Corporal (CPL) Dave Teo Ming
-
So power sia can find out the blog address of the girl.Originally posted by tortoise55:booking out, meet my GF
saw her with another man...
shoot the man, rape my GF
with my rifle and my buddy and me.....
really make this song so ......
dunno if the above song apply here thou
http://caramel-chocolatess.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_archive.html
From HWZ CSI team
Thinks its his gf or ex gf blog, think got the guy face too
ctrl + f, dave teo
http://caramel-chocolatess.blogspot.com/2005_09_01_archive.html
read the 2nd entry, tally with the dave teo enlistment date
How about someone finding the friendster of that girl?
-
Old blogs are already pushing the limit.
To all, please respect both Mods' wish to keep this thread clean of gossip and whatnot. -
From SPF: After an intensive manhunt mounted by more than 200 officers from the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), Police Intelligence Department (PID) and the Police Special Tactics and Rescue (STAR), Police apprehended the serviceman swiftly. The missing rifle and ammunition were fully recovered.
What he might get under ARMS OFFENCES ACT
Said Director CID, Senior Assistant Commissioner of Police Lock Wai Han, “With careful planning and coordination with various agencies and Police units, Police successfully apprehended the subject.”
The man will be investigated under the Arms Offences Act.
Penalty for being in unlawful possession of arms or ammunition
3. —(1) Subject to subsection (4), any person who is in unlawful possession of any arm or ammunition shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less that 5 years and not more than 10 years and shall also be punished with caning with not less than 6 strokes.
Using or attempting to use arms
4. —(1) Subject to any exception referred to in Chapter IV of the Penal Code (Cap. 224) which may be applicable (other than section 95), any person who uses or attempts to use any arm shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be punished with death.
Using or attempting to use arms to commit scheduled offence
4A. Subject to any exception referred to in Chapter IV of the Penal Code which may be applicable (other than section 95), any person who uses or attempts to use any arm at the time of his committing or attempting to commit any scheduled offence shall, whether or not he has any intention to cause physical injury to any person or property, be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be punished with death.
but i doubt it'll be death. -
Just read on e papers that the authorities refused to say if the weapon was found on him when he was caught in Cineleisure. but e weapon n ammo have been said to be fully recovered. this can mean he WAS NOT running around with a rifle in e middle of Orchard Rd.
-
i just saw him in DB just now...
i fetch my driver out and i saw the guy...
dont know is him but the MPs told me....
-
Penalty for being in unlawful possession of arms or ammunition
Actually, technically he did not gain possession of the rifle UNLAWFULLY. It was given to him for his guard duty. I think it should be more of an abuse or misuse. Anyhow, he is screwed. -
Originally posted by vIn.Warrior:
depends how good the lawyer is....
What he might get under ARMS OFFENCES ACT
Penalty for being in unlawful possession of arms or ammunition
Using or [b]attempting to use arms
Using or attempting to use arms to commit scheduled offence
but i doubt it'll be death.[/b]
he wasn't really in unlawful possession of arms or ammunition.
basically he was in possession of arms lawfully assigned to him but he took it out of the gazetted area.
but then again, the fact he took it out of gazetted area might have negated the "lawfulness" of the possession.
as for the other possible charge, lets wait for more details on WHY he is at cineleisure (at this point unconfirmed if he was with the SAR 21) -
Possesion of firearm in a non-gazetted area.
AWOL.
Breaching General Orders
Breaching Routine Orders.
I can think of these four.. -
make it short brother.cos its a comfirm that gov will that action on him to warn others..but i think maybe next time guard duty maybe no need use rifle liao,use baton n sheild
cos always something funny happen.something will be change
good news for nsf
-
And there goes our security.Originally posted by funnyboii:make it short brother.cos its a comfirm that gov will that action on him to warn others..but i think maybe next time guard duty maybe no need use rifle liao,use baton n sheild
cos always something funny happen.something will be change
good news for nsf 
-
still got the bao ka liao actions againstsaf image or something. and erm got one more i forgot leOriginally posted by LazerLordz:Possesion of firearm in a non-gazetted area.
AWOL.
Breaching General Orders
Breaching Routine Orders.
I can think of these four.. -
so why didnt anyone saw him?
he is in civil...
and with a rifle... -
i think he might need more help to pull out of the mess, and i don't think any of his girl friends 'shouting' will work becoz it only make more of a sissy out of himOriginally posted by alvin-ncs:so why didnt anyone saw him?
he is in civil...
and with a rifle... 
-
does he look like he is bonkers ?Originally posted by alvin-ncs:i just saw him in DB just now...
i fetch my driver out and i saw the guy...
dont know is him but the MPs told me....
if he don't keng to go to Woodbridge for psychaitric treatment, he might just get the harshest punishment.
This should go to a civil court, right ? If in Court Martial, assuming that he does not engage a lawyer, some unlucky LTA will be appointed defence counsel. -
Conduct prejudice to good order and discipline.Originally posted by hisoka:still got the bao ka liao actions againstsaf image or something. and erm got one more i forgot le -
Well...he can't be charged with illegal possession of a firearm because under Chpt.13 of the Arms and Explosives Act, states that:
Exemptions from operation of this Act
3. —(1) Subject to subsection (3), nothing in this Act shall apply to —
c) any of the following persons or their equipment while in the course of their duty or employment:
(i) members of the Singapore Armed Forces and of any visiting forces lawfully present in Singapore
So he's not in illegal possession. Because the weapon was issued to him for duty purposes of protecting the camp. -
He was in illegal possession. It was issued to him under the rules which were that he was not to take it out of camp without explicit permission given. And the live ammo were to be accounted for by a certain time. And that no live ammo was to be removed from the compound without explicit permission granted.Originally posted by SpecOps87:Well...he can't be charged with illegal possession of a firearm because under Chpt.13 of the Arms and Explosives Act, states that:
Exemptions from operation of this Act
3. —(1) Subject to subsection (3), nothing in this Act shall apply to —
c) any of the following persons or their equipment while in the course of their duty or employment:
(i) members of the Singapore Armed Forces and of any visiting forces lawfully present in Singapore
So he's not in illegal possession. Because the weapon was issued to him for duty purposes of protecting the camp.
The Exemptions refer to the members of SAF who are legally holding on to their weapon. -
maybe change for the worse?Originally posted by funnyboii:make it short brother.cos its a comfirm that gov will that action on him to warn others..but i think maybe next time guard duty maybe no need use rifle liao,use baton n sheild
cos always something funny happen.something will be change
good news for nsf 
must wear full battle order or smth -
All your post could be true of his impending charges ,but as he is still in national service ,
what i am afraid is the lawyer who might be migitating for him .Depends on how good is that lawyer . Sometimes an Officer can be his defending lawyer ,but depend on who is the officer ,and how good is the officer legal knowledge
Under SAF legal structure , the legal structure is different from the civillian
I feel sad why he did such a foolish thing
even if he escaped the death penalty , its life sentence or even 20 years of prison for him
When there is emotional problem , how are we able to help the serviceman .
The organisation also have a part to play .Some OCs in the unit is simply too garang to allow man weekend off , causing rift in relationship and family bonding .
Our Country Armed Forces is far from perfection as a Civillian Army.Only Switzerland have attained that -
If this person is mentally sound than maybe he needs to go to Iraq since he want to show off, let him show off where it belong battlefield for a year.Originally posted by funnyboii:make it short brother.cos its a comfirm that gov will that action on him to warn others..but i think maybe next time guard duty maybe no need use rifle liao,use baton n sheild
cos always something funny happen.something will be change
good news for nsf -
Wrong. He was not on or in the course of duty or employment once he left the camp - because his duty/employment does not allow/require him to take the rifle home or to orchard road without authorisation.Originally posted by SpecOps87:Well...he can't be charged with illegal possession of a firearm because under Chpt.13 of the Arms and Explosives Act, states that:
Exemptions from operation of this Act
3. —(1) Subject to subsection (3), nothing in this Act shall apply to —
c) any of the following persons or their equipment while in the course of their duty or employment:
(i) members of the Singapore Armed Forces and of any visiting forces lawfully present in Singapore
So he's not in illegal possession. Because the weapon was issued to him for duty purposes of protecting the camp.
This is not analagous to soldiers to who carry weapons and walk along the high way in say Lorong Asrama. That is incidental to duty/employment and hence will probably be covered. I think ultimately it is a matter of degree and I do not thin what he did will fall on the legal side of the line.
Also people talking about him not being in unlawful posession because he was issued the weapon - again, that interpretation is too simplistic and very likely to be wrong. He was issued the weapon for a particular purpose - once he stepped beyond the boundaries of that consent or permisson, I think arguably he can be said to be in unlawful posession.
Can't really be bothered to do reasearch on the area but confident that my interpretation is along the right lines. -
"while in the course of their duty or employment"
so was he "while in the course of their duty or employment" while he was carrying that thing in Orchard Road? -
You see those soldiers patrolling the airport are "while in the course of their duty or employment"
-
Answers to your qs, imo, no and yes respectively. Pretty clear cut.
-
Compliments to the authorities for preventing a near disaster.
The SAF must take steps to prevent future occurences. It may not be wise to issue live rounds for guard duty in peace time except for sensitive installations where regulars should be deployed instead. In my opinion, young NS servicemen may not be mature enough to handle live ammunition in peacetime. Perhaps they can be issued with taser guns instead.