Man jailed for self defence
-
Thigh there got one major artery leh, your phd for fcuk one?Originally posted by TehJarVu:wah, stab on the thigh also can die........
-
guess its harsh, but he overdid it...kaoz just stab him once then run away lahz. no need so fierce stab so many times stab until leg oso can die
even the ah bengs know dat -
It's easy to say now that it has happened. If it happened to me, I would have killed that bugger too..Originally posted by alkaiden:guess its harsh, but he overdid it...kaoz just stab him once then run away lahz. no need so fierce stab so many times stab until leg oso can die
even the ah bengs know dat -
Haizz....... Poor Guy........ There are 2 or 3 guy beating him but 1 die and the rest never faced any law offence........
-
nt e guy fault mah..
-
Yes killing someone is not OK,but the defendent at the spur of the moment is likely not to know that he would actually kill him (it is not intented),he did not have the luxury of time to consider in his own defence,would he actually kill the person.If he had that and still attacked with the aim to kill,then he is guilty,but he did not have thatOriginally posted by ^spidee^: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.
one has a weapon and he is sure to have undue advantage? He was not even mentally prepared b4 hand to use it,when you are not mentally prepared,the situation is likely to be not to our advantage compared to 2 person who are mentally prepared and aware of the situation to cause harm.
Does the defendant being in hidden have anything to do with this case?Does it means that if he hide cause he was afraid of undue consequences,he is at fault? -
Who would have thought that stabbing u on the leg will cause your death in the first place. If he attacked yr neck, head, heart then it can be considered killing. Moreover the defendant did run but was coenered.Originally posted by ^spidee^: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?
Surely he was desperate. Do u know what in the art of war they say never attack troops before they cross the river. Its because the troop seeing that they have no chance of escaping will give it all they have. This is the same situation the defendant was in. He failed in running away and is now bloody desperate. He was pushed by the decease to a corner.
The attacker chose to attack the defendant thus he must know that the defendant will retaliate. The attacker must know that the defendant might attack him back either with fist or a weapon he picked up (for eg a stick or glass bottle). The attacker is putting himself in a dangerous position. He know that he might get injured seriously that why he rope in a friend. Such a situation is like taking a roler coaster. Before u take the roler coaster there will be warnings like if u have heart attack do not take. If u do they are not liable for your death. The deceased is putting himself in such a situation.
In country like Hong Kong where the rulings are decided by the Jury the defendant will not be prosecuted. Maybe Singapore need to change into a jury system as they say more heads are better than one. -
It's this ambiguity that makes law such a complicated discipline. We can argue till the cows come home and there will still be controversies and debatable issues.
All I want to say is that the judiciary system owes a responsibility to the society as a body that enforces the law. -
Huh? Can I clarify something with you?Originally posted by NewAge:Who would have thought that stabbing u on the leg will cause your death in the first place. If he attacked yr neck, head, heart then it can be considered killing. Moreover the defendant did run but was coenered.
Surely he was desperate. Do u know what in the art of war they say never attack troops before they cross the river. Its because the troop seeing that they have no chance of escaping will give it all they have. This is the same situation the defendant was in. He failed in running away and is now bloody desperate. He was pushed by the decease to a corner.
The attacker chose to attack the defendant thus he must know that the defendant will retaliate. The attacker must know that the defendant might attack him back either with fist or a weapon he picked up (for eg a stick or glass bottle). The attacker is putting himself in a dangerous position. He know that he might get injured seriously that why he rope in a friend. Such a situation is like taking a roler coaster. Before u take the roler coaster there will be warnings like if u have heart attack do not take. If u do they are not liable for your death. The deceased is putting himself in such a situation.
In country like Hong Kong where the rulings are decided by the Jury the defendant will not be prosecuted. Maybe Singapore need to change into a jury system as they say more heads are better than one.
Altogether, there are 4 parties involved.
1. A - who attacked the deceased, causing the deceased to mistake the defendant as A.
2. B - deceased.
3. C - defendant.
4. D - deceased's friend.
I must have come across as sympathising with B. No, I don't. If B didn't want to seek revenge on A, he wouldn't have mistaken C for A. Then, C wouldn't have killed B while trying to defend himself. -
Ok, I get your point now.Originally posted by NewAge:In country like Hong Kong where the rulings are decided by the Jury the defendant will not be prosecuted. Maybe Singapore need to change into a jury system as they say more heads are better than one. -
Why do you even want to bring A into the picture.Whatever A did,it did not affect any of C's action and thus decide if he is guilty or not. It is only B and D's action which affected C's action so we should only look at what B and D did.What A did is irrelevant and should be dealt separatedlyOriginally posted by ^spidee^:Huh? Can I clarify something with you?
Altogether, there are 4 parties involved.
1. A - who attacked the deceased, causing the deceased to mistake the defendant as A.
2. B - deceased.
3. C - defendant.
4. D - deceased's friend.
I must have come across as sympathising with B. No, I don't. If B didn't want to seek revenge on A, he wouldn't have mistaken C for A. Then, C wouldn't have killed B while trying to defend himself. -
Eh, so how many years did he get jailed for?
-
Yes the judiciary system owe a responsiblity to the society but in this case,it is flawed.that is why we argued that defendent should not be blamed.If it is flawed,it is actually a disservice to the society instead of the suposed responsiblity it owe to the society.Originally posted by ^spidee^:It's this ambiguity that makes law such a complicated discipline. We can argue till the cows come home and there will still be controversies and debatable issues.
All I want to say is that the judiciary system owes a responsibility to the society as a body that enforces the law.
Singapore is famous for some stupid laws.Eg the bias of the woman's chapter against men in any situation even if the women is actually wrong.Our NS enforcement law that result in some God Damn Good Pianist to escape easily with a non consequential $5000 fine while other similar people doing the same thing get way heavier punishment.It is because of laws like this that get people to get undue heavy punishment and in this case the defendent -
If A did not attack B, why would B want to seek revenge? And if B didn't want to seek revenge, he wouldn't have mistaken C for A. And non of this wouldn't have happened.Originally posted by Aveme:Why do you even want to bring A into the picture.Whatever A did,it did not affect any of C's action and thus decide if he is guilty or not. It is only B and D's action which affected C's action so we should only look at what B and D did.What A did is irrelevant and should be dealt separatedly -
now we are discussing on whether C intentionally killed B or not.How does A 's action directly affectted C's intention ? A's existent will never affect C's action on the spur of the moment.What will directly affect C's action is only the one at the scene cos those were the 2 who forced C into making decision at that time.In short, A never forced or influenced C's action so should not be in the picture to decide if C is guilty or not.Originally posted by ^spidee^:If A did not attack B, why would B want to seek revenge? And if B didn't want to seek revenge, he wouldn't have mistaken C for A. And non of this wouldn't have happened. -
No he did not have the intention. That's why he was sentenced to culpable homicide and not murder, wasn't he?Originally posted by Aveme:now we are discussing on whether C intentionally killed B or not.How does A 's action directly affectted C's intention ? A's existent will never affect C's action on the spur of the moment.What will directly affect C's action is only the one at the scene cos those were the 2 who forced C into making decision at that time.In short, A never forced or influenced C's action -
is there such thing as public protest?
to sign a petition or something?
i mean.. i dont think that man is wrong for self defense..
err.. is he still in jail? -
So A's existent never affected C's intention so why should he be in this? You did not even answered this yet you brought A into the picture to decide on C's actionOriginally posted by ^spidee^:No he did not have the intention. That's why he was sentenced to culpable homicide and not murder, wasn't he?
Also in the first place, why should he even be guilty of culpable homicide if he is forced by the circumstances to do it? We are not arguing whether he is guilty of murder or not. We are arguing that he should not be even guilty of culpable homicide since he never intented to do that.
This is the same as mentally disturbed people being non guilty of crimes if they did commited any cos they did not know what they were doing.This defendent was also mentally disturbed enough to want to defence himself at any cost,he did not want to commit any crime. -
I brought A in cos you misunderstood me when I said he attacked B but why wasn't he arrested? He started the whole episode.Originally posted by Aveme:So A's existent never affected C's intention so why should he be in this? You did not even answered this yet you brought A into the picture to decide on C's action
Also in the first place, why should he even be guilty of culpable homicide if he is forced by the circumstances to do it? We are not arguing whether he is guilty of murder or not. We are arguing that he should not be even guilty of culpable homicide since he never intented to do that.
This is the same as mentally disturbed people being non guilty of crimes if they did commited any cos they did not know what they were doing.This defendent was also mentally disturbed enough to want to defence himself at any cost,he did not want to commit any crime.
I see this going nowhere, and I respect your opinion just as I hope you respect mine, so I'm not commenting further. -
what has luck got to do with intentionally committing a crime?
I would say that its a miscarriage of justice.
-
omg having a weapon = unfair advantage when you were attacked???
wtf so pple attack you when you have a pencil in hand you have to throw the pencil away? stupid law.
still dun understand why must punish him. kill pple to protect himself when pple attack him and he is in no position to be sure he wont be hurt otherwise is wrong.....
but then again i guess we argue here also no use. the stupid government even if we send letter and kao pei in public also no use one. -
2 v 1 leh.. he also got no stun.. how to zhao
-
This is bullshit.
Anyone watched the movie "Wolf Creek" recently?
The two girls would have escaped death if they whacked the villain while he was injured and unconscious on the ground. But no, they let him live and eventually he hunted the two girls down and slaughtered them like animals (actually worse than animals).
I am not saying that we should hit back at our attackers with the intention to kill. But, when you are being attacked and you gain some kind of advantage for a second, it is perfectly logical that you will try to make use of that advantage to further weaken your attacker SO THAT he is not able to recover immediately and ATTACK YOU AGAIN.
Self-defense doesn't mean just being passive and try to block every blow from the attacker (no human in this world can block every blow from anybody). You will get killed eventually if you let your attacker repeatedly assault you. Self-defense is trying to take away your attacker's ability to continue assaulting you, and sometimes the best way to ensure that is if the attacker is injured and stopped. -
WE HUMAN are very cunning, so we shud kill at the very moment! but dun kill in singapore, cupable homicide, i consider light for that guy laio lor! assault with a weapon is offensive leh
-
