Anyway I saw this on fb but not sure where the source was



The bicycle were in stationary position. N driver was playing hp?

How many times we need to repeat why she was released previously by the magistrate judge.

1. She was not driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. She was not using handphone. This mean she was concentrating 100% on driving and should be able to drive, assess and make decisions like any normal drivers.

2. She was not speeding. MIROS established that she was driving between 55 to 75 kmph. This are really reasonable speed on a highway and most people in /k will even find it as road hogging. Normal people will probably slowdown to such speed when they are going into areas that is deemed less safe. Most people will not slowdown to below 30 kmph as it is just not a driving norm. Even though ts clsims it is near kampung area, nobody would be able to anticipate a huge group of kids in the middle of the road at 3 am in the morning. Any normal people would anticipate the roads would be clear. The most people will anticipate is a broken car or lorry.

3. If I am not mistaken, the judge found the accident was unavoidable as there were too many kids on the road at that time. Basically, she can't avoid hitting the kids. It is unlike a car or lorry breakdown on a road where she can swerve to the left or the right to avoid collision.

4. The parents should be able to anticipate their children was out at 3 am at night because it is definitely not the first time. The parents should have anticipated that their children are out racing when they see theur lanjak bicycle. Most important is the parents should have anticipated that their children out racing on highway would cause accidents and loss of lives

Another revelation from fb comment which has similar principle as mimr

KEPUTUSAN PENDAKWAAN KES BASIKAL LAJAK..

Selepas saya baca kesemua fakta ini. Keputusan Tuan Hakim adalah munasabah dan bermerit. Bukan berdasarkan sentimen dan semata2 menlihat fakta sebelah pihak sahaja.

Fakta 1 ;

Dalam kertas keputusan tersebut. Tuan hakim mengatakan. Pelaku sepatutnya tidak membawa laju ketika jalan raya GELAP.

Ini tindakan biasa. Kalau jalan yang gelap , tiada lampu jalan. Dah tentu kita bawa perlahan kerana pemandangan mata dan penlihatan di depan tidak JELAS kerana GELAP. Ini fakta yang kukuh.

Dan andai PELAKU membawa perlahan dan berhati - hati ketika menlalui jalan GELAP. Dah tentu kalau berlaku kemalangan. TIDAK MUNGKIN MATI , mungkin hanya Cedera.

Tapi dalam kes ni. 8 nyawa melayang serta merta ,

Adakah kerana pelaku membawa perlahan dan berhati - hati? Kebiasaannya sebaliknya.. LAJU..

Fakta 2 ;

Dalam kertas keputusan tersebut. Tuan hakim mengatakan , pelaku tahu jalan tersebut berselekoh dan berbukit.

Sepatutnya pelaku membawa perlahan dan berhati- hati. Kerana kebiasaannya pemandu tidak akan bawa laju di jalan yang berselekoh dan berbukit kerana mana- mana pemandu lebih utamakan KESELAMATAN diri sendiri. Bila lalui jalan selekoh dan berbukit..

Ini fakta ke 2 yang munasabah. Logik kita sebagai pemandu dah tentu kita takkan bawa laju atau menekan minyak bila lalui jalan selekoh atau berbukit.

So keputusan TUAN HAKIM munasabah dan bermerit. ( logik ).

******************

Rumusan dari saya ;

6 tahun di penjara tidak sama seperti kehilangan nyawa. Kehilangan nyawa atau kehilangan anak ni LUKA belum tentu sembuh walaupun ibu bapa arwah kanak2 tersebut hidup selama 70 tahun.

Ye mereka kanak - kanak nakal keluar malam lewat pagi. Saya nampak fakta ni.

Namun kenakalan kanak2 ni bukan bersifat SELAMANYA.

Andai mereka tidak dilanggar ketika kejadian kemalangan itu , dah tentu mereka masih ada PELUANG untuk berubah.

Sayangnya , mereka tak sempat berubah. Malah nyawa ditarik sebegitu.

Maka keadilan perlu ditegak. Itu fungsi MAHKAMAH dan TUAN HAKIM .

Keadilan yang tertangguh bukan KEADILAN.

Selagi pelaku tidak diberi HUKUMAN , maka KEADILAN TIDAK WUJUD LAGI.

KEADILAN WAJIB DIBERI BERDASARKAN FAKTA DAN BUKTI.

Selepas baca kertas keputusan ni. Saya rasa HUKUMAN 6 tahun LAYAK untuk Pelaku..

Macam saya kata tadi , 6 tahun di Penjara TIDAK SAMA seperti KEHILANGAN NYAWA.

Jangan bandingkan 2 perkara ni. Terlalu jauh beza.

Sekian ,
#dieyoadie

If these were not mentioned during the proceeding, they were even less credible than SKT saying there was another car that hit the children.

This post has been edited by vincent2197: Apr 16 2022, 12:22 AM

Example of herd mentality. U only follow the trend, there is no independent thinking from u.

We are away from that n into new dimension of thought

Next time we should drop some nails on the ground if some people drive over it it's their fault? Didn't see carefully to avoid the nails .... Should've anticipated nails on the road.....

Agreed.. Too much thing mixing up from the media

The high court need to come up with their reason why they think death of 8 kids automatically proves reckless and dangerous driving then, which goes against previous judgements at federal court level.



This post has been edited by diffyhelman2: Apr 16 2022, 12:24 AM

Who will be the right Authority to decide "LAJU" ???
JPJ or Judge ?

if JPJ put up a signboard stating 70km/h,
if we driving at any speed below 70km/h,
can the judge say we drive "LAJU"?


" a responsible driver must always able to anticipate dangerous location "
as a responsible driver,
we anticipate ordinary motorcycles will have tails lights !
we anticipate ordinary pedestrian, or romobongan orang will not walk on highways!


This post has been edited by jvcpcv55: Apr 16 2022, 12:30 AM

Child endagerment on the parents?
Child neglect?

This are established facts of the case.

It is way better than your laughable she should anticiptate there's danger and so she should drive below 30 kmph.

You think she got spidey sense and cwn anticipate so many kids on the road at 3 am

Exactly.
Our roads are so dangerous to every other road users because PARENTS reproduce irresponsibly with kids running around at 3am like wild animals everywhere.

Good thing she's helped to put 8 into the grave and others off the road for years.

Hopefully, this will be a good lesson for every parent, your kids are your responsibility,
reproduce safely and defensively,
don't produce wild animals

maybe JPJ should flatten all highways,
with ZERO degrees inclination

Well, this case duh
The 6 years jail is a bad precedence.

Btw, if parents had followed the good parenting guide,
those kids could have avoided landed in graves.
those parents clearly do not follow the rule, causing deaths.

Serves those kids right.
Off the road with graves.

I think the judge will have the final say in defining "laju". For example, the speed limit is 70km/h, but it is during hari raya and traffic jam, if in such circumstance you still drive 70km/h, are you not "laju" or reckless? Sorry for using this obvious example, but my point is speed limit is only one factor to consider reckless or not, you also need to see the road condition.

In this sense the HC judge was not wrong. But in SKT's situation, the judge might have imposed too high a standard on drivers for if we put ourselves in her shoe, how many of us can actually avoid that collision?

definitely do not anticipate 40 scattering nyamuk on the road

Based ontp this shit logic, every shit driver needs to do 6 years jail

so now judgement is base on anticipate.
The parents should anticipate that without educating their kids, will become sampah masyarakat. Menyusahkan orang and grow up become jkom without logic.
The parents should anticipate when when to have durex ready.
The parents should anticipate their children naughty will sneak out so must lock the door with new lock.
The parents should anticipate that by buying lajak for kids is the cause of their death.
Anticipate la...bodoh..

don't add in other unrelated situation
there are no rains,


do you t anticipate 40 scattering nyamuk on the road? ?

i guess even 30km/h will kill some of them,
because they don't have helmet protection