SAF dunking death case
-
you should check out this link
SAF incidents -
May the souls find peace in Heaven.
-
The case is closed. Pandiaraj and Balakrishnan appealed but saw their jail sentences raised by CJ himself.
-
appeals doesn't mean your sentence will be lighten or even, removed.Originally posted by iveco:The case is closed. Pandiaraj and Balakrishnan appealed but saw their jail sentences raised by CJ himself.
dun understand why people like to appeal so much...
-
Should see case by case basis. I am quite sure VS Aiyar was framed, but CJ ordered him caned despite his firrst offence.Originally posted by Mr Fugue:appeals doesn't mean your sentence will be lighten or even, removed.
dun understand why people like to appeal so much... 
If he had done what he did in London, I don't think it would even have gone on trial. -
you should have known:Originally posted by iveco:Should see case by case basis. I am quite sure VS Aiyar was framed, but CJ ordered him caned despite his firrst offence. If he had done what he did in London, I don't think it would even have gone on trial.
-
Because the justice system doesn't always get it right? Because the judgement pronounced by the court will have a profound effect on the appelant's life?Originally posted by Mr Fugue:appeals doesn't mean your sentence will be lighten or even, removed.
dun understand why people like to appeal so much...
Seriously, I cannot understand how anyone can say that we should deny a person the right to a 2nd opinion. More than that, i cannot understand how anyone can justify denying that right on the grounds of administrative efficacy. -
If no one believes even if it's the truth, then it's as good as nothing...Originally posted by lwflee:Because the justice system doesn't always get it right? Because the judgement pronounced by the court will have a profound effect on the appelant's life?
Seriously, I cannot understand how anyone can say that we should deny a person the right to a 2nd opinion. More than that, i cannot understand how anyone can justify denying that right on the grounds of administrative efficacy.
On the other hand, if everyone believes in an untrue, then it's really something. -
It's the SOP I guess.Originally posted by Mr Fugue:appeals doesn't mean your sentence will be lighten or even, removed.
dun understand why people like to appeal so much...
Although in this case, their decision to appeal made them look really bad. -
Fugue, count me as a fan of yours!Originally posted by Mr Fugue:you should have known:
If only they knew...
Why do gals bash sg guys so much...when there are world-beating guys like Fugue around....
Trust me Fugue is in the league of the best.
Ben -
well. i hope they suffer in jail. teach them a lesson to be such ruthless freakshows
-
too light a sentence for those bastards, fucktards, oxymorons, homo freaks, arseholez
-
Have you taken the time to read through the linked article? If you had and you understand what's been judged upon, you'll understand how flimsy the case is.
Diva and Jeff Ng were directly responsible for the death and injury, and rightly they did not appeal. Pandiaraj and Bala were not directly involved, and their getting caught up in the mess is a simple case of scapegoating.
Like I said, read the linked article and take the time to think about what it really means. -
If people could tear themselves away from the lynch mob mentality that the government has been trying to stir up, they might ask themselves two things:
1) What right does a judge who has NEVER served a day in uniform have to tell a deocrated soldier that his achievements are "sudah habis", and that he is a disgrace to the army? The bugger never served a day in the army himself, so what business does he have speaking on behalf of the army's reputation? What a sham.
2) Even more frighteningly, the fact that this case was handled in the civil courts instead of a military tribunal is the government's huge vote of no confidence in the army. When you or your kids get sent into NS, therefore, YOUR government is knowingly putting you or them at risk in a environment that it acknowledges cannot be controlled by internal means.
If you took the time to think about it, chances are that you'd end up asking who the REAL bastards, %*&$trads, retards and any other forms of tards are. But then again, we can't have that, can we? Very well - let the mindless lynching continue. -
I broadly agree with what you're saying here; but I still have a few reservations.Originally posted by Gedanken:If people could tear themselves away from the lynch mob mentality that the government has been trying to stir up, they might ask themselves two things:
1) What right does a judge who has NEVER served a day in uniform have to tell a deocrated soldier that his achievements are "sudah habis", and that he is a disgrace to the army? The bugger never served a day in the army himself, so what business does he have speaking on behalf of the army's reputation? What a sham.
2) Even more frighteningly, the fact that this case was handled in the civil courts instead of a military tribunal is the government's huge vote of no confidence in the army. When you or your kids get sent into NS, therefore, YOUR government is knowingly putting you or them at risk in a environment that it acknowledges cannot be controlled by internal means.
If you took the time to think about it, chances are that you'd end up asking who the REAL bastards, %*&$trads, retards and any other forms of tards are. But then again, we can't have that, can we? Very well - let the mindless lynching continue.
1) So what if the judge in question never served a day in uniform and is not in a position therefore to evaluate the quality of a soldier's past achievements? If the judge in question is assigned the task of ruling on the degree to which a solidier (however decorated he may have been in the past, and however incapable the judge may himself be of evaluating this particular soldier's past achievements) has been culpable for a certain misdeed, then it is only the facts of the circumstances surrounding the commission of this misdeed, that the judge in question would have to be competent enough as to evaluate. My past achievements as a soldier are irrelevant to the question of whether or not I am culpable for the perpetration of some particular misdeed or other; and so a given judge can be competent enough as to determine whether or not I am culpable in this regard.
2) The case should not merely be handled by a military tribunal because the taking of a life is ordinarily the sort of crime that would have to be seen as directed against the common good of teh society as a whole. By the same token, if a student kills another student in school, this sort of crime should not be handled by whatever internal system that the school in question may have put in place for dealing with the various misdemeanors that tend to disrupt the orderly functioning of the school as a whole, or harm the well-being of its individual students. The fact that the case was handled in the way that it was says nothing about the competence of military tribunals (considered as a feature of whatever internal system might have been put in place for the purposes of dealing with soldiers who infringe upon military laws, in one way or another); it says, however everything about the universality of the reach of the law and about the fact that certain crimes must in the nature of the case be punished (and be seen to be punished) by laws that apply across the board.
3) Nevertheless, I agree broadly (as I have already indicated) with what you have said about 'the lynch mob mentality' and am inclined to wonder whether the two soldiers who were not directly involved in the affair, were not punished too harshly.
Ben -
When sentencing the judge should always look at what the person has done before. People do sometimes do things out of character. Eveyone seems to forget that a punishment is not revenge on the offender for what he/she has done instead it's meant to teach a lesson as well as prevention from future occurances. That's why people are released from prison after serving their time.Originally posted by MrBach:1) So what if the judge in question never served a day in uniform and is not in a position therefore to evaluate the quality of a soldier's past achievements? If the judge in question is assigned the task of ruling on the degree to which a solidier (however decorated he may have been in the past, and however incapable the judge may himself be of evaluating this particular soldier's past achievements) has been culpable for a certain misdeed, then it is only the facts of the circumstances surrounding the commission of this misdeed, that the judge in question would have to be competent enough as to evaluate. My past achievements as a soldier are irrelevant to the question of whether or not I am culpable for the perpetration of some particular misdeed or other; and so a given judge can be competent enough as to determine whether or not I am culpable in this regard.2) The case should not merely be handled by a military tribunal because the taking of a life is ordinarily the sort of crime that would have to be seen as directed against the common good of teh society as a whole. By the same token, if a student kills another student in school, this sort of crime should not be handled by whatever internal system that the school in question may have put in place for dealing with the various misdemeanors that tend to disrupt the orderly functioning of the school as a whole, or harm the well-being of its individual students. The fact that the case was handled in the way that it was says nothing about the competence of military tribunals (considered as a feature of whatever internal system might have been put in place for the purposes of dealing with soldiers who infringe upon military laws, in one way or another); it says, however everything about the universality of the reach of the law and about the fact that certain crimes must in the nature of the case be punished (and be seen to be punished) by laws that apply across the board.
This should have definetly be only judged under military law. It happened in a camp during training. It wasn't a case where the defandants committed a premeditated murder or assualt result in a death. They were doing their job to train these soldiers. No it wasn't written in the training manual but no way their supervisior had no idea what was going on. What went on has been going on for years. If he didn't know, he's not doing his job.
Can't compare to students killing students. The principal has no authority to act on it. Going to school is also not considered a hazardous "job". Training in the military does pose hazards. -
This should have definetly be only judged under military law. It happened in a camp during training. It wasn't a case where the defandants committed a premeditated murder or assualt result in a death. They were doing their job to train these soldiers.
if military law is harshr, then they should go for military law.
by the way, if a SAF soldier robs someone, and assuming that he can only be charged under one system of law(Civilian law vs. Military law), which one is harsher? military law isn't? but i thought military law only at the most is DB, and no caning? -
What you said is true but only exist in the old ages where SAF is still closed. Now with the open concept, they will not cover up any more of these serious incidents.Originally posted by 443BXdrv:This should have definetly be only judged under military law. It happened in a camp during training. It wasn't a case where the defandants committed a premeditated murder or assualt result in a death. They were doing their job to train these soldiers. No it wasn't written in the training manual but no way their supervisior had no idea what was going on. What went on has been going on for years. If he didn't know, he's not doing his job.
Can't compare to students killing students. The principal has no authority to act on it. Going to school is also not considered a hazardous "job". Training in the military does pose hazards.
Under the correct laws of SAF, What you get from the exterior, you will get the same in military DB but doubt they exercise that. What happened is not really an accident but more of intentioning drowning of the trainee... Think they would cancel that "training" in the future...
If you are arguing that during training, these cannot be prevented... The trainers should know the limits of the trainee and not push the limits too far like for this instant, holding the person in the water till they lost strength to struggle and eventually drown... WTF! -
Have you taken the time to read through the linked article? If you had and you understand what's been judged upon, you'll understand how flimsy the case is.
Diva and Jeff Ng were directly responsible for the death and injury, and rightly they did not appeal. Pandiaraj and Bala were not directly involved, and their getting caught up in the mess is a simple case of scapegoating.
Like I said, read the linked article and take the time to think about what it really means
Well all i can say is the ones directly responsible are not thorougly punished while racism is still brought up just by this case which i think is unreasonable because the ones indirectly responsible were given jail terms just becos they're the course commanders??well of course the CO was given the boot but what about the instructors then the management like S3??All i heard from my frens is that they were only given fines.. -
What you said is true but only exist in the old ages where SAF is still closed. Now with the open concept, they will not cover up any more of these serious incidents.
Under the correct laws of SAF, What you get from the exterior, you will get the same in military DB but doubt they exercise that. What happened is not really an accident but more of intentioning drowning of the trainee... Think they would cancel that "training" in the future...
If you are arguing that during training, these cannot be prevented... The trainers should know the limits of the trainee and not push the limits too far like for this instant, holding the person in the water till they lost strength to struggle and eventually drown... WTF!
well sometimes as nsmen we're kiasu also....we sometimes sun know our limits also..sometimes we pushed ourselves hard also..we're in pain/sick but we still continue the activities. as for my own opinion we should know our own limits and stop. we've seen how a casual 2.4km run can cause someone's death. -
True, MrBach, but the judge's job was to assess if the original judge's judgement stood - that's it. For him to make those additional remarks was not only superfluous, but it was vicious and IMHO reflects the "I'm going to get you regardless" mentality that he carried into this case.Originally posted by MrBach:1) So what if the judge in question never served a day in uniform and is not in a position therefore to evaluate the quality of a soldier's past achievements? If the judge in question is assigned the task of ruling on the degree to which a solidier (however decorated he may have been in the past, and however incapable the judge may himself be of evaluating this particular soldier's past achievements) has been culpable for a certain misdeed, then it is only the facts of the circumstances surrounding the commission of this misdeed, that the judge in question would have to be competent enough as to evaluate. My past achievements as a soldier are irrelevant to the question of whether or not I am culpable for the perpetration of some particular misdeed or other; and so a given judge can be competent enough as to determine whether or not I am culpable in this regard. -
Double-post.
-
It's not a case of covering up, caleb. What's the military tribunal there for if not to handle such cases? It's a court that specialises in military cases, and the key to that specialisation is that the members of the tribunal know and understand the context within which the cases are presented - to send the case to a civil court, which does not necessarily understand the full implications of the situation, is to do the case a disservice. It's tantamount to sending a patient to a GP to have a brain tumour removed. Sure, the guy's a doctor, but why send the patient to him if a specialist is available to do the job?Originally posted by caleb_chiang:What you said is true but only exist in the old ages where SAF is still closed. Now with the open concept, they will not cover up any more of these serious incidents.
Under the correct laws of SAF, What you get from the exterior, you will get the same in military DB but doubt they exercise that. What happened is not really an accident but more of intentioning drowning of the trainee... Think they would cancel that "training" in the future...
If you are arguing that during training, these cannot be prevented... The trainers should know the limits of the trainee and not push the limits too far like for this instant, holding the person in the water till they lost strength to struggle and eventually drown... WTF!
While it can't be fairly described as being completely accidental, I think it's a stretch to assume that the instructors intended to drown the trainees. Knowing the consequences, they would have been mad to have done it with full intent, wouldn't they? -
The fact that a soldier's job is more hazardous than that of a student has nothing to do with the reason why those 2 men lost their lives; and that is why my analogy is relevant.Originally posted by 443BXdrv:This should have definetly be only judged under military law. It happened in a camp during training. It wasn't a case where the defandants committed a premeditated murder or assualt result in a death. They were doing their job to train these soldiers. No it wasn't written in the training manual but no way their supervisior had no idea what was going on. What went on has been going on for years. If he didn't know, he's not doing his job.
Can't compare to students killing students. The principal has no authority to act on it. Going to school is also not considered a hazardous "job". Training in the military does pose hazards.
These men did not die because of the hazardous character of their occupations as soldiers; just as a student who dies as the result of being forced by a teacher or a school bully to jump from a height that is likely to kill him if he were to jump from it, cannot be said to have met his death because of the hazards that are associated with being a student.
These men died because they were forcibly made subject to actions that were forseeably likely to result in their deaths and since the actions in question can in no way be defined as being a part of the occupational hazards that are associated with being a soldier, however great these hazards may be, it has to follow therefore that the persons who had subjected them to these actions, effectively forced them to engage in what could be described as a game of Russian roulette.
If school bullies or teachers who kill students by forcing them to engage in actions that are forseeably likely to result in their deaths, must be judged to have done something that in the nature of the case would deserve to be brought before the bar of the sort of law that is universal in its reach (and is also able to be seen as such), then so must soldiers who force other soldiers to engage in a game of Russian roulette, be judged to have done the same thing.
Given the nature of what they did, it is therefore immaterial where and when they did it, and however many persons may have sanctioned it or however long it might have been going on or however long the persons who had sanctioned it, might have been sacntioning it; for if you say otherwise, would you then suggest that it if it were to be part of a long-established tradition or a training routine that soldiers in some regiment should force other soldiers to engage in a game of Russian roulette, then the first group of soldiers ought not to be seen as having done something that in the nature of the case would deserve to be tried before the bar of the sort of law that is (and is seen to be) utterly universal in its reach?
Ben