Man jailed for self defence
-
The trick is to make the other off balance. Trip the other party to fall. and that would do it. Thats why in singapore, there are so many course that teach ppl self defence. Even it is a bigger size.Originally posted by hisoka: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.
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.
Using weapon is always a wrong wrong thing to do. -
The rest of the newspaper article will explain better the concept of self-defence:
QUOTE
What if you kill to protect yourself?
CAN you walk away scot-free?
Lawyer Amolat Singh said: 'The judges would look at the amount of force and the means used to defend oneself.
'If a man punches me with his bare hands and I take out a parang and hack him to death, the force I use would be disproportionate.'
Mr Amolat said the judges would also assess what the defendant was thinking when he committed the act.
Issues such as whether he had meant to kill the other party would be taken into account.
'On hindsight, we may think it was rash to stab the other man in self-defence. But sometimes you don't have the luxury of time to rationalise your actions,' Mr Amolat said.
Lawyer Subhas Anandan said: 'Nothing is an offence if it is done in the exercise of self defence.
'But if you had the time to call the police, then your actions can't be justified as self-defence.'
UNDUE ADVANTAGE
Mr Anandan said the actions of Neo Eng Kiat exceeded the right of self defence.
'He had undue advantage as he had a weapon and acted in great cruelty as he stabbed the other man repeatedly.
'So he couldn't invoke right of self-defence.'
Lawyer Kertar Singh, who defended Neo, said everyone has the right to self-defence.
'But you also have to consider the circumstances. In my client's case, he stabbed his attacker repeatedly after the latter fell down.
'So his actions were beyond self-defence as there was definitely an intention to cause injury.'
During the trial, Mr Kertar cited similar cases where defendants received light sentences of between 3 and 3 1/2 years after killing someone in a fight.
One was the case of cleaner Katun Bee Ibrahim, 56, who was jailed 3 1/2 years on 6 Jan, 2004, for culpable homicide.
During a fight with her lover G. Subramaniam on 13 Jan, 2003, Katun fatally stabbed him in the abdomen after blinding him with chilli powder.
Another case was of durian seller Lim Boon Seng, 40, who was jailed 3 1/2 years on 27 May, 2004, for culpable homicide.
During a fight with loanshark Keng Yew Cheng, 42, on 5 Nov, 2003, over a $1,800 debt, Lim fatally stabbed Keng in the chest.
UNQUOTE -
Key issue before one is able to invoke the right of self-defence is whether there has been a disproportionate amount of force used by the defendant on his assailant.
-
We are better off ruled from Canberra. Enough said.Originally posted by Aveme: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.
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
-
In the heat of battle, anything can go happen.Originally posted by doghouse837:The trick is to make the other off balance. Trip the other party to fall. and that would do it. Thats why in singapore, there are so many course that teach ppl self defence. Even it is a bigger size.
Using weapon is always a wrong wrong thing to do.
Also, how many people remember to clean out their pockets after each fishing trip? -
A side note, was Kan Ting Chiu the presiding judge?