if someone threatens to beat u up?
-
who wanna take his chances with a bear kekekeOriginally posted by the Bear:usually have my iRiver with me..
do the police accept recordings in the iRiver as evidence?
get the guy locked up for attempted intimidation
but chances are, if he tries to bash me, i'll probably give a hell of a lot more than i'm gonna take
-
throw the person out of the windowOriginally posted by torx:how? should i call police? -
Originally posted by kaobeikaobu:e.g. rights gone when mata feel like beating u up.
-
the person who threatens youOriginally posted by doghouse837:burn me???
only advised if you like me got nothing to lose -
wrong! (i mean spelling lar) but if someone threatens you, you see who this person is first lor.Originally posted by doghouse837:call me
call me
hehe
if really someone threatens u, u can report him to police
and u can do a civil sue against this person
its call criminal intimination(dont know spell correct or not)
hehe -
This i will classify as Voluntarily Causing Hurt. sec 323-224. rather than CI. cause CI is not a civil suit.Originally posted by doghouse837:call me
call me
hehe
if really someone threatens u, u can report him to police
and u can do a civil sue against this person
its call criminal intimination(dont know spell correct or not)
hehe -
cap 224 sec 99Originally posted by Devil1976:What are the restrictions in section 99?
1) there is no right of provate defence against an act which does not reasonable cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a pub;ic servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, thought that act, may not be strictly justifiable by law
2) there is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, thought that direction may not be strictly justifiable by law
3) there is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities.
4) the right of private defence in no case extends to the infliction of more harm than its necessaru to inflict for the purpose of defence. -
You copy from law book or you remember it.. maybe this is more like assualt rather than CI.. hmmm.. you check it up perhaps..Originally posted by doghouse837:cap 224 sec 99
1) there is no right of provate defence against an act which does not reasonable cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a pub;ic servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, thought that act, may not be strictly justifiable by law
2) there is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, thought that direction may not be strictly justifiable by law
3) there is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities.
4) the right of private defence in no case extends to the infliction of more harm than its necessaru to inflict for the purpose of defence. -
Eh.. you can actually use what ever u log down as evidence if you want..
lesson: Never go "Ji Siao" pple..
Go police lar.. CID also can.. lol.. -
looks nice...until U need to find proof for the police to act upon.Originally posted by doghouse837:in the law stutue of singapore
cap 224 sec 503 (criminal intimidation)
whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, repuation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as tthe meants of avoiding the execution of such treat, commits criminal intimidation
if not anyone can just walk into a police station and say someone(enemy) intimidated him/her...
its all a question of proofing...and having to do it right the first time...cannot charge a person twice for the same alleged offence. -
don't return the favour by beating him back. it's useless. lol. someone attacked me b4 and in e end he become a pulp on e floor cannot move, but i regretted doing it .. u noe why?
COS I COULDN;T GET TT BAS**** IN JAIL !!!!haha and it pissed me off.
just let him hit u, even if the bruises are not visible, u can get it checked out at a medical centre. and voila! he's in jail! -
some IO will class this type of case to VCHOriginally posted by beagle:don't return the favour by beating him back. it's useless. lol. someone attacked me b4 and in e end he become a pulp on e floor cannot move, but i regretted doing it .. u noe why?
COS I COULDN;T GET TT BAS**** IN JAIL !!!!haha and it pissed me off.
just let him hit u, even if the bruises are not visible, u can get it checked out at a medical centre. and voila! he's in jail!
and VCH is a civil sue
as i dont think he will go to jail -
depend his size...if too big or gang...go find brothers...Originally posted by torx:how? should i call police? -
How to define what is 'necessary'? Isn't that a bit ambigious?Originally posted by doghouse837:cap 224 sec 99
1) there is no right of provate defence against an act which does not reasonable cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a pub;ic servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, thought that act, may not be strictly justifiable by law
2) there is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, thought that direction may not be strictly justifiable by law
3) there is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities.
4) the right of private defence in no case extends to the infliction of more harm than its necessaru to inflict for the purpose of defence. -
What is VCH and how do they determine if it's gonna be a civil sue?Originally posted by doghouse837:some IO will class this type of case to VCH
and VCH is a civil sue
as i dont think he will go to jail -
so scare meh...
i beat u woh, if u scare -
complicated story sia..
-
Voluntering causing hurtOriginally posted by Devil1976:What is VCH and how do they determine if it's gonna be a civil sue?
its when a person punches or hurt some one without any weapon
and the victim didnt fight back
the victim can sue the other party VCH
if the victim fight back, and PO around, both will be arrested for arrary
sound abit chim, hehe
thats law
makes it so chim where more ppl dont know about it -
What's 'PO'?Originally posted by doghouse837:Voluntering causing hurt
its when a person punches or hurt some one without any weapon
and the victim didnt fight back
the victim can sue the other party VCH
if the victim fight back, and PO around, both will be arrested for arrary
sound abit chim, hehe
thats law
makes it so chim where more ppl dont know about it
But how to you differentiate between 'self-defence' and fight back? And what is causing more harm than necessary for self defence? -
PO stand for Police OfficerOriginally posted by Devil1976:What's 'PO'?
But how to you differentiate between 'self-defence' and fight back? And what is causing more harm than necessary for self defence?
causing more harm than necessary is for example, i beat u, but u manage to out beat me me, and i was laying on floor, without any intention of getting up to beat u back, but u continue to beat me, its consider as causing more harm than necessary.
Self defence is u move or block his punches and pushes the attacker away
fight back meants both throwing punches at each other, and will class under affary -
But how do we know if the person has any intention of getting back up to attack you?Originally posted by doghouse837:PO stand for Police Officer
causing more harm than necessary is for example, i beat u, but u manage to out beat me me, and i was laying on floor, without any intention of getting up to beat u back, but u continue to beat me, its consider as causing more harm than necessary.
Self defence is u move or block his punches and pushes the attacker away
fight back meants both throwing punches at each other, and will class under affary
So meaning if someone attacks you, you can only move away or block? Wah... Then you must be quite good to do this? Especially if the other person knows martial arts?
What would happen in an 'affary' case? -
what if both of you fight but he died during the fight due to his carelessness. Evidences all over(ur hair, blood etc ), and you have no witness.
Then how? Si Sing?
-
ooooh.......Victoria Concert Hall......Originally posted by doghouse837:some IO will class this type of case to VCH
and VCH is a civil sue
as i dont think he will go to jail -
affary case, police will arrest both party and charge in courtOriginally posted by Devil1976:But how do we know if the person has any intention of getting back up to attack you?
So meaning if someone attacks you, you can only move away or block? Wah... Then you must be quite good to do this? Especially if the other person knows martial arts?
What would happen in an 'affary' case?
hehe -
wont be death sentence lahOriginally posted by kaobeikaobu:what if both of you fight but he died during the fight due to his carelessness. Evidences all over(ur hair, blood etc ), and you have no witness.
Then how? Si Sing?
its call dont know what
hehe
but i think the max punishment is lifetime imprisonment