Man punched, slammed by drunk US sailor
-
Hmm perhaps what you're thinking of is self defence in the event of something similar to what happened with the US sailor (random dude tries to beat you up) or if you get attacked by someone for seemingly no reason. Well then if that's the case it's perfectly fine to fight dirty but if say you get into a fistfight with someone then you gotta keep it clean. HonourOriginally posted by FireAndHell:In street fightin', the one who fights in a gentleman's manner, always loses, regardless whether that person is big sized.
Bottom line........the person who floors his opponent in the quickest time in whatever way, short of killing him or maiming him for life and ensures his opponent cannot rise agin to counter strike is the winner........sorry but it's the fact......... This has nothing to do with being p u s s y .......it's survival of the smartest quick thinking and to a certain extent fittest
Same for military special ops person.......always strike at the opponents' weakest part......does that make the special ops person a p u s s y?? Go figure out....hehehe.
-
I'd agree with FaH on this point, Jon. If you're going to get into a fight with someone you don't know, the objective is to get the guy down on the ground and keep him there, and then vacate the premises as quickly as possible - there's no time for victory laps.
-
Hmm perhaps we're thinking of different situations. Take for example something that happened to me once at a concert; me and my friends were up against the guard rail when someone pushes me off and takes my spot. It being a concert which makes for a lot of pushing and shoving and me not wanting to make a big deal out of it I simply shoved my way back to my previous position. So the guy who pushed me off in the first place start yelling at me for pushing up beside him and he starts yelling and cursing at my friends. We tried ignoring him but the crazy bastard wouldn't stop so I calmly told him to just chill but he persisted. To cut things short, he threatened me and I told him if he didn't back off things were going to get physical.Originally posted by Gedanken:I'd agree with FaH on this point, Jon. If you're going to get into a fight with someone you don't know, the objective is to get the guy down on the ground and keep him there, and then vacate the premises as quickly as possible - there's no time for victory laps.
Now in that situation it would've been rather dickheadish of me to just pull out a weapon and proceed to beat him half to death with it. That's the tactic gangs use and I'm no gangster. I tried to settle things as gentlemanly as possible by only using my fists. I tried words but sometimes they don't get through to people. -
dunno if u all got read the ST (home section, forum sub-section) yesterday.
there's a letter from the US Ambassador to Singapore regarding the incident, and....KNN!!!!!
all they ever talk about is how US sailors are doing charity work, how US sailors are bringing tens of millions of $$$ to SG annually......ARE THEY USING $$$ to press people (translate to chinese)?
this is starting to get atrocious again.
anyone got read???!!!
reminds me of Bush using their superpower status to "influence" people.
"if you're not with us, you're against us".
WHAT KIND OF BULLY IS THAT???!!!! -
It is my personal believe that violent primitive apes should not be allowed to reproduce and pass on their agressive genes.
-
There's no real distinction there, Jon. Between arguing and taking action, there's a clear line to be crossed. If you decide to cross the line, it becomes a matter of getting in there, doing what it takes to get the job done and getting out. A rule of fighting is that neither side will gain from a protracted battle, regardless of the scale of the fight - stretching it out or sticking around after it's over is simply a bad idea.Originally posted by jondizzle foshizzle:Hmm perhaps we're thinking of different situations. Take for example something that happened to me once at a concert; me and my friends were up against the guard rail when someone pushes me off and takes my spot. It being a concert which makes for a lot of pushing and shoving and me not wanting to make a big deal out of it I simply shoved my way back to my previous position. So the guy who pushed me off in the first place start yelling at me for pushing up beside him and he starts yelling and cursing at my friends. We tried ignoring him but the crazy bastard wouldn't stop so I calmly told him to just chill but he persisted. To cut things short, he threatened me and I told him if he didn't back off things were going to get physical.
Now in that situation it would've been rather dickheadish of me to just pull out a weapon and proceed to beat him half to death with it. That's the tactic gangs use and I'm no gangster. I tried to settle things as gentlemanly as possible by only using my fists. I tried words but sometimes they don't get through to people. -
good sia!
today ST papers Forum section got 1 lady wrote in regarding the case, asking why police consider the assault as "non-seizable offence".
awaiting cops reply tomorrow. -
Again I disagree with you. The point of the fight is not to try to kill each other, when you say getting the job done you're making it sound like an assassination attempt. If everyone decided to use weapons then well it would just be gang fighting where people just pull out knives and guns and proceed to maim and kill each other. The whole point of a fistfight is to get the opposing person to back off. If I wanted to hurt someone then I'd use a weapon but that's not my intention, like the scenario above, I merely wanted to get him to back off without causing unecessary and potentially serious injury. What you're thinking of is the intentional harming of someone and sure if I wanted to do that then I'd use a weapon but I don't.Originally posted by Gedanken:There's no real distinction there, Jon. Between arguing and taking action, there's a clear line to be crossed. If you decide to cross the line, it becomes a matter of getting in there, doing what it takes to get the job done and getting out. A rule of fighting is that neither side will gain from a protracted battle, regardless of the scale of the fight - stretching it out or sticking around after it's over is simply a bad idea. -
The cops will cite the Penal Code, because it is part of Singapore law that we have non-seizable offences.Originally posted by Nikar2:good sia!
today ST papers Forum section got 1 lady wrote in regarding the case, asking why police consider the assault as "non-seizable offence".
awaiting cops reply tomorrow.
You seriously want our citizen's rights to erode further by giving the police more powers to arrest on sight without strong suspicion or proof of intent?
Seriously, is there anything difficult with filing a Magistrate's complaint? If there is a case, the guilty party will be investigated. -
The age of chivalry is over. It is now the age of 'do anything it takes to win'. What is honour...honour is used by the politicians to recruit more soldiers to carry on their agendas be it right or wrong. If the US is so honourable it wouldnt have used its overwhelming military might to crush its opponents and blame the so called 'insurgents' of terrorism or dirty tactics. What do u expect from city boys or village boys with AKs. They have to devise ways and strategies to defeat a much larger and well equipped opponent. If they stick by the rules of playing fair, honour, chivalry lol it would be a massacre..
-
I think you have fistfights confused with wars.Originally posted by Darkbaron:The age of chivalry is over. It is now the age of 'do anything it takes to win'. What is honour...honour is used by the politicians to recruit more soldiers to carry on their agendas be it right or wrong. If the US is so honourable it wouldnt have used its overwhelming military might to crush its opponents and blame the so called 'insurgents' of terrorism or dirty tactics. What do u expect from city boys or village boys with AKs. They have to devise ways and strategies to defeat a much larger and well equipped opponent. If they stick by the rules of playing fair, honour, chivalry lol it would be a massacre.. -
Well u might be true, im just expanding it. Honestly i think fistfights only belong in the ring or before fists start flying both parties parley first and both agree on the terms of conditions of the fight like of days gone by when i was in school. When it comes to situations where its fluid and spontaneous, i think the main objective of the fight will decide how the fight is to be conducted in. And no i dont hate angmohs, i have some of them in my family and they are not representative of the white trash and i love them very much. But im espousing the golden rule of 'When in Rome, do like what the Romans do'.
-
Don't worry, the ships have left early today.
-
Indeed he has.Originally posted by jondizzle foshizzle:I think you have fistfights confused with wars. -
Bon Voyage, and behave yourselves when you come back to Singapore.
-
(laser)
You seriously want our citizen's rights to erode further by giving the police more powers to arrest on sight without strong suspicion or proof of intent?
u should read the news today on what that lady said.
Seriously, is there anything difficult with filing a Magistrate's complaint? If there is a case, the guilty party will be investigated
she echos all my views: if such a violent incident is non-seizable, then what in the ****ing h**l do we need to make police report since the cops will come and go and delegate the job to some court?
in that case, if anything similar happens, we might as well call up the magistrate / judge / chief justice's office.....anyone got their hotline?
in that case, cops can be retrenched and reduce their numbers to 5%.
that 5% can be "for show", like maybe patrolling airports and doing some filing / admin work, which they are best at.
or maybe escort MM / SM / PM / president around.
-
i trust that you have read the reply from the cops about how their actions are calibrated according to the criminal procedure code, which decides which offences are seizable, and which are not. who came up with the cpc? the lawmakers lah. the police do not have the ability to deem an offence to be seizable or otherwise at will; it is only in accordance with the nature of the offence.Originally posted by Nikar2:(laser)
u should read the news today on what that lady said.
she echos all my views: if such a violent incident is non-seizable, then what in the ****ing h**l do we need to make police report since the cops will come and go and delegate the job to some court?
in that case, if anything similar happens, we might as well call up the magistrate / judge / chief justice's office.....anyone got their hotline?
in that case, cops can be retrenched and reduce their numbers to 5%.
that 5% can be "for show", like maybe patrolling airports and doing some filing / admin work, which they are best at.
or maybe escort MM / SM / PM / president around.
if you'd really like it, then here are some numbers that you might want:
court [general enquiries]: (65) 6336 0644
Duty Registrar No: 65) 6332 4351 or 6332 4352
and to quote your question, "what in the ****ing h**l do we need to make police report since the cops will come and go and delegate the job to some court?"
well, in order to lodge a magistrate's complaint, a police report must be produced first. the magistrate will then decide whether or not police intervention is necessary, whether mediation between the two parties is sufficient, or if there are other legal ways to settle the issue.
and you don't have to retrench cops to 5%. too many of them have resigned anyway. prolly to work at "the airport or do some admin/filing work", to put it in your words.
hope the abovementioned answers your queries.
most importantly, remember: just because an offence is non-seizable and the perpetrator is not arrested on the spot, it doesn't mean that he is being let off. at the day's end, a penal offence has already been disclosed.
it just means that it might take a slight touch longer to nab him due to a need to calibrate the steps of prosecution in accordance with the law.