today hor..i saw..
-
???Originally posted by caleb_chiang:It would depends.
In anywhere in the world, if you hit a human, you commit a crime.
But if you cause an accident by avoiding a cat or dog on the road which include infliciting injuries or damage to the public properties, you still commit a crime.
if u cause an accident by avoiding a cat or dog on the road which include infliciting injuries or damage to the public properties, you still commit a crime
-> does that apply to Singapore??? if not, u shouldn't use it in singapore context! -
Think again, go ask your science teacher.Originally posted by Kenashi:
what does insects have to do with rubbish n dumps???
the breaking down process is by nature not insects -
so are u implying he was speeding?Originally posted by seow:Recklessness would have been the driver driving dangerously in a way that may endanger the cat, yes, at least he should have stopped, but what i am talking about is what happened before the incident.
Kenashi: so is there a brake which can stop a car like, from 100 to zero km/h in a second??
and if he was really speeding, he should be forgiven for not being able to brake in time? -
if a car is travelling at 100km/h, the driver should have ganna rottan liaoOriginally posted by seow:Recklessness would have been the driver driving dangerously in a way that may endanger the cat, yes, at least he should have stopped, but what i am talking about is what happened before the incident.
Kenashi: so is there a brake which can stop a car like, from 100 to zero km/h in a second??
u think F1 racing come so early huh??? -
You don't get it, nvm.Originally posted by Kenashi:i said that u should be observant, did i say shouldn't??
Eh... no. You are just saying things totally different form what I'm saying/intending to say/meaning to say.it's that twisting yr meaning again???[/quote]
Not exactly, but you have done that a lot in this thread. In fact, almost every other comment than this one is.[quote]u only want to hear yr words that u think others will feel comfortable with hearing yet u want to express something that's not
ie;You are putting words into other people's mouths. Bad Kenashi. -
Not in Singapore? You try driving a car into a bus stop running over just one person or knocking them. You try to get away by saying I was avoiding to hit the dog.Originally posted by Kenashi:???
if u cause an accident by avoiding a cat or dog on the road which include infliciting injuries or damage to the public properties, you still commit a crime
-> does that apply to Singapore??? if not, u shouldn't use it in singapore context!
Please use some common sense.
You have to pay for the public properties if you happen to hit them even to avoid animals on the road. You can ask the driver who happened to do that before.
Not in Singapore? Please lor... The gahmen would not hestitate to increase their pay checks. -
Looks like i can't pull myself away from this thread.
bbb/kenashi: didn't imply the driver speeding, just trying to set a standard to show that there is no brake that can stop a car instantly. -
in our law if the doesn't exceed speed limit on the road involved the aurthorities heck care...but by our code of human conscious this one cant be forgiven....Originally posted by browniebaobao:so are u implying he was speeding?
and if he was really speeding, he should be forgiven for not being able to brake in time? -
a human cannot even fend off a cat??Originally posted by kengkia:well...what can he do when he got down the car to check....to tend to the kitten....like others said....the mother cat is being defensive on that time....also is he a vet himself....?...no right...can't any old how give treatment right...
should take the kitten to a vet!!
if i see someone drowning, i shouldn't help since i ain't a lifeguard, how can anyhow save ppl, no right -
This topic is getting very far off from what it originally was. Especially with all the scenarios thrown in that are sometimes not even remotely linked with the original incident.
-
bcos u saidOriginally posted by SumOne:Well that's a different guy and a different case isn't it? Despite quoting me, I think you didn't get the point I was trying to get across. Is it a problem with my english?
"It's a different thing if the driver meant to run over the cat but seriously, how often do you know of a driver with driving skills good enough to run over the paw only and not even the whole cat."
so im telling u, that jurong cat killer got the might/skill to kill the cat, but he din. yes it's different case, but im juz trying to tell u, even if the driver got the skill to kill the cat, he could have chosen not to.
now u get it? -
reckless doesn't meant deliberateOriginally posted by seow:carelessness, playfulness, there are many reasons....
You guys are talking as if the driver was deliberately aiming for the kitten's paws.... -
u talking about maggots n other stuff, pls check with yr science teacher, they r not classified as insectsOriginally posted by caleb_chiang:Think again, go ask your science teacher. -
and why are u quoting my post twice?Originally posted by SumOne:To repeat, the guy from jurong is one thing. The guy mentioned in opening post of thread, another guy.
To be specific, I have a different opinion regarding both. I think others have too.
Animal cruelty is one thing, but I seriously don't think that was what the driver had in mind. Like I said, he probably doesn't even know it happened.
I get what u mean, I get your point.
but even if he din do it on purpose, he din realize it.. it still happened. -
how can u be so sure that it was juz pure accident?Originally posted by SumOne:Can I just request of the other cat lovers here not to let anger get the better of them and jump to conclusions regarding the driver? This one is at best an accident but not a case of animal cruelty. -
ya rite!!Originally posted by SumOne:Eh... no. You are just saying things totally different form what I'm saying/intending to say/meaning to say.
ie;You are putting words into other people's mouths. Bad Kenashi.
everytime someone doesn't agree with something i interpret from their words, they will tend to say i twisting their words!! if u want others to interpret yr word on yr own term then use plain language that cannot be subjected to interpretation. furthermore, i am interpreting them n asking whether this is the meaning, if u said no, tell me what u meant, not said that i am twisting yr words yet u don't want to define yr meaning!!!
i need my sleep!!
yawns -
ask u ....say u got a child and a stranger tries to take away ya child what do u do....?fight the person to death right....likewise the mother cat will do the same thing...would u wanna waste time on mother cat in order to save the kitten....by then the kitten may have died due to late act of treatment....save anything can but must see situaution....Originally posted by Kenashi:a human cannot even fend off a cat??
should take the kitten to a vet!!
if i see someone drowning, i shouldn't help since i ain't a lifeguard, how can anyhow save ppl, no right
-
Dun you know that insects are the front line of decomposers?Originally posted by Kenashi:u talking about maggots n other stuff, pls check with yr science teacher, they r not classified as insects 
-
Coming back to topic, what the driver did was right nor was it nice. But everything points towards it being an accident. The incident being an accident does not make it right, but it's a different thing altogether to compare him/her (the driver) with someone who intentionally makes animals suffer.
If the driver had known what he/she had done to the kitten, the driver might have stopped and at least try to do something. I know I would, but I strongly feel the driver might not even have been aware. TS able to confirm this?
As to why the driver was not able to see, a lot of it points towards the kitten being too small and so small that driver does note even know what happened, ie; accident, not intentional animal cruelty. It's really hard to explain any further why the kitten couldn't be seen but I would figure that drivers would understand better. -
huh?Originally posted by caleb_chiang:In some country, you have to hit the animal twice so that you confirm that it do not suffer till the injuries kill it.
For SAF personnels... You would know that you are instructed to run down the animal than to jam brakes when you are having exercise in other countries especially australia.
-
it seems that all of u guys here r just speculating whether the driver had the intention or not to run over the kitten...the answer only the driver himself know only...does all the speculating can help to save or bring the cat back to life?Originally posted by browniebaobao:how can u be so sure that it was juz pure accident? no use crying over a spilled milk. A life have been lost and not much of talking can help do anything....just tell yaself what u need to do next time when u encounter this situation thats all....a penny for my thoughts -
insects only decompose waste in nature such as dead leaves n dead animalsOriginally posted by caleb_chiang:Dun you know that insects are the front line of decomposers?
those in rubbish dumpsite r left to nature to take its course n maggots -
soldiers are expected to follow order irregardless what order or to face punishment....Originally posted by browniebaobao:huh? -
I think you didn't get what I mean, all I was saying is that the driver most probably did not run over the kitten's paw intentionally. Now you get it? But thank you for sharing with me this other story.Originally posted by browniebaobao:bcos u said
"It's a different thing if the driver meant to run over the cat but seriously, how often do you know of a driver with driving skills good enough to run over the paw only and not even the whole cat."
I get you, you don't get me.so im telling u, that jurong cat killer got the might/skill to kill the cat, but he din. yes it's different case, but im juz trying to tell u, even if the driver got the skill to kill the cat, he could have chosen not to. [/quote]
As I said above, you didn't get what I meant regarding the skill of the driver. I'm just saying he isn't so skilled that he aimed to run over the kitten's paw and managed to do so. It is not intentioanlly causing hurt to the animal. Now you get it?
To emphase the difference, the jurong killer had intent, this guy didn't. I don't mind going on a different discussion about the jurong cat killer, but like I said, it's different from the one mentioned here. Meanwhile though, you have link to an article on the jurong killer?[quote]now u get it? -
In case you didn't notice... there are insects at the dumpsites...Originally posted by Kenashi:insects only decompose waste in nature such as dead leaves n dead animals
those in rubbish dumpsite r left to nature to take its course n maggots
Unless you are one of the maggots that feeds on the things there and able to tell that there are no insects to be found.
I don't understand why you like to challenge everyone's reply.