HAd it been a female being attacked and she killed the guy out of self defence she would have been spared the sentence.Originally posted by Simon Dean:http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4136,103409,00.html?
Neo used fishing knife to defend himself
NEO Eng Kiat was eating a snack and browsing through handphone accessories at a night market at Serangoon North Avenue 3 when he was approached by Raymond Yap Choon Teck, 23, at about 7.30pm on 29 Aug, 2003.
Yap, a salesman, mistook Neo, 26, for a man who had assaulted him previously.
Yap and his friend, Tan Boon Kwang, who was unemployed, then attacked Neo.
Neo managed to escape towards the junction of Ang Mo Kio Avenue 3 and Serangoon North Avenue 3, a short distance away. But he ran into the same duo there.
Another fight broke out.
This time, Neo realised he had a knife in his jeans pocket and stabbed Yap repeatedly on his legs after the latter fell.
Yap and his friend took a taxi to Ang Mo Kio Community Hospital but he died at 8.10pm.
An autopsy showed that Yap had died of stab injuries to the arteries in his left thigh.
In his mitigation, Neo's lawyer, Mr Kertar Singh, said that his client was at the mercy of his assailants, whom he described as 'a bunch of bullies'.
Mr Singh also pointed out that Yap had taken ketamine on the night of the attack.
'The accused, who had never been placed in a situation like this, acted on impulse when he found his personal safety and life in danger,' Mr Singh said.
Neo was charged with one count of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Another charge of voluntarily causing hurt with a dangerous weapon was taken into consideration during sentencing.
He could have been jailed for life.
This is a summary of the news
Personal commentsut yourself in the man's shoes, stupid judges.
The problem with the mention case, which is very questionable - why is that guy armed ? He have knife on him ! He himself is armed - don't really he is much self defence.Originally posted by nullifi3d:HAd it been a female being attacked and she killed the guy out of self defence she would have been spared the sentence.
Us guys have no where to run.
Screw the judicial system in singapore.
Originally posted by Where Is God:Welcome to Singapore!

he got weapon with him is another problem lah, but if he was attacked first then its still self-defence right??Originally posted by storywolf:The problem with the mention case, which is very questionable - why is that guy armed ? He have knife on him ! He himself is armed - don't really he is much self defence.
I've given such things a THOUGHT before...Originally posted by Simon Dean:http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4136,103409,00.html?
Neo used fishing knife to defend himself
NEO Eng Kiat was eating a snack and browsing through handphone accessories at a night market at Serangoon North Avenue 3 when he was approached by Raymond Yap Choon Teck, 23, at about 7.30pm on 29 Aug, 2003.
Yap, a salesman, mistook Neo, 26, for a man who had assaulted him previously.
Yap and his friend, Tan Boon Kwang, who was unemployed, then attacked Neo.
Neo managed to escape towards the junction of Ang Mo Kio Avenue 3 and Serangoon North Avenue 3, a short distance away. But he ran into the same duo there.
Another fight broke out.
This time, Neo realised he had a knife in his jeans pocket and stabbed Yap repeatedly on his legs after the latter fell.
Yap and his friend took a taxi to Ang Mo Kio Community Hospital but he died at 8.10pm.
An autopsy showed that Yap had died of stab injuries to the arteries in his left thigh.
In his mitigation, Neo's lawyer, Mr Kertar Singh, said that his client was at the mercy of his assailants, whom he described as 'a bunch of bullies'.
Mr Singh also pointed out that Yap had taken ketamine on the night of the attack.
'The accused, who had never been placed in a situation like this, acted on impulse when he found his personal safety and life in danger,' Mr Singh said.
Neo was charged with one count of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Another charge of voluntarily causing hurt with a dangerous weapon was taken into consideration during sentencing.
He could have been jailed for life.
This is a summary of the news
Personal commentsut yourself in the man's shoes, stupid judges.
run like hell at least got more chance to survive. manly style only 50-50 chance..Originally posted by fai:best self-defense = run like hell
manly style self-defense = attempt to defend self from attacker and kill him in the process
Originally posted by ^spidee^:Even if the adrenalin rush cannot be proved,why should the benefit of doubt not be given to the initial victim of an attack not due to his fault
It doesn't mean that you don't have to be punished if you kill someone out of self-defense. That's manslaughter not amounting to murder. Let's look at the facts before criticising the law, shall we?
[b]Fact: The defendant had a weapon because he went fishing the day before and left it in his pockets.
Fact: He was attacked by two guys. Realising he had his knife with him, he attacked the deceased with the weapon.
Fact: The deceased dropped to the ground, but the defendant continued attacking him.
Grey area: the defendant's state of mind at the point of being attacked. This is really hard to argue because it's too ambiguous. Different people react differently, some calmer than others. You may argue the adrenalin rush but how are you going to prove it?
Decision: Defendant is guilty of manslaughter:
- he had undue advantage (weapon)
- he had intention to harm (continued attacking the deceased after he was down)
Somebody's son died, is it fair to his family? If the deceased had known that he would be killed, would he have attacked the defendant in the first place? Maybe he should have looked more closely to identify the person who REALLY attacked him, who by the way has committed no crime but has partly caused such a tragedy. 1 guy dead, 1 guy jailed, 2 families devastated. Who's fault is it? The deceased? The REAL attacker? The defendant? The law? Or society?
This episode could have been prevented, if only we could be more civilised and not just whack anybody just because "he stared at me". [/b]