izzit illegal ??
-
imagine la... X was attacked or being robbed.... den X while trying to defend himself accidentally causes the attacker to
in a coma die have broken limbs
will X b sued ???
-
actually it does not relli matter
the difference is, which side got the better lawyer -
yes.
that's why better to run away.
if person die, considered manslaughter. -
nice one!Originally posted by FireIce:actually it does not relli matter
the difference is, which side got the better lawyer
-
A body of laws, conventions, precedence and past legal traditions offer justice.
Disassociation from that long-established body of legal convention or distinguishable precedence and traditions leads to man-made laws, uncertainties and convenient twaking of the laws to suit situations and arguments. Hehe
-
Being attacked does not give X the right to injure back.
The onus would thus fall on X to prove to the judge that the force applied was not excessive. Failing to prove.. X is no different from an attacker. -
Sued, yes. Sentence, depends. If proven as an act of self-defense, X will be free.Originally posted by xvii:imagine la... X was attacked or being robbed.... den X while trying to defend himself accidentally causes the attacker to in a coma die have broken limbs
will X b sued ??? -
ehh no hor.
if self defence and the attacher was killed
defendant still guilty of manslaughter. -
UK courts just ruled that it is allowed for homeowners to attack any robbers or intruders on their property 1st, as a pre-emptive strike. The only exception would be un-necessary force, such as opening fire on an intruder with the intent to injure as vengence, despite the intruder being in the process of running away.
-
X will be sued if he injured the attacker needlessly, causing injuries after he can no longer to cause further harm.. eg.. X stabs the attacker even after the attacker fainted.
-
Originally posted by FireIce:actually it does not relli matter
the difference is, which side got the better lawyer -
Well... I just talked to my sister who is a police woman. She confirmed that an act of self defense causing death is different from manslaughter and thus will be freed.Originally posted by ShrodingersCat:ehh no hor.
if self defence and the attacher was killed
defendant still guilty of manslaughter.
The difficulty, as usual, is how to prove it is an act of self defense. Note that excess act in the name of self defense is not consider as an act of self-defense (E.g. An attack on someone holding a gun (without intention to fire) is NOT consider an act of self-defense - I.e. pre-emptive attack is not self defense (sounds familiar? )) -
ohh...interesting interpretation by Yoongf...
-
Also, attacking a robber who isn't trying to kill you is not consider an act of self-defense.
-
Act of self-defense:Originally posted by Qitai:Well... I just talked to my sister who is a police woman. She confirmed that an act of self defense causing death is different from manslaughter and thus will be freed.
The difficulty, as usual, is how to prove it is an act of self defense. Note that excess act in the name of self defense is not consider as an act of self-defense (E.g. An attack on someone holding a gun (without intention to fire) is NOT consider an act of self-defense - I.e. pre-emptive attack is not self defense (sounds familiar? ))
A, full of malicious intent, caught hold of B's hand. B swings arm to release A's hold causing A to fall trip and die.
Involuntarily manslaughter:
A, full of malicious intent, caught hold of B's hand. B pushes A away and A falls to death.
Voluntarily manslaughter:
A, full of malicious intent, caught hold of B's hand. B clubs A's head with handbag, causing death. (how A die i lazy to explain can?)
Murder:
A, full of malicious intent, caught hold of B's hand. B breaks off from grip, feels angry, take a chair and clubs A to death after A becomes unconscious. (applicable to Singapore's context of murder only) -
A further highlight on the differences on both cases.Originally posted by Nelstar:Act of self-defense:
A, full of malicious intent, caught hold of B's hand. B swings arm to release A's hold causing A to fall trip and die.
Involuntarily manslaughter:
A, full of malicious intent, caught hold of B's hand. B pushes A away and A falls to death.
As shown on Case 1, B has done nothing to A that was directly the cause of death. Thus, as A had forcefully gripped B, B was only swinging B's arm and A would have not died if A released the grip on B's hand.
As shown on Case 2, B has applied force onto A, though without any intent to harm, causing the death. Thus, B is directly involved in A's death as even if A released the grip on B's hand, the push would be the cause of A's death. As the force applied by B was insufficient to kill, thus it's considered involuntary manslaughter.
Case 3 is simpler, as A has applied sufficient force to kill, thus proving the statement voluntary manslaughter.
Case 4 is without debate, a higher degree of voluntary manslaughter which is considered murder in Singapore. -
Murder in Singapore and other countries. The difference.
In some countries, a person can be charged with murder only if that person had first planned to injure another. There must be a motive. Thus, a quarrel in a pub leading to a fight till death is voluntary manslaughter in these countries.
In Singapore, a person can be charged with murder as long as the person is sane at the point of time when excessive force was applied to the victim. Thus, a quarrel in a pub by leading to a fight till death is murder.
-
everybody has a right of private defense, hereafter referred as ROPD which you can use up til the point where the attacker cease attack and/or is no longer capable of carrying out the threat.Originally posted by xvii:imagine la... X was attacked or being robbed.... den X while trying to defend himself accidentally causes the attacker to in a coma die have broken limbs
will X b sued ???
in simpler terms, lets say u ganna attack, u kick the fella's in the groin, he was in pain and rolling on the floor, dats where your ROPD cease to 'protect' u, meaning if u still go kick him like a dog and he die then u will ganna chart in cort.
of cos, if he merely touch you on the chest or pinch your butt then i think your ROPD is very limited. however, you may OTOT punch him in the eye once or twice to teach him a lesson....
-
ROPD is different when death or permanent injury is caused.Originally posted by chunyong:everybody has a right of private defense, hereafter referred as ROPD which you can use up til the point where the attacker cease attack and/or is no longer capable of carrying out the threat.
in simpler terms, lets say u ganna attack, u kick the fella's in the groin, he was in pain and rolling on the floor, dats where your ROPD cease to 'protect' u, meaning if u still go kick him like a dog and he die then u will ganna chart in cort.
of cos, if he merely touch you on the chest or pinch your butt then i think your ROPD is very limited. however, you may OTOT punch him in the eye once or twice to teach him a lesson....
It protects you only if your intended person is not subjected to any permanent injury. -
Nelstar's explanation is the most professional.
FireIce's advise is the most direct.
You really do need a good lawyer to go through all those nitty-gritty stuff to determine the sentence!!! -
nope, u can even kill dat bugger if he fail to cease his attack on you, especially if he does so in your house and refuse to leave.Originally posted by Nelstar:ROPD is different when death or permanent injury is caused.
It protects you only if your intended person is not subjected to any permanent injury. -
Depends one, if you pre-empt if, like there was a case which a man brought a chopper up and killed his wife who bedded another man....dats murder. a similar case but the knife was not brought up but the guy go kitchen take, dats sentenced as MS nor murder. history has shown....and proven. u need 2 things to charge murder, one is pre-empt.....dats the most important point the lawyer will prove/throwout 1st the 2nd one i dunno if i should mention.Originally posted by Nelstar:Murder in Singapore and other countries. The difference.
In some countries, a person can be charged with murder only if that person had first planned to injure another. There must be a motive. Thus, a quarrel in a pub leading to a fight till death is voluntary manslaughter in these countries.
In Singapore, a person can be charged with murder as long as the person is sane at the point of time when excessive force was applied to the victim. Thus, a quarrel in a pub by leading to a fight till death is murder. -
no, depends if the PP wants to charge anot....and whether PP wants to charge depends on what HI write and what HI write depends on the IO, whether he wanna chao geng or chao on cos if wanna chart then extra things must be done which once again reinforces upon him the meaning of 'extraordinary career'....Originally posted by FireIce:actually it does not relli matter
the difference is, which side got the better lawyer
some HI very strict, some see the IO's workload and decides, won't say further. -
This is not UK leh.This is in sgp lah.Originally posted by HENG@:UK courts just ruled that it is allowed for homeowners to attack any robbers or intruders on their property 1st, as a pre-emptive strike. The only exception would be un-necessary force, such as opening fire on an intruder with the intent to injure as vengence, despite the intruder being in the process of running away. -
Wrong, see Chapter 224 Act 99Originally posted by chunyong:nope, u can even kill dat bugger if he fail to cease his attack on you, especially if he does so in your house and refuse to leave.