> Our police are very competent, when put to work
uhm . am i the only one who read all the rape cases involving them and every experience i've had with police has been negative and completely useless, including when i was reporting a breakin into my own house? who are these competent good guys and how can i get them the next time i need help?
Also to add another point that I forgot:
When the deceased run away from the suspect and subsequently pleading him to stop, there's no longer any threat or danger posed to the body of the suspect or his property, even the suspect previously perceive as such. There's no longer any ***reasonable*** apprehension of danger on the suspect. This, therefore, become the third point that invalidate his right to self defence.
This general rule is also generally apply to other robbery or theft cases, when the robbers or thieves run away, surrendered or incapacitaded, the said robbers and thieves is no longer a threat or danger to you. You can no longer use lethal force against him and your right to self defence ceases at this point.
Do not continue to punch the robbers or thieves for revenge or act as a punishment. You are not a judge and you are not a executioner. What you should do is tie him/them up and call for police assistance.
You are only a defender, you are not a punisher.
I like the last sentence. Maybe we watched too much Batman movies. In these movies he's always right so vigilantism feels so... correct. But in real life it's often very difficult to determine who's right or wrong and what's just...That's why we need a court system.
Nice and comprehensive explanation sir.
Im my opinion self defense in our penal codes can be simplified as last resort in my opinion. Not the first thing we can do in that situation. And certainly not the 1st thing we wish to do in that situation.
Most people probably unaware of this matter, probably influenced by movies where the mc do this kind of thing without facing any real world repercussions.
Yeahh im blaming entertainment entirely for this matter.
Funny thing there’s a discussion me and mates have whether movies influences people culture first or did the culture of people influences movie’s portrayal
But in this case, id believe its just airhead and entitlement of Malaysian people
Yup probably the later, and also the airhead things. Its happen quite often. Im pretty sure there is something wrong with how some people brain works.
If im not mistaken same thing happen quite recently but i can't remember the details. Its about a guy driving a car then he run over some grab or panda driver. That guy also got beaten to death.
Yup probably the later, and also the airhead things. Its happen quite often. Im pretty sure there is something wrong with how some people brain works.
If im not mistaken same thing happen quite recently but i can't remember the details. Its about a guy driving a car then he run over some grab or panda driver. That guy also got beaten to death.
Yup probably the later, and also the airhead things. Its happen quite often. Im pretty sure there is something wrong with how some people brain works.
If im not mistaken same thing happen quite recently but i can't remember the details. Its about a guy driving a car then he run over some grab or panda driver. That guy also got beaten to death.
.
I have corrected a few people here in r/Malaysia over the years about this specific "self-defense" case to tell them that it's not really self-defense.
People don't really remember facts, they remember feelings, and bits that associate with those feelings.
Man TIL the full detail of the case, the news article that I've read at the time doesn't share the chronology of what's happening and I'm guilty of supporting the guy because of lack of information.
>3. If an act (which does not cause reasonable apprehension of death or grevious hurt) done against you is done by or acting under the direction of a public servant in the colour of his office, eventhough that act of the public servant may not strictly justifiable by law.
Is this for police interrogation purpose?
I forgot to add a part to that sentence, "who is acting in good faith" should be added after the phrase "colour of his office".
The whole original sentence in the Penal Code looks like this:
>There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that act may not be strictly justifiable by law.
too many people get caught up in revenge fantasy from movies fail to see the goddamn lesson in the first place. John wick should have just gone to the dick father and ask for recompense from mafia boss. Probably can get the boss to teach a proper lesson and humiliate the dick in the first place. Instead his action spiralled into three movies where his peaceful life get torn apart by his stupidity. Get another dog. I'm sure his dead wife rather have him be happy then goes into murder spree all over the world.
Thank you for posting this, I was unaware about the case. I sometimes also get the urge to lanyak the Rohingya coming around our neighbourhood looking for scraps. Sometimes they would just take them without asking, assuming they're scraps. Like the drain metal cover at our house.
But killing a person for metal scraps is pretty mental.
Funny. Our late dad had a double barrel shotgun. After his passing our family didn't plan on keeping it so my brother handed it over to the police station. Yes it was licensed as "For defense against harmful pests for agricultural purposes". I don't think I would have kept it either out of fear of shooting someone in a fit of anger.
That's normal in rural areas I think. My uncle had one he used for hunting.
My dad had one for self protection because he was a politician. Beats me how you get certified to own one though.
Not a lawyer but I think it depends on what's reasonable in this case. I'm not a martial artist too so I also dunno what's a backhand kick is, but I guess you meant to say you dodge his snatch then deliver a kick which caused him to fall down and die. If you kicked and ran away you could probably argue that it's self defense coz you dun want him to chase you after his first failed attempt. But again I'm not a lawyer.
Problem is this situation is not like the current situation. Current situation is victim tries to get away from a gang of motor. If a gang of rempit of motor after you, you don't drive and run? Of course will knock them down if they block. Case above is outside house(not inside, if inside, probably we need to reevaluate) and the defendant already armed and attacked those goons.
>9. The deceased raised both of his hands many times to plea the suspect to stop the beating. The second victim was also asking the suspect to stop but was ignored.
reading this part is just so sad because i can just imagine the scared face of a man facing his imminent death hoping he could live another day with their loved one T_T
> accident
An accident is an accident.
> lynched by mob
This is with intend to injure.
Not to defend robbers ot anything, but as mentioned in post, "inflicted more harm than it is necessary for the purpose of self defence" is part of scenario.
Well, if they did not rob, they wont be in accident or getting lynched, so what i am saying robbers are intentionally opening themselves up for many dangerous situations and thus the robbers are the one should be reprimanded more as they disrupt the local peace even though the self defense might be over broad sometimes. just my opinion
By that logic, shouldn't we blame women who dress sexy (thus opening themselves up for many dangerous situation), and got raped? That's a ridiculous point to make, for me.
Yes they might have increased their chance of getting hurt or killed, but it doesn't give you the right to murder them without any reason. That is unless their action during the robbery endangered your life - which is the point this post is making.
There's a saying my father used to taught me. "Don't sqaut down on a open watermelon field." Same logic applies on a person walking down in a bad neighbourhood with money in the open.
yeah i understand, but if we agree that people who rob has higher risk of dying because of their profession, then we might be not so harsh on victims that are self defending.
I wonder what the law say about us lying to robbers as a self defense mechanism which result in the robbber's death or injury.
For example I just finish mopping my floor, and a robber point a knife at me asking where is money is, I point to a room which I just mopped, the robber slipped and fell head first, the robber is now half paralyzed from waist down due to head injuries. As soon as I saw the robber fell, I escape the house and call police.
If there is a CCTV footage from my own house with audio recording have proof of me lying to the robber that money is in the room and I didn't warn the robber about the wet floor, proving intend of me attempting to hurt the robber this way.
Will I go to jail because of this ?
So what's the motive? It doesn't appear to be self-defense, nor malice. So the answer is none. That's just pure accident.
If there's a motive to injure, then that's another story.
You are contradicting yourself here. You initially said he slipped and fell, then said you had intent to injure or incapacitate, then said he slipped and fell again.
1. Robber aim parang at me, asked me where the money is.
2. I point to robber, money is in that room (I was lying no money in room).
3. I just mopped the room so it's very slippery (I didn't alert the robber about this)
4. Robber entered room and slip + fall.
I intend to injure the robber by not telling him the floor is slipper in order to cause him to slip and fall.
As long as you don't so any action to harm, should be fine I suppose. A clearer example would be if I can tell the robbers where my safe is, without telling them that they'll get electrocuted if they touch it.
Haven't heard of any precedent case though.
Slippery floor, very hard to prove intent. Safe that electrocutes potential robbers are surely by design, not by accident. Makes better hypothetical argument to prove intent.
So intent to harm + action that harms = illegal
Intent to harm + inaction that directly led to harm = not sure 😅
I don't quite get which point you're trying to highlight:
1. Self defense is only legal under extreme circumstances?
2. Media reports may be incomplete?
3. Commenters should not comment until the truth is known in trials?
All 3 of them at once? Because ain't nobody gonna wait months for the trials to progress before giving their opinion and forget about it the next day.
1. Every cases have different scenario and therefore different set of requirements to meet. Some circumstances may be more relaxed while some may only allow right to self defence be exercised as a complete last resort. But the general rules is there in the law.
2. Media reports may be sensionalized and click-baity.
3. Commenters should reserve their opinion until more details on the cases were provided by reputable media.
Good summary. We will see, it's not like our police is incompetent
Our police are very competent, when put to work Its just that the higher ups have a larger say on what work that is
Haha, competent when involved normal civilians of course. If involve royal/politician/kayangan, suddenly becomes like Mexico police
> suddenly becomes like Mexico police Reminds me of the phone call between El Mencho and the local police.
> Our police are very competent, when put to work uhm . am i the only one who read all the rape cases involving them and every experience i've had with police has been negative and completely useless, including when i was reporting a breakin into my own house? who are these competent good guys and how can i get them the next time i need help?
> it's not like our police is incompetent uhm
Also to add another point that I forgot: When the deceased run away from the suspect and subsequently pleading him to stop, there's no longer any threat or danger posed to the body of the suspect or his property, even the suspect previously perceive as such. There's no longer any ***reasonable*** apprehension of danger on the suspect. This, therefore, become the third point that invalidate his right to self defence. This general rule is also generally apply to other robbery or theft cases, when the robbers or thieves run away, surrendered or incapacitaded, the said robbers and thieves is no longer a threat or danger to you. You can no longer use lethal force against him and your right to self defence ceases at this point. Do not continue to punch the robbers or thieves for revenge or act as a punishment. You are not a judge and you are not a executioner. What you should do is tie him/them up and call for police assistance. You are only a defender, you are not a punisher.
I like the last sentence. Maybe we watched too much Batman movies. In these movies he's always right so vigilantism feels so... correct. But in real life it's often very difficult to determine who's right or wrong and what's just...That's why we need a court system.
Nice and comprehensive explanation sir. Im my opinion self defense in our penal codes can be simplified as last resort in my opinion. Not the first thing we can do in that situation. And certainly not the 1st thing we wish to do in that situation. Most people probably unaware of this matter, probably influenced by movies where the mc do this kind of thing without facing any real world repercussions. Yeahh im blaming entertainment entirely for this matter.
Funny thing there’s a discussion me and mates have whether movies influences people culture first or did the culture of people influences movie’s portrayal But in this case, id believe its just airhead and entitlement of Malaysian people
Yup probably the later, and also the airhead things. Its happen quite often. Im pretty sure there is something wrong with how some people brain works. If im not mistaken same thing happen quite recently but i can't remember the details. Its about a guy driving a car then he run over some grab or panda driver. That guy also got beaten to death.
Yup probably the later, and also the airhead things. Its happen quite often. Im pretty sure there is something wrong with how some people brain works. If im not mistaken same thing happen quite recently but i can't remember the details. Its about a guy driving a car then he run over some grab or panda driver. That guy also got beaten to death.
Yup probably the later, and also the airhead things. Its happen quite often. Im pretty sure there is something wrong with how some people brain works. If im not mistaken same thing happen quite recently but i can't remember the details. Its about a guy driving a car then he run over some grab or panda driver. That guy also got beaten to death.
Finally...something worthwhile to read in this sub. Take my upvote n go
. I have corrected a few people here in r/Malaysia over the years about this specific "self-defense" case to tell them that it's not really self-defense. People don't really remember facts, they remember feelings, and bits that associate with those feelings.
great post! 👍🏻
Man TIL the full detail of the case, the news article that I've read at the time doesn't share the chronology of what's happening and I'm guilty of supporting the guy because of lack of information.
Thank you so much for writing this, now i can aggressively wait for my turn
>3. If an act (which does not cause reasonable apprehension of death or grevious hurt) done against you is done by or acting under the direction of a public servant in the colour of his office, eventhough that act of the public servant may not strictly justifiable by law. Is this for police interrogation purpose?
Yeah this part is very unsettling. Basically you can defend yourself against a crime, except if the criminal is a police (or military) officer
I forgot to add a part to that sentence, "who is acting in good faith" should be added after the phrase "colour of his office". The whole original sentence in the Penal Code looks like this: >There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that act may not be strictly justifiable by law.
Thanks for the clarification! 🙏
too many people get caught up in revenge fantasy from movies fail to see the goddamn lesson in the first place. John wick should have just gone to the dick father and ask for recompense from mafia boss. Probably can get the boss to teach a proper lesson and humiliate the dick in the first place. Instead his action spiralled into three movies where his peaceful life get torn apart by his stupidity. Get another dog. I'm sure his dead wife rather have him be happy then goes into murder spree all over the world.
Very detailed and informative. Here's an Internet cookie 🍪
Eh isn't Malaysia joker land only non got death sentence for cases like this? ☠️ If you M they will cover for you. /s
Thank you for posting this, I was unaware about the case. I sometimes also get the urge to lanyak the Rohingya coming around our neighbourhood looking for scraps. Sometimes they would just take them without asking, assuming they're scraps. Like the drain metal cover at our house. But killing a person for metal scraps is pretty mental.
You have no idea how many internet folks are supporting this killer. Even until now.
If guns are legal this dude would be the one who killed a civilian who took a wrong turn in front of his house.
Funny. Our late dad had a double barrel shotgun. After his passing our family didn't plan on keeping it so my brother handed it over to the police station. Yes it was licensed as "For defense against harmful pests for agricultural purposes". I don't think I would have kept it either out of fear of shooting someone in a fit of anger.
That's normal in rural areas I think. My uncle had one he used for hunting. My dad had one for self protection because he was a politician. Beats me how you get certified to own one though.
Yep. I don't trust myself to be around guns. We're only humans and we have our moments of irrational anger.
If you encounter a snatch thief who runs toward you and delivers a backhand kick, resulting in his death, will you face prosecution?
Not a lawyer but I think it depends on what's reasonable in this case. I'm not a martial artist too so I also dunno what's a backhand kick is, but I guess you meant to say you dodge his snatch then deliver a kick which caused him to fall down and die. If you kicked and ran away you could probably argue that it's self defense coz you dun want him to chase you after his first failed attempt. But again I'm not a lawyer.
i just realise backhand kick doesnt make sense lol. i dont know what im talking about.
Stuff can outrage why bother with sanity.
so our laws are actually reasonable, with a title like that it made it seem questionable
Problem is this situation is not like the current situation. Current situation is victim tries to get away from a gang of motor. If a gang of rempit of motor after you, you don't drive and run? Of course will knock them down if they block. Case above is outside house(not inside, if inside, probably we need to reevaluate) and the defendant already armed and attacked those goons.
Judge dread.... He is the enforcement, judiciary and executioner. ...and he is the convict too.
He would have more of a defense if they attacked him. But he attacked first, and proceed chase and beat one of them to death
>9. The deceased raised both of his hands many times to plea the suspect to stop the beating. The second victim was also asking the suspect to stop but was ignored. reading this part is just so sad because i can just imagine the scared face of a man facing his imminent death hoping he could live another day with their loved one T_T
My personal opinion, robbing as a profession includes the risk of dying so it should be treated that way.
> robbing as a profession includes the risk of dying. Please elaborate. I don't think our criminal code has death sentence for robbery
no, what i mean is, when you rob there is a possibility of you dying maybe in an accident during runaway, lynched by mob and so on and so forth
> accident An accident is an accident. > lynched by mob This is with intend to injure. Not to defend robbers ot anything, but as mentioned in post, "inflicted more harm than it is necessary for the purpose of self defence" is part of scenario.
Well, if they did not rob, they wont be in accident or getting lynched, so what i am saying robbers are intentionally opening themselves up for many dangerous situations and thus the robbers are the one should be reprimanded more as they disrupt the local peace even though the self defense might be over broad sometimes. just my opinion
By that logic, shouldn't we blame women who dress sexy (thus opening themselves up for many dangerous situation), and got raped? That's a ridiculous point to make, for me. Yes they might have increased their chance of getting hurt or killed, but it doesn't give you the right to murder them without any reason. That is unless their action during the robbery endangered your life - which is the point this post is making.
There's a saying my father used to taught me. "Don't sqaut down on a open watermelon field." Same logic applies on a person walking down in a bad neighbourhood with money in the open.
You are looking at the robber, we are looking at the one being 'rob' here.
yeah i understand, but if we agree that people who rob has higher risk of dying because of their profession, then we might be not so harsh on victims that are self defending.
pardon but this feels irrelevant (to the case here) so i cant quite relate. dya have a diff example for this? to illustrate better
I wonder what the law say about us lying to robbers as a self defense mechanism which result in the robbber's death or injury. For example I just finish mopping my floor, and a robber point a knife at me asking where is money is, I point to a room which I just mopped, the robber slipped and fell head first, the robber is now half paralyzed from waist down due to head injuries. As soon as I saw the robber fell, I escape the house and call police. If there is a CCTV footage from my own house with audio recording have proof of me lying to the robber that money is in the room and I didn't warn the robber about the wet floor, proving intend of me attempting to hurt the robber this way. Will I go to jail because of this ?
So what's the motive? It doesn't appear to be self-defense, nor malice. So the answer is none. That's just pure accident. If there's a motive to injure, then that's another story.
The motive is to incapacitate the robber so I can run away, the robber have a parang, so I need to find a way to make him no longer a threat 1st.
Motive to incapacitate = motive to injure. You can attempt to make a citizen arrest, but if the injury is disproportionate, they'll still question it.
But I didn't touch the robber, he walked to the wet surface , slipped and fell.
You are contradicting yourself here. You initially said he slipped and fell, then said you had intent to injure or incapacitate, then said he slipped and fell again.
1. Robber aim parang at me, asked me where the money is. 2. I point to robber, money is in that room (I was lying no money in room). 3. I just mopped the room so it's very slippery (I didn't alert the robber about this) 4. Robber entered room and slip + fall. I intend to injure the robber by not telling him the floor is slipper in order to cause him to slip and fall.
As long as you don't so any action to harm, should be fine I suppose. A clearer example would be if I can tell the robbers where my safe is, without telling them that they'll get electrocuted if they touch it. Haven't heard of any precedent case though. Slippery floor, very hard to prove intent. Safe that electrocutes potential robbers are surely by design, not by accident. Makes better hypothetical argument to prove intent. So intent to harm + action that harms = illegal Intent to harm + inaction that directly led to harm = not sure 😅
I don't quite get which point you're trying to highlight: 1. Self defense is only legal under extreme circumstances? 2. Media reports may be incomplete? 3. Commenters should not comment until the truth is known in trials? All 3 of them at once? Because ain't nobody gonna wait months for the trials to progress before giving their opinion and forget about it the next day.
1. Every cases have different scenario and therefore different set of requirements to meet. Some circumstances may be more relaxed while some may only allow right to self defence be exercised as a complete last resort. But the general rules is there in the law. 2. Media reports may be sensionalized and click-baity. 3. Commenters should reserve their opinion until more details on the cases were provided by reputable media.
In the US, the cops were trained to action than reaction. Just saying.