The victim wanted to whack Yew's car with a baseball bat. Yew hit the victim & pinned him to the divider. He refused to release the victim even wen requested by other road user. The victim died from his injuries. Yes was deemed to hav used excessive force beyond that necessary for self defence.

Hitting him is one thing. But he still refused to release the stuck victim even wen other drivers told him to do so. That is murderous intent oredi.

Yew was still protected by his vehicle. And his rash act did end up actually killing the victim.

At that time the victim was already severely injured & nearing death. The judge has taken these factors into mitigation.

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

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.

Q: Why did the arrogant killer refused to move his car to release the dying victim, and left him to die of his injuries?