work cut out. The only argument I see is that nobody displayed a firearm until the person who got shot did. A weak argument imo, but again this guy has money to put of a fight in court.

IPrintThings1234

He was still in the right for this shooting in my opinion. If you understand the context of what’s going on it will make more sense. He was out shopping for clothes for his kid who is with him in the store. These three guys came up to “check” him which is a common thing that happens when famous rappers with gang affiliations are spotted in other peoples territory. This happens all the time to tekashi 69 except that dipshit has enough money to hire 24/7 security. DaBaby had no security and when someone comes to check you that is absolutely an implication of violence. These dudes were robbing him, he had the right to resist with ordinary force which he did. When that happened one of the guys drew a gun and only then he escalated to drawing his own. They where the initial aggressors because they where trying to rob him. I think his music is pretty garbage and he says a lot of stupid shit but the man absolutely has the right to defend himself and his family. The only crime he committed was carrying a gun without a permit and they even dropped that charge,

Why the “self defense”

He was getting robbed and his kid was there

IRodeTenSpeed88

I’m having trouble understanding the relevance of this video- it appears consistent with publicly known facts about the case. The government declined to prosecute him for murder. I’m not sure what else there is to say.

cartesian-anomaly

Still self defense, I don’t see the issue.

No-Season-659

Wow, I always took his word for it, looks like Da Baby was the one who attacked the guy, he always said that HE was attacked randomly. I can’t remember, I could be wrong, but I thought he said that the guy was trying my to rob him. I’d that’s the case, that’s a different story. If he was in fact trying to rob him, I’d say self defense

There’s a reason he was cleared of all charges though, I assume they got this one right, and that there’s more evidence I’m not aware of

bbs540

AcanthocephalaOk3843

all 3-4 of the guys were surrounding da baby and his woman how i see it is he had no way out but but to react first and get the drop im sure he tried to get out the situation but couldn’t a simple fight isn’t serious it gets serious when one of the 4 pulled a gun and got killed in self defense if you don’t wanna die don’t mess with people simple i don’t feel bad for them 🤷‍♂️da baby been involved in 3-4 self defense shootings and been cleared of all

mashman765

The problem with these videos is they're usually excerpts and full context of what transpired is never included. That said, the person claiming self-defense seems to be the one who first initiated the assault.

Videopro524

I think we need to first figure out why DaBaby strike, if they threaten Dababy like trying to rob him or threatened to kill him and actually show signs they will act on it, then Baby throwing punches and drawing to defend himself is justified, but there is no audio so I can't be sure, be aware that the media will try to manipulate you into hating gun and the video is cut in the middle, BEWARE of who you are listening the story from and what interest they hold

EugeneNicoNicoNii

No-Historian-3014

Is the cut version being released now due to a civil trial coming up?   Doesn’t really make sense to put it out there now otherwise.

Psychological-Drive4

Fuck all that nonsense, if I'm with my child and you approach me on sum bullshit I promise im not gon give u a chance to even attempt anything.

johnnyblues90

you cant be the aggressor which it looks like he IS here and then use deadly force if your getting your ass kicked, that isn't self-defense... So how the F is this not a murder charge?

FineInjury

Curious everyones thoughts. He seems to be the aggressor to the fight, but some people from the other party pull their guns out first. DaBaby’s daughter was with him as well.

BiigPickleGuy

Don't go to stupid places at stupid times with stupid people.

KaBar42

Looked like he rushed the dude. Started to get hemmed up and shot him like a pussy.

sniffed_by_biden

Reddit super woke till a minority steps outta line. This thread has so many racist undertones.

SactownKorean

I'll never understand how people get into these stupid scuffles over what was probably nothing but empty words. Look where it got them...

It's pretty obvious who the aggressor was in my opinion. Unfortunately, it looks like a 3rd party person who stepped in go break it up ended up dying.

I think this solidifies the idea of not getting involved in confrontations that you weren't involved in. At least without fully understanding the risk.

This guy probably has plenty of money to hire the best lawyers so depending on the state and their laws he might get lucky. But he is going to need some good lawyers and they will have their work cut out. The only argument I see is that nobody displayed a firearm until the person who got shot did. A weak argument imo, but again this guy has money to put of a fight in court.

Edit: it looks like this happened a few years ago and the video is just now being released. It will be interesting to see if any new charges are brought up.

ExtraOordinary

Looked like the kid was trying to walk awak

NotasheepLOL

Yeah really self defense when you the one to start it lol

Stevwag88

The one and only time ice seen the aggressor claim self defence and win. Money talks.

lasagnaweez

I thought his daughter was with him when that happened isn't that what he talks about in rockstar

Childofthemango

Sufficient_Meat_5065

This is crazy that all charges were dropped. What I’m seeing is the man being attacked while having his hands in his pockets and attempting to walk away. To me it looks like Da Baby was the attacker here, was the first to start the physical altercation that left another man dead and should not have had the charges dropped. I think very highly of baby so this is kindof upsetting

SnOTTy_WaVeS

Lizzard20

This is North Carolina, he could have shot the baby and the cops would have just asked him if the baby ran at him or not lmao

RyanOfAlkerath

"MR Da Baby" That is funny shit.  Also come at people we use to with hands.  Punk bitch, you belong at Wallllmart.

game,, kid

RoutineComparison394

and your music is shit.  listen to real hip.

Wym "self defense" lmao as if you didn't just watch the dude tackle him.

Apart_Excuse8760

What kind of fucking name is “Dababy”?🤣

A controversy involving the alleged deployment of air defence guns at the Golden Temple in response to perceived threats from Pakistan has surfaced, with significant backlash from religious authorities and demands for government clarification.

Controversy Over Alleged Deployment of Air Defence Guns at Golden Temple During India-Pakistan Tensions

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want