Man jailed for self defence
-
lets say some one decided to steal my stuff. but i realised and gave chase. then i pin him down and break one of his arm. how?
am i at fault? -
Free the chap at once.
-
I feel both are wrong. Just too bad the attacker died.
There are points of argue. The judge may not have trusted "He Forgot to take out the knife after Fishing." To me it really seems just a lie trying to get away.
Singapore Law is "You are Guilty until you are proven Innocent. (With Evidence Not Words)"
That poor guy cannot prove his innocent. He can say he is been attacked, but it's just words against words. The judge may not believe lesser number equals to been attacked as in this case. It's also been fair to impose jail terms as a life is lost. The judge may have believe that he did not excecise enough self-control before his self-defence. Excecise self-control example running away from trouble, warning with his weapons in the first place & make lesser/non-vital injury to others.
Pure bad luck there is no way this case can be bought to balance.
Bottom of the line:
If you have a weapon & in a situation like this, don't stabbed. Warnings with the show of the weapon. If out of self-defence, make surface cuts (Slash) on non-vital places only.
That poor guy did not warn with the weapon in the first place. Secondly who is really the attacker? What if the situations was turn around? He bought a knife to attack but found out there is more then he can handle & tries to run away? -
There is nothing wrong with having a knife in your pocket.
So what if the deceased had fallen to the ground? You dont take chances in such situation.
This is SINGAPORE -
I guess most never saw that he took drugs. Even the judge missed out this point. That's why the sentence is harsh.
-
Don't stab? Show of weapon as a warning? Make cuts on non-vital places?Originally posted by surfer188:Bottom of the line:
If you have a weapon & in a situation like this, don't stabbed. Warnings with the show of the weapon. If out of self-defence, make surface cuts (Slash) on non-vital places only.
That poor guy did not warn with the weapon in the first place. Secondly who is really the attacker? What if the situations was turn around? He bought a knife to attack but found out there is more then he can handle & tries to run away?
Hardly practical advice. When someone is kicking the sh1t out of me, I am not sure I would be able to decide what method of attack to use. Should I stab? Naaaaah. I'll slash...hang on... is the arm a vital part? The veins seem quite big. Oh...right...only on the outside of the forearm...NOT the inside...and Never longitudinally...don't want to cause too much damage to the veins...wait a minute...He's not playing ball! He just keeps coming at me...maybe a stab..no ....slashing his torso would be fine...wait...fuckin' hell...he just never gives up...How about his legs...nope Big artery in the thigh...Arrrgh...now i've gone and lost the fecking knife...greeeeat...wait...stop stabbing me!
You get what I mean. Only thing to learn from this episode is: You are only allowed to use as much force as is neccessary to protect yourself. Once there is no longer threat or you are allowed to run away, RUN. -
CANT YOU GUYS GET IT ? HE HAS $50K in HIS WALLET . WHY YOU THINK HE SO HIONG ?
-
There is a very large blood vessel in our thighs - puncture it, & you will bleed to death loosing large quantities of blood.Originally posted by TehJarVu:wah, stab on the thigh also can die........ -
aiiiiiiiiii hope when he appeal to the president he will gain pardon and reduce the jail term.
-
of course if the truth was not reported there are doubts but as i said assuming the report was true. whether he can prove, i don't know and unless you have the details of what the judge said i doubt you do too(maybe he had witnesses??).Originally posted by surfer188:I feel both are wrong. Just too bad the attacker died.
There are points of argue. The judge may not have trusted "He Forgot to take out the knife after Fishing." To me it really seems just a lie trying to get away.
Singapore Law is "You are Guilty until you are proven Innocent. (With Evidence Not Words)"
That poor guy cannot prove his innocent. He can say he is been attacked, but it's just words against words. The judge may not believe lesser number equals to been attacked as in this case. It's also been fair to impose jail terms as a life is lost. The judge may have believe that he did not excecise enough self-control before his self-defence. Excecise self-control example running away from trouble, warning with his weapons in the first place & make lesser/non-vital injury to others.
Pure bad luck there is no way this case can be bought to balance.
Bottom of the line:
If you have a weapon & in a situation like this, don't stabbed. Warnings with the show of the weapon. If out of self-defence, make surface cuts (Slash) on non-vital places only.
That poor guy did not warn with the weapon in the first place. Secondly who is really the attacker? What if the situations was turn around? He bought a knife to attack but found out there is more then he can handle & tries to run away?
but you just provided us with mroe information about how dumb and impractical the bloody law is.
exercise self control by running? unfortunately i see this as a wise course but in this case he ran and met them again. + sometimes if you know you cannot run fast no point running.
warnings with a show of weapon is dumb when you are being attacked. there isn't time if the pple are really hitting you already the only thing you can do with a weapon is whip it out in the same motion slashing/attacking.
unless you are skilled with the weapon or are very calm, aiming to just make sruface wounds is ridiculous to say the least. -
so how long was he jailed?
-
Maybe that's just the way they just it to be?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.
And it's not as if they can't change it anytime if things are not to their advantage?
-
Agree. When is not 'over-doing it'?Originally posted by zhaozhilong: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.
Who knows you just stop there, end up that guy springs back at you and stab you dead instead...?
Should we all practise that for our attackers...? Might as well we all convert to Buddhism....? -
Yes. You should have ASKED NICELY 1st... If that doesn't work THEN you try OTHER METHODS....Originally posted by digicharat:lets say some one decided to steal my stuff. but i realised and gave chase. then i pin him down and break one of his arm. how?
am i at fault?
-
Originally posted by surfer188:I feel both are wrong. Just too bad the attacker died.
There are points of argue. The judge may not have trusted "He Forgot to take out the knife after Fishing." To me it really seems just a lie trying to get away.
Singapore Law is "You are Guilty until you are proven Innocent. (With Evidence Not Words)"
That poor guy cannot prove his innocent. He can say he is been attacked, but it's just words against words. The judge may not believe lesser number equals to been attacked as in this case. It's also been fair to impose jail terms as a life is lost. The judge may have believe that he did not excecise enough self-control before his self-defence. Excecise self-control example running away from trouble, warning with his weapons in the first place & make lesser/non-vital injury to others.
Pure bad luck there is no way this case can be bought to balance.
Bottom of the line:
If you have a weapon & in a situation like this, don't stabbed. Warnings with the show of the weapon. If out of self-defence, make surface cuts (Slash) on non-vital places only.
That poor guy did not warn with the weapon in the first place. Secondly who is really the attacker? What if the situations was turn around? He bought a knife to attack but found out there is more then he can handle & tries to run away? -
what part of a human body can be repeatedly stabbed without killing the person?
-
the limit of of self defence is only up to remove the immediate danger. in his case, when he run away is counted as self defence. but the wrong thing he had done is to use weapon and stab the other party, in other words, he is now the offensive party. therefore he could not be said of self defence. and stabbing the other parties repeatly, shows he had intention of injuring the other party.
I agreed with the judge sentence. -
no he stab to prevent hurt to himself that is selfdefence. repeated maybe mental state whatever i dunnno but stabbing a few more times to make sure the person cannt get up and kill you sounds reasonable.....Originally posted by doghouse837:the litmit of of self defence is only up to remove the immediate danger. in his case, when he run away is counted as self defence. but the wrong thing he had done is to use weapon and stab the other party, in other words, he is now the offensive party. therefore he could not be said of self defence. and stabbing the other parties repeatly, shows he had intention of injuring the other party.
I agreed with the judge sentence. -
The problem with it is because he use weapon, and the other party only use bare hands. So which is the attacking party.Originally posted by hisoka:no he stab to prevent hurt to himself that is selfdefence. repeated maybe mental state whatever i dunnno but stabbing a few more times to make sure the person cannt get up and kill you sounds reasonable.....
In singapore contents, the right of self defence is only able to use the same or less amount of force. In his case, he is use far too much force. -
actually i was criticizing the law. not the judgement per se.Originally posted by doghouse837:The problem with it is because he use weapon, and the other party only use bare hands. So which is the attacking party.
In singapore contents, the right of self defence is only able to use the same or less amount of force. In his case, he is use far too much force.
anyway i really have to question whether using a weapon against 2 pple is really more than the amount of force.
assuming the story was correct its obvious who was the attacking party whoever had the weapon.
again dumb stipulation of less or same amount of force. while i admit its to prevent pple from just killing when attacked with a weapon, same or less is insufficient to eliminate the threat. -
How u so sure that the 2 ppl would kill him with their bare hand? No one can know the future outcome right??Originally posted by hisoka:actually i was criticizing the law. not the judgement per se.
anyway i really have to question whether using a weapon against 2 pple is really more than the amount of force.
assuming the story was correct its obvious who was the attacking party whoever had the weapon.
again dumb stipulation of less or same amount of force. while i admit its to prevent pple from just killing when attacked with a weapon, same or less is insufficient to eliminate the threat.
But when the guy took out the weapon, he is already in the wrong.
The self defence that he can use is only using his hands and legs to push them back, and run. That the most self defence can cover him under singapore law.
I agreed with the singapore law, for example 2 skinny ppl is beating a well built person, can the well built person use weapon against them?? -
even if they wont kill him,, they would have seriously hurt him all else being equal. he took out the weapon to protect himself, nothing wrong with that, if you have to kill some one attack you to save yourself nothing wrong doing that right? especially when its not a confirm kill by a knife no matter what you think.Originally posted by doghouse837:How u so sure that the 2 ppl would kill him with their bare hand? No one can know the future outcome right??
But when the guy took out the weapon, he is already in the wrong.
The self defence that he can use is only using his hands and legs to push them back, and run. That the most self defence can cover him under singapore law.
I agreed with the singapore law, for example 2 skinny ppl is beating a well built person, can the well built person use weapon against them??
using hands and legs to push them away is ineffective and chances are would lead him to get hurt more, are you sure he can psuh them and run?? i did say the main issue was the law didn't i?
your example is absurd. very well if you want to play. then what if a skinny(unskilled) man was attacked by 2 well built man who can out run him? how can he protect himself without the use of weapons?
to be more reasonable, we should look at an average person being set upon by 2 other average pple. do you think its likely that person can defend himself without weapons? for running, i also do not think its effective. lets take the 3 average pple again, they would be able to run roughly the same distance and time so he cannot run away + when he is running he is vunerable to assult from behind. -
Since when has proportional responsibility been acceptable by the local courts..or else we would not have people hanged for drugs and old ladies jailed for unknowningly letting their flats out to illegals.
-
huh?? dun throw law terms leh, we are dumb pple hereOriginally posted by LazerLordz:Since when has proportional responsibility been acceptable by the local courts..or else we would not have people hanged for drugs and old ladies jailed for unknowningly letting their flats out to illegals. -
no leh. not law terms haha.Originally posted by hisoka:huh?? dun throw law terms leh, we are dumb pple here
proportional responsibility = how much of that crime is the person's responsibility..or something like that.