A
person is in a clinic. Suddenly the clinic was intruded by a robber
armed with parang. This person, fear that the robber might kill others
and him, made a judgment to defend himself and the life of others. He
took out his pistol, which he is licensed to carry and then shot the
armed robber death.
In the court of public, he is pronunced as the hero.
In the court of law in any legitimate jurisdiction, he killed a man. (Uk; Us, Australia; Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia all alike).
So now, how does the system work on situation like this?
In a country governed by rule of law, this man can be charged under few different set of law : illegal possession of fire arms, manslaugther (killing without intention), or murder.
All charges come with absolute right to defense.
Based on the above scenario, the Prosecution is likely to prosecute him for manslaugther or murder. He will then attend court for a trial (bicara). In this trial, during prosecution presentation, the prosecution will venture the possibility of him of misjudgement. Ie, the robber doesnt poise a valid threat (he could be a 40 kgs malnutrition weak person who could be apprehended by any able person), or 10000 over other possibilities that killing is unwarranted.
His lawyer will just have to discount that and rebut those. 10% of doubt is enough to debunk the prosecution. The judge would dispose the case at prima facie without calling defence; and hail this man as a righteous and heroic person.
If the prosecution manage to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that without calling for defence (pembelaan diri) this person's action is beyond self-defence (pertahanan), the judge will then call for defence (Pembelaan) after establishing Prima Facie. All the person's lawyer has to do is just to debunk and rebut, or quote the right to 'defend' (pertahanan) where he felt his life is threathened. The judge if acknowledge that he is doing it for self-defence, (pertahanan) he will be acquited without any charge attach. He walks out a freeman.
Above is the due process of the law. A man is killed, and the person who kill him walks free, because the killing is necessary and well justified. He walks out a hero.
However, due to media sensation and ignorance of the law; Malaysians choose to get emotional over something that is established so firmly. They prefer that the man who killed the robber not to be charged. They didnt know anything about the circumstances in detail, they just read what is on the timeline headlines. They didnt care to find out if there is aby possibikity of the man shootiny the robber even if the robber is incapable of causing harm (if ). They want the court process of dealing with man killing another man be disposed because of how they 'feel'.
It is perfectly normal to have such feeling especially when one doesnt understand the rule of law (kedaulatan undang2), something they swore on oath to adhere to. But what would be the implications if this process of charging, trial; and acquittal in the court is ignored?
Imagine the kakak who took her steering wheel lock to hit the car of the old uncle? Do u know steering wheel can kill also? Does that mean the uncle if he has gun he can shoot? What if the robber, who is a 40 kgs malnutritioned man, who tried to rob a bank with a fake parang (by pronuncing he doesnt want to kill, he just want money ), just so that he can save his severely ailing wife and children who are dying in the hospital because he cant afford hospital fee? Does the robber, in such circumstances warrant a death penalty? According to general Malaysians, it doesnt matter to them at all. As long as one is a robber, he should be shot death even if he is incapable of causing harm and is doing so to save life.
I am not saying that is the case of the alleged robber in the aforesaid scenario. But there is a possibility that can be the case. How do you find or discover that possibility out? You do so by allowing the court and law process to take its rightful place. You let the police and investigators to find that out, and the prosecution to table them in court, the defence to raise reasonavle doubt and allow the judge to decide on the verdict.
You dont just demand for the operation of law to be set aside base on your own whims and fancies, founded on nothing more that social media headlines or sensationalized news reporting.
Your ignorance and stubborness might cause more problem. If this man who kill the robber does not get prosecuted and subsequently acquited free from all charges, you are literally telling everyone we are 'free to kill' as long as you see someone whom might appear to have a weapon. You see your neighbour son carrying a kitchen knife to your house. You are free to take your gun to shot him. You see a lady friend taking her butcher knife to her husband's mistress apartment. You can shoot her too.
The law is in place for a reason. The man who shot the robber was charged in court so that the court can ACQUIT him after going through the legal process in document and in record. The trial is fully recorded and is set as a precedent where people who really kill to defend is free from murder or manslaugther charges. Its a protection and instrument offered to people who killed another person the opportunity to walk through all the law, and then walk free from it.
Every life is a life. The law, the most supreme governor of our society decides which life can be taken and which life cannot. Not the media or ignorant citizens.
Please dont embarasse yourself by all your emotional judgment talk. By doing so you might appear to be like a 5 years old blaming your parents for not giving you candy and said that they are unfair and abuse you.
P/S Bar Council claim to be ignorant over this case and remain silent albeit knowing the law. Shameful indeed in my opinion.
In the court of public, he is pronunced as the hero.
In the court of law in any legitimate jurisdiction, he killed a man. (Uk; Us, Australia; Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia all alike).
So now, how does the system work on situation like this?
In a country governed by rule of law, this man can be charged under few different set of law : illegal possession of fire arms, manslaugther (killing without intention), or murder.
All charges come with absolute right to defense.
Based on the above scenario, the Prosecution is likely to prosecute him for manslaugther or murder. He will then attend court for a trial (bicara). In this trial, during prosecution presentation, the prosecution will venture the possibility of him of misjudgement. Ie, the robber doesnt poise a valid threat (he could be a 40 kgs malnutrition weak person who could be apprehended by any able person), or 10000 over other possibilities that killing is unwarranted.
His lawyer will just have to discount that and rebut those. 10% of doubt is enough to debunk the prosecution. The judge would dispose the case at prima facie without calling defence; and hail this man as a righteous and heroic person.
If the prosecution manage to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that without calling for defence (pembelaan diri) this person's action is beyond self-defence (pertahanan), the judge will then call for defence (Pembelaan) after establishing Prima Facie. All the person's lawyer has to do is just to debunk and rebut, or quote the right to 'defend' (pertahanan) where he felt his life is threathened. The judge if acknowledge that he is doing it for self-defence, (pertahanan) he will be acquited without any charge attach. He walks out a freeman.
Above is the due process of the law. A man is killed, and the person who kill him walks free, because the killing is necessary and well justified. He walks out a hero.
However, due to media sensation and ignorance of the law; Malaysians choose to get emotional over something that is established so firmly. They prefer that the man who killed the robber not to be charged. They didnt know anything about the circumstances in detail, they just read what is on the timeline headlines. They didnt care to find out if there is aby possibikity of the man shootiny the robber even if the robber is incapable of causing harm (if ). They want the court process of dealing with man killing another man be disposed because of how they 'feel'.
It is perfectly normal to have such feeling especially when one doesnt understand the rule of law (kedaulatan undang2), something they swore on oath to adhere to. But what would be the implications if this process of charging, trial; and acquittal in the court is ignored?
Imagine the kakak who took her steering wheel lock to hit the car of the old uncle? Do u know steering wheel can kill also? Does that mean the uncle if he has gun he can shoot? What if the robber, who is a 40 kgs malnutritioned man, who tried to rob a bank with a fake parang (by pronuncing he doesnt want to kill, he just want money ), just so that he can save his severely ailing wife and children who are dying in the hospital because he cant afford hospital fee? Does the robber, in such circumstances warrant a death penalty? According to general Malaysians, it doesnt matter to them at all. As long as one is a robber, he should be shot death even if he is incapable of causing harm and is doing so to save life.
I am not saying that is the case of the alleged robber in the aforesaid scenario. But there is a possibility that can be the case. How do you find or discover that possibility out? You do so by allowing the court and law process to take its rightful place. You let the police and investigators to find that out, and the prosecution to table them in court, the defence to raise reasonavle doubt and allow the judge to decide on the verdict.
You dont just demand for the operation of law to be set aside base on your own whims and fancies, founded on nothing more that social media headlines or sensationalized news reporting.
Your ignorance and stubborness might cause more problem. If this man who kill the robber does not get prosecuted and subsequently acquited free from all charges, you are literally telling everyone we are 'free to kill' as long as you see someone whom might appear to have a weapon. You see your neighbour son carrying a kitchen knife to your house. You are free to take your gun to shot him. You see a lady friend taking her butcher knife to her husband's mistress apartment. You can shoot her too.
The law is in place for a reason. The man who shot the robber was charged in court so that the court can ACQUIT him after going through the legal process in document and in record. The trial is fully recorded and is set as a precedent where people who really kill to defend is free from murder or manslaugther charges. Its a protection and instrument offered to people who killed another person the opportunity to walk through all the law, and then walk free from it.
Every life is a life. The law, the most supreme governor of our society decides which life can be taken and which life cannot. Not the media or ignorant citizens.
Please dont embarasse yourself by all your emotional judgment talk. By doing so you might appear to be like a 5 years old blaming your parents for not giving you candy and said that they are unfair and abuse you.
P/S Bar Council claim to be ignorant over this case and remain silent albeit knowing the law. Shameful indeed in my opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment