Originally posted by ^spidee^:
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]
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
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
