Man jailed for self defence
-
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 comments
ut yourself in the man's shoes, stupid judges. -
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.
Us guys have no where to run.
Screw the judicial system in singapore. -
wen u r suay sh1t will happen
-
GOD.
He was just defending himself for goodness SAKE. -
obviously they know %#@! nuts about adrenaline making you act impulsive and causing you to be oblivious of your actions until later.Adrenaline is like drugs in a way......
-
I guess he over did it?
-
at that time what else could he think of
-
They argued that he had undue advantage cos he had a weapon. And that he continued to stab the attacker after he was down, which was considered an act to cause intentional harm. The poor guy was just at the wrong place at the wrong time.
-
Welcome to Singapore!
-
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!
there you go
-
wah, stab on the thigh also can die........
-
well if it was as reported, then as usual we see another screw up of the law system.
he was defending himself, lets not say two on one, even if its one on one if you had a weapon you should also use it to prevent hurt to yourself. Isn't it logical and reasonable to do that?
repeatedly stabbing the person, well for one he is in an agitated state and probably not in a good state of mind after being attacked and probably hurt. secondly isn't making sure the person cannot hit him again a reasonable act? even if that guy is hurt, he can still hit him.
supid laws we have. -
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. -
right...next time we whack the guy with the umbrella...judge say dangerous weapon...
den everyone cannot bring umbrella out
woots~~~
-
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.
Suppose I'm in a court and I try to attack the judge with a weapon... Being closely threatened with death, the judge ordered the police to shoot me... Is that self-defence or homicide
I think our law-makers never kena whacked jialak jialak before... When a group of people ATTACK you, you can 'control' your strength and defence one ar....? As in....
"Oops! I shouldn't have hit you back so hard... I could have caused your death..? Sorry..."
-
he forgot to take out the fishing knife from his pants after fishing, therefore it was with him.Imagine if he did not have the knife with him, he might be the dead one instead.
-
if swiss army or fishing knives are illegal to be carried around.. why are they sold anyway... these tools have multipurpose usage.... why cant carry.
like one of the forumites have said, he might have worn that pants for fishing other day and wore the same pants... -
Haiz..that's singapore...Sounds so unfair
-
best self-defense = run like hell
manly style self-defense = attempt to defend self from attacker and kill him in the process -
what nonsense seh?! stupid judge!
-
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?
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". -
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]
He had undue advantage (weapon)?lol that is 2 guys vs him alone. That extra guy does not give the pair undue advantage? And they were the attackers meaning they were mentally prepared to harm the guy,so they were mentally prepared for the event and thus more aware of their actions.When you are more aware of your situation,that itself is a huge advantage
The defendent on the other hand had never being mentally prepared to harm that person and he acted on the spur of the moment in fear of his life.
His intention to harm cannot be proven under a intented stated,but in the rush of the moment,he is likely to just want to protect himself at any cost. Have you never heard of the saying that when a beast is wounded,it is at it most dangerous state cos it will not care and give its all to defend itself. Why would a human under that state not do the same.
It is precisely cos the attackers did not think or cared for the consequences that is why they attacker the person,so they should bear any consequence if anything happen cos of their action.It is their own damn fault.So if anything happened,they should bear the blame of their action,not the guy who was attacked.
The person who attacked him commited no crime? Hello you attack a person with intention to harm him and he commited no crime.So one day someone on the street raise a parang and try to chop on your head,this person has committed no crime.What the hell are you talking about.
The whole incident started cos of these 2 person,so any fault must be on them if anything happened. If this is not so,i dread to think what society we live in when everyone can suka suka attack someone and they are not wrong.
Maybe you will like to live in such a delusional state but i am sure no one else would -
The person who attacked the deceased which sparked off this incident was a different person, not the defendant. Why isn't the police after him?
You can talk about the defendant acting on the spur of the moment, the lawyer did argue this point. But you can't argue that killing someone is ok, what message will the judiciary system be sending to society if the defendant goes unpunished?
As for undue advantage, even if it was 2 on 1, the one with the weapon has the advantage. No matter if the weapon was a knife or a gun, as long as it is capable of inflicting more damage than bare knuckles, it is undue advantage.
Besides, this case is not new. The defendant had been in hiding for 2 years.
I'm not saying it's the defendant's fault that he was mistaken for somebody else and had to defend himself and in the process, killed his attacker. He was just unlucky.