different story different case la bro.

Courts don deal with "what ifs", oni what really happened. The C type driver clearly acted rashly & killed the M type victim.

Baseball bat in the car all the time, u tau la orang tu ape perangai.

I would have just bang him with the car, pinning him on the divider and refuse to release is pure evil.

fooyoh...
pull out the court card
like as though there's a steadfast clear rule on what's right n wrong within courts here - charges can get dropped like nobody's business - let's not go there cos that's a place no one wants to be - or even have a decent convo about - pointless

back on track....
talking bout these two drivers and the actions with consequences

the victim acted rashly with his baseball bat & driver did his best to protected himself (n family)

One ram from side another ram below?

Or you mean dugaan NFA vs semakin briyani must go demo?

On Aug 22, 2019, Yew was charged with the murder of Syed Muhammad Danial, 29, at Kilometre 293.6 of the PLUS Highway (Kuala Lumpur-Seremban) between 1 pm and 2 pm on Aug 10, 2019.

In the cross-appeal, Deputy Public Prosecutor Ng Siew Wee argued that the High Court judge erred in sentencing Yew for culpable homicide instead of a more severe charge.

The accused stated that the incident happened quickly, but the prosecution argues that despite the short duration, it does not prevent the court from inferring an intent to cause harm and death under Section 300 of the Penal Code, she said.
        She argued that in his defence testimony, the accused stated that he saw the deceased (Syed Muhammad Danial) rushing toward his car while holding a baseball bat, prompting him to shift gear from reverse to drive before hitting the victim.

The accused said that he felt his life was in danger and wanted to protect himself and his pregnant wife who was in the vehicle at the time, she said.

However, she said, according to the video recording of the 19th prosecution witness, who is the accused’s wife, at the scene, he was not acting in self-defence or to protect his property (car); instead, he was angry and intended to teach the deceased a lesson, adding that the 16-year prison sentence was appropriate and not excessive.

Meanwhile, lawyer Datuk N.Sivananthan, who represented Yew, argued that the incident happened quickly and that his client did not intend to commit the act.

He was blank (disoriented) at the moment and the act of moving the car was purely in self-defence to avoid being hit by the deceased with a baseball bat, said the lawyer, who also requested the court to impose a seven to eight years prison sentence.

-- BERNAMA

U know the case where a home owner went after a robber after he left & murdered him? He was charged & sentenced with intent to murder.

The driver acted rashly beyond a necessary level to stop a threat. And he had a chance to let go the already severely injured victim, but rather let him die.

Your arguments cannot fly in the face of the courts - what the driver did is no more an act of self defence, but pure malice.

Courts don deal with "what ifs", oni what really happened. The C type driver clearly acted rashly & killed the M type victim.

Rage and malice are different. Malice is a premeditated long term desire to cause harm. Rage is a reaction to a specific event.

For example, in the movie Seven, Kevin Spacey has killed Brad Pitt wife at the end of the film, in order to provoke Brad Pitt to commit murder in return. What Kevin Spacey did was malice, what Brad Pitt did was rage kill.

And guess who gotten the short end of the stick. Even though the idiot thinks he had a baseball bat.
That idiot is dead.

The other in jail.

Who gotten the short end?

Come out of jail is not the end ... yet.

Given his age + a record ... he's gonna have lots of fun.