Let the PAPies show us TRUE Graciousness. Ong Kah Chua needs medical supervision.

[Dan Now]

Dear Dan

Define "medical supervision" ? . Are you saying that he should be under "medical supervision and thus have no need to be tried in a court of law ?

mental illness comes in degree's and extent and that is determined by the courts and doctors especially when a serious crime has been done.

Or are u saying that he should be held under " medical supervision " before appearing in a court of law for the formal legal process ?


cheers

EK

Dear Dan

Define "medical supervision" ? . Are you saying that he should be under "medical supervision and thus have no need to be tried in a court of law ?

mental illness comes in degree's and extent and that is determined by the courts and doctors especially when a serious crime has been done.

Or are u saying that he should be held under " medical supervision " before appearing in a court of law for the formal legal process ?


cheers

EK

Sigh,

Here we go again. Locke... why don't you tell me what should the procedure be ?

He is already being charged in court with 2 counts.

So do you think he needs or does not need medical supervision irregardless of the legal process ?

No sane person will set alight another with fire.

Clearly there are grounds that he NEEDS some form of medical supervision. BESIDES, Mr Ong, have a TRACK record of mental illness.

The formal legal process my friend, is already being initiated and have already been commence.

So why are you asking me that question ????????????

Sigh..

Dan

 

[KKC007]

When that happens, then we talk about it.

Pure conjecture is irrelavent in the courts, I am sure you can agree to that.

But for discussion sake, I am in agreement with you that no one who attacks another man with petrol should walk off scot free. No one in this entire thread is saying that. Why are you repeatedly not registering this ?

But if that man have a track record of mental problems and needs medical supervision there is a real and present mitigating circumstances that cannot be written off just like that.

You got that ?

Dan

This is my understanding of the criminal due process:

1. Arrest
2. Charge in court
3. Lawyers on both sides can agree to a sentence outside the court
4a. If agree, tell judge and prosecution recommend sentence. Judge pass sentence.
4b. If not agree, go argue before judge in court.
5a. Defense wins, accused go home.
5b. Prosecution wins, sentencing.
6. Sentencing
a. Prosecution will argue why sentence should be x
b. Defense will argue why sentence should be minimal
c. Judge sentence

Any lawyer here care to confirm the above?

So Dan,

We are at step 2 now. What I gather from your posts is that we should jump straight to step 6 and give the accused "medical supervision". That will be a very scary scenario.

If prosecution and defense cannot agree on accused's state of mind during attack, they have to show why during step 4b.

The things you listed (70 year old etc) should be brought up by defense during step 6b.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Dan

Ok we are at least getting closer to some form of agreement. Medical supervision takes various forms esp Pre Trial which is where I agree with you. However I am definitely not an expert on pre trial legal procedure so the rest is just pure discussion.

He could be ' sane". note sane people commit violent acts everyday, the very act of violence does not make one sane or insane just a candidate for serious anger management. In and out of IMH might not mean serious mental problems as again there is an extent or degree for mental charges.

He probably needs a defense lawyer willing to plead for bail on his behalf and based on his medical records be released pending trial. In Jail I leave it to the prison experts to tell us how "mentally or slightly mental" patients are handled




Locke

 

[Dan Now]

This is my understanding of the criminal due process:

1. Arrest
2. Charge in court
3. Lawyers on both sides can agree to a sentence outside the court
4a. If agree, tell judge and prosecution recommend sentence. Judge pass sentence.
4b. If not agree, go argue before judge in court.
5a. Defense wins, accused go home.
5b. Prosecution wins, sentencing.
6. Sentencing
a. Prosecution will argue why sentence should be x
b. Defense will argue why sentence should be minimal
c. Judge sentence

Any lawyer here care to confirm the above?

So Dan,

We are at step 2 now. What I gather from your posts is that we should jump straight to step 6 and give the accused "medical supervision". That will be a very scary scenario.

If prosecution and defense cannot agree on accused's state of mind during attack, they have to show why during step 4b.

The things you listed (70 year old etc) should be brought up by defense during step 6b.

Amazing.

How you gather and conviniently misread my points and have concluded that I am at step 6 shows your very own bias.

I am saying that thruout Step 1 to Step 6, medical supervision should be accorded.

I did raise the point about affording medical experts and thus your points that I have jumped the boat is irrelavent.

Thanks for responding.

Cheers

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Dan

From your first post we might be mistaken that you were saying he should be completely excused. So you could clarify :_)) Your words and quotes


Cheers


Locke




" Mr Ong, as the STATE Media have reported is a regular at our IMH. And he is of an advance age of 70. Why should he be charge in court in the first place ? How progressive and gracious are our Singapore Elites when they should resort to placing an old man with mental difficiency to be charge and given the maximum sentence "

"Why did our AG at our courts even allowed the case to be entered in our courts in the first place ?"

" Mr. Ong should be given his proper medical treatment. "

" Let true graciousness floursih. Will our leaders show to the world and demonstrate to us their weight in Temasek gold."

Dan

 

[KKC007]

Amazing.

How you gather and conviniently misread my points and have concluded that I am at step 6 shows your very own bias.

I am saying that thruout Step 1 to Step 6, medical supervision should be accorded.

I did raise the point about affording medical experts and thus your points that I have jumped the boat is irrelavent.

Thanks for responding.

Cheers

The following was from your 1st post:

Why did our AG at our courts even allowed the case to be entered in our courts in the first place ?

Need I say more? I shall stop wasting my time.

 

[Dan Now]

Dear Dan

Ok we are at least getting closer to some form of agreement. Medical supervision takes various forms esp Pre Trial which is where I agree with you. However I am definitely not an expert on pre trial legal procedure so the rest is just pure discussion.

He could be ' sane". note sane people commit violent acts everyday, the very act of violence does not make one sane or insane just a candidate for serious anger management. In and out of IMH might not mean serious mental problems as again there is an extent or degree for mental charges.

He probably needs a defense lawyer willing to plead for bail on his behalf and based on his medical records be released pending trial. In Jail I leave it to the prison experts to tell us how "mentally or slightly mental" patients are handled




Locke

Locke,

We are not closer to coming to an agreement. We ARE IN agreement.

My point cannot be emphasize clearer. He needs medical supervision and that mitigating cirumstances that lead to his act cannot be written off or be rejected outright.

If we cannot agree with that, and you insist there are no mitigating circumstances, that our judicial process becomes a farce.

Thanks for responding.

Dan

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Dan

Mitigating circumstances before or after a guilty verdict ? You really have to make clear. Furthurmore in ur own words u believe he should not even be charged to begin with, that is go through a legal process and in effect get of scot free




Locke

 

[silverfox@]

The following was from your 1st post:



Need I say more? I shall stop wasting my time.

After all these talk on mitigating factors or trying to get OKC a lenient sentence, who are going to present these? Dan now?

Likelihood, this thread will be dusted a few pages behind, everyone forget about it, and life still goes on for Dan now.

Wasting time, I fully agree.

 

[VIBGYOR]

How to have a fair trial when the media already siding with SHiT?

In US this kind of cases would probably be thrown out, because of media bias!!

 

[Dan Now]

The following was from your 1st post:



Need I say more? I shall stop wasting my time.

And here is your wonderful post earlier Mr Kuku.

To quote you :
I'll say other than point 4, all others are irrelevant. Even point 4 is debatable. He was in and out of IMH does not mean he was not of sound mind when he committed the crime.

Yes, you need not say more, cos you have already spoken.

Your bias is clear and you have written off all mitigating factors as irrelavant.

You are wasting your own time.

And thanks for not wasting my further.

Cheers

And have a good time thrashing OKC further.

Dan

 

[Dan Now]

After all these talk on mitigating factors or trying to get OKC a lenient sentence, who are going to present these? Dan now?

Likelihood, this thread will be dusted a few pages behind, everyone forget about it, and life still goes on for Dan now.

Wasting time, I fully agree.

And to quote an earlier postings from you,

If I say Mr Seng Han Thong is a very approachable man, I think most of you would say I am bullshiting.

May I wish you more good years in carrying PAP lampar. May you convey to them your hatred that you wish to see Mr Ong be flog and given no mercy, shown no compassion, and above all, tell them how gracious they have been to you.

Indeed you are wasting your time simply you have been bullshiting as you have provided no single shred of your personal experience with Mr Seng.

If you have to have attention in this forum and spam us with your useless blog about gambling, and get some cheap needed advertisement for your services, you can always try the PAP blogs and forums. Afterall, you have a ready audience there that have been promoting the gambling culture in Singapore by opening 2 casinos.

All the best, and remember whatever you do, never try to score an own goal. You should try harder.

Cheers

 

[Dan Now]

Dear Dan

Mitigating circumstances before or after a guilty verdict ? You really have to make clear. Furthurmore in ur own words u believe he should not even be charged to begin with, that is go through a legal process and in effect get of scot free




Locke

Ah, did I say he should not be charge ?

I asked a question. I didn't put out a statement of insistence. Got that ?
I even WENT AS FAR as to question if Mr. OKC could afford any psychiatric experts and a good lawyer to mitigate his case.

Can you READ ?

As for you, you are ALREADY rejecting all mitigating factors OUTRIGHT even before the case is heard.

Don't try stunts la Locke.

The more you talk, the more clownish you are. I have tried to save you from further embarrassment, you just have no idea thats all

So carry on and chase your own tail to the cows comes back.

Dan

 

[silverfox@]

And to quote an earlier postings from you,

If I say Mr Seng Han Thong is a very approachable man, I think most of you would say I am bullshiting.

May I wish you more good years in carrying PAP lampar. May you convey to them your hatred that you wish to see Mr Ong be flog and given no mercy, shown no compassion, and above all, tell them how gracious they have been to you.

Above all, indeed you are wasting your time simply you have been bullshiting as you have provided no single shred of your personal experience with Mr Seng.

If you have to have attention in this forum and spam us with your useless blog about gambling, and get some cheap needed advertisement for your services, you can always try the PAP blogs and forums. Afterall, you have a ready audience there that have been promoting the gambling culture in Singapore by opening 2 casinos.

All the best, and remember whatever you do, never try to score an own goal. You should try harder.

Cheers

I obviously know you would quote this, that is why if you read carefully on that sentence which I put the word IF to show that your argument started off with being very biased as the result of OKC dousing petrol on SHT. If OKC doused it on another person, you wouldn't have said all these.

I said "IF I say Mr Seng Han Thong is a very approachable man, I think most of you would say I am bullshiting. So let's not care whether he is approachable or not. The fact is OKC indeed set Seng Han Thong on fire. "

You obviously didn't want to quote the entire paragraph, as I can see you didn't want to write out the part in red.
You chose not to admit on the part where I said you are biased.

When I structure my sentence, I write them very carefully. I could have said Seng Han Thong is approachable, but I didn't, because I don't know him. I just wanted to prove a point that you are biased because its a MP who got attacked. That is why I added the word IF to the sentence as an example to show that being approachable or not, does not justify to a person to be attacked with petrol and fire regardless of whether he is an MP

 

[silverfox@]

Mr Ong, as the STATE Media have reported is a regular at our IMH. And he is of an advance age of 70. Why should he be charge in court in the first place ? How progressive and gracious are our Singapore Elites when they should resort to placing an old man with mental difficiency to be charge and given the maximum sentence ?

Why did our AG at our courts even allowed the case to be entered in our courts in the first place ?


Dan

Ah, did I say he should not be charge ?

I asked a question. I didn't put out a statement of insistence. Got that ?
I even WENT AS FAR as to question if Mr. OKC could afford any psychiatric experts and a good lawyer to mitigate his case.

Can you READ ?

As for you, you are ALREADY rejecting all mitigating factors OUTRIGHT even before the case is heard.

Don't try stunts la Locke.

The more you talk, the more clownish you are. I have tried to save you from further embarrassment, you just have no idea thats all

So carry on and chase your own tail to the cows comes back.

Dan

Locke is right.

The ones in bold are the parts where you think he should not be charged. It's only at the latter postings where you try to cover your intent by playing the sympathy and leniency game.

 

[Dan Now]

I obviously know you would quote this, that is why if you read carefully on that sentence which I put the word IF to show that your argument started off with being very biased as the result of OKC dousing petrol on SHT. If OKC doused it on another person, you wouldn't have said all these.

I said "IF I say Mr Seng Han Thong is a very approachable man, I think most of you would say I am bullshiting. So let's not care whether he is approachable or not. The fact is OKC indeed set Seng Han Thong on fire. "

You obviously didn't want to quote the entire paragraph, as I can see you didn't want to write out the part in red.
You chose not to admit on the part where I said you are biased.

When I structure my sentence, I write them very carefully. I could have said Seng Han Thong is approachable, but I didn't, because I don't know him. I just wanted to prove a point that you are biased because its a MP who got attacked. That is why I added the word IF to the sentence as an example to show that being approachable or not, does not justify to a person to be attacked with petrol and fire regardless of whether he is an MP

Why so worked up ?

You should be gracious as our PAP MPs have always told us to be.

If SHT is not your personal family member, or have any relationship with you, then why are your writing off ALL mitigating factors about Mr OKC ?

We'll let the forum writers decide then.

Till then take a chill pill

Dan

 

[silverfox@]

Why so worked up ?

You should be gracious as our PAP MPs have always told us to be.

If SHT is not your personal family member, or have any relationship with you, then why are your writing off ALL mitigating factors about Mr OKC ?

We'll let the forum writers decide then.

Till then take a chill pill

Dan

There you see, starting to get shifty, digressing to the part where I should be gracious like PAP MP...bla...bla etc.

It's a human life at stake. I think you don't understand. If someone does this to Chiam See Tong, Low Thia Khiang or any opposition politician, I would still say no leniency on the attacker. Being lenient to such people endangers others.

You keep harping on the fact of PAP, which all along my stance is on a human life at stake.

 

[Dan Now]

Locke is right.

The ones in bold are the parts where you think he should not be charged. It's only at the latter postings where you try to cover your intent by playing the sympathy and leniency game.

Obviously,

Your eyes don't register question marks.

Here is a few more for you in different colours and sizes.

? ? ?
Can you see them ?

:P

Cheers and for crying out loud. Take a chill pill. This is just a forum. Take it easy

Dan

 

[Dan Now]

There you see, starting to get shifty, digressing to the part where I should be gracious like PAP MP...bla...bla etc.

It's a human life at stake. I think you don't understand. If someone does this to Chiam See Tong, Low Thia Khiang or any opposition politician, I would still say no leniency on the attacker. Being lenient to such people endangers others.

You keep harping on the fact of PAP, which all along my stance is on a human life at stake.

I see,

So to you, Mr OKC is not human ?

:P

Like I said, don't score more own goals. Take my advice my friend

Dan

 

[silverfox@]

Obviously,

Your eyes don't register question marks.

Here is a few more for you in different colours and sizes.

? ? ?
Can you see them ?

:P

Cheers and for crying out loud. Take a chill pill. This is just a forum. Take it easy

Dan

Oh ok, let's talk some bull and let's smell some shit. Now you start saying this is just a forum.
So end of the day, this thread will be dusted a few pages behind and there is nothing much you can do to help Ong Kah Chua right?

Reiterate on my point that Talk is free.