Al-Fatihah:: Aminul Rasyid Amzah…

WARNING:

This entry is going to be a very long entry. Read it with interest, otherwise you may get bored.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

I was not at the scene of the incident, so I could not tell the truth behind the incident. However, I would like to give my personal opinion on the manner in which the police did the shooting. This is not the first time the police shot suspects to death. I have nothing against the police. I know they have a huge responsibility to ensure that Malaysians live peacefully. But not everything can be settled through shooting, especially so when the shooting caused death to the suspects.

In this particular incident, the reason of the police shooting is questionable. I don’t think that the police needs to fire multiple shots in the first place. No offense, the boy was wrong for driving without a valid license and sneaked out from his house in the middle of the night without his parents permission. But can that be a justification for the shooting? Moreover, if I were in his shoes, maybe I would do the same. Just imagine, being chased by several people in motorcycles and accidentally knocked down a car. Then, suddenly being chased by police patrol cars. Any Tom, Dick and Harry aged 15 would probably becomes panic in such situation.

The police has reasonable suspicion to arrest him. Section 24 of the Police Act provides that if any police officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a vehicle is being used in the commission of any offence, he may stop and detain the person [Section 24(1)(b)]. Section 24(3) of the same Act further adds that if the person fails to obey any reasonable signal of the police officer to stop the vehicle, the person is guilty for an offence and can be arrested without a warrant.

So, in my opinion, when the car had accidentally being stopped, the police should first tell the boy to surrender. In some newspapers, they reported that the police shot the boy when he tried to run over the police while reversing the car. My personal opinion is that the statement is quite absurd. By looking at the photo of the condition of the car above, it is impossible for the car to go forward. So, logically, the police will go to the side of the car  [and not to the back of the car] if they wanted to check the condition of the boy.

And some newspaper reported that the police found a long parang in the car. Is it just a cover up to justify the shooting? Nobody will ever know…

Nevertheless, the mother told another fact to the reporters. The boy had already dead before it went over the side of the road and hit a house. This means that while asking the car to stop, the police had already shot the boy to death. I think this is intolerable. The police should not start firing the car if he knows that by shooting it, he may caused death to the persons inside the car.

According to the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable  in order to protect life [Article 9]. Article 10 further adds that the officials shall identify themselves as such and give a clear warning on their intent to use firearms, with sufficient time for the warning to be observed unless by doing so, it will unduly places the law enforcement officials at risk or would create a risk of death or serious harm to other persons.

The point here is, the use of firearms can only be justified if it is strictly unavoidable. Even in criminal law, the defence of self-defence can only be invoked if he is in imminent danger, with no other means to save himself from that danger. In an English case, Rashford (2005) AER 192, the question in that case is whether the defendant feared that he was in immediate danger from which he had no other means of escape, and if the violence he used was no more than appeared necessary to preserve his own life or protect himself from serious injury, he would be entitled to rely on self-defence. The keyword here, besides imminent danger, is the proportionate of the attack.

Thus, has the police fired a warning shot [normally towards the sky] before he fired the shot to the boy’s car and subsequently the boy? Next, did the boy fired back [or use other means] to attack the police and put the police in imminent danger?

The police has many powers in order to prevent crimes but that does not includes shooting a suspect to death. According to Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. This means that a person should be considered innocent until it can be proved that he is guilty. If a person is accused of a crime, he should always has the right to defend himself. Nobody has the right to condemn him and punish him for something he has not done.

So, is there any prove to show that the boy is guilty? Even under Article 11 of the UDHR, he is innocent until he is proven guilty. The police must also remember that a suspect is not necessarily guilty. The word suspect itself shows that the suspect is not yet guilty but just suspected that he may commit a crime. May, not did.

And when firing shots to suspect, I suggest that the police should aim at body parts which may prevent him from running away. For example, the police may shot the suspect’s leg. Always avoid a fatal shot. A fatal shot will cause death to the suspect. If the suspect is dead, how can the police tender evidence to show that he is guilty? How can the investigation continue when the suspect himself is dead?

Photos taken from here.

Advertisements

18 thoughts on “Al-Fatihah:: Aminul Rasyid Amzah…

    1. When was that? Sorry to hear that. I think most of the policemen are OK, they are doing their job properly. But there are some who think that as policemen, they have power and they can do whatever they want. Then, they start abusing their power.

      Honestly, I have nothing against the police. Nothing. But the fact that they shot a-yet-to-be-proven-guilty boy just touched me a lot…

  1. wah.. i’m the 777th guest!! haha.. (birthday abg 7/7).. :p..

    good post! really like it.. i didnt follow the case closely and was ‘on the police side’ at first.. my argument was when u’re being chased by the police, just surrender.. no need to run and end up doing stupid things.. police can always claimed ‘self-defense’..

    but then u start to mention abt the car’s position.. ya make sense.. by right the police should move towards the window..

    aiyah.. next time just taser him lor.. :p

    ~me too had an experince of being stopped by the police car.. bodoh.. huh..

    1. Haha… Ada ong tu.. ;)

      Anyway bang, sometimes people tends to claim self-defense as their excuse for doing things they are not supposed to when actually, they don’t even know how the system works.

      Tapi, apa yang saya tulis kat atas cuma pendapat ikhlas dari saya berdasarkan apa yg saya faham ngan saya tau. Maybe ada salah gak, kalau ada yg salah, sila2 betulkan :)

  2. ah, very good entry on this case…

    but i also think that the said police should not reacted that way in that case…

    a simple mistake can cause someone’s life…. and in this case, it already cost one life…
    even if that police is transferred to do office work, would that be an adequate remedy for the kid and his family??

    what ever it is, this case should be an eye- opener on how the police do their work..

    i also have nothing against the police but ive seen too many examples of abuse of power…..

    dah naik gaji pun still buat lagi..huhu

    1. haha.. true enough zex…

      tu aku cakap, is it proportionate for that police to open fire in the first place? sebab Allahyarham tak balas balik pun tembakan tu.

      Aku fham yg polis tu tembak sebab nak suruh brenti, tapi patut dia aim tayar je. Kenapa sampai nak terkena kepala? Because I think had the police shot all the four tires, the car wouldn’t go further and it will stop.

      But yet, as you said, “a simple mistake can cause someone’s life”. That simple mistake [shot the boy’s head] had caused the boy’s life.

      The police should follow the SOP properly. Jangan sampai SOP tu cuma tinggal kata2 je.

      1. recent witness evidence that there were trail of bullets, and the shot was all pointed to the tyres, only one diverted and hit the victim.
        the trail of bullets was quite a distance, it might raise serious suspicion that the person inside the car was commiting some serious offence, for not stopping even when a warning shot has been given. it’s not a short distance but long distance! anyone would suspect some serious offence if the car didnot stop after such a long chase, with warning shots even more. It is reasonable excuse that the boy was too afraid to stop. But it is also reasonable suspicion for the police to think that a serious offence has been committed based on the circumstance.

      2. Thanks Yana for your comment!
        As I said, both were wrong. But the thing that led me to write this piece of writing is the manner in which the police did the shooting. I am of the opinion that shooting cannot be executed at will. Procedures must be followed and it must be executed only when unavoidable. :)

  3. Alfatihah….yang penting jangan cepat melatah…apapun cerita yg dibaca harus dibaca dengan hati yg bersih dan jgn bercampur amarah…apapun sekarang ARWAH sudah berada di alam barzakh dan sekarang berdepan Mungkar dan Nakir…bagi yg hidup dan kenal arwah lakukan sesuatu yg terbaik…kalau Arwah tersalah atau terhutang harta atau janji, tebuskan kerana hutang menghapus amalan baik, dari mencari kesalahan lebih baik lakukan sesuatu untuk arwah….ingat sesungguhnya kubur itu boleh jadi Taman Syurga atau Taman Neraka, tatkala kita bersengketa atas sesuatu yg belum pasti..Arwah menghadap sesuatu yg pasti…..sekadar komen…

    1. Salam~

      Terima kasih saudara atas komen yg diberi. Terima kasih jugak atas nasihat dan peringatan yg diberi. Moga semua yg baca post ni dpt iktibar :)

      Pendapat saya kat atas tu hanya pendapat ikhlas saya dari apa yg saya tahu. Insya-Allah, tiada perasaan amarah dari penelitian saya. Saya juga cuba utk tidak bersikap berat sebelah dalam memberi komen kat atas.

      Terima kasih sekali lg sebab berkunjung ke blog saya. :)

  4. i just left my 2 cents in another blog..i do agree with you, en khairul, “innocent until proven guilty”..7 shots!!! those were not warning, those were prosecution..like i said in my ealier comment in another blog, the police officers might opt to shoot at the tyres (it might help stop the car) instead of shooting at the car itself..they should know better that by shooting at the car, one of the bullets might kill the “suspect”.

    thanks for educating us about the Acts.

    al-fatihah for adik aminul..semoga ditempatkan di kalangan orang-orang yang beriman.

    takziah buat keluarga adik aminul..

    saya turut bersedih di atas kejadian ini..

    i have 3 nephews and a niece who go to the same school as arwah..it’s horrifying enough to have learnt about this incident. may Allah bless my anak2 saudara whom i love so much, and the rest of those innocent children.

    1. Thanks Dahlia for reading my blog and for your comment! :)
      Yeah, I was confused when I read your comment earlier. hehe.. But it’s ok! I know you meant execution :D

  5. salam..
    pertama skali aku ucapkan takziah kpd family arwah…doa byk2…pada pendapat peribadi aku, xpyh nak besarkan case nie..biar pihak berkuasa yang selesaikan..org awam xpyh nak sibuk wat group ker, apa ker..sbb roh dia xtenang kat sn. klu mak ayah dah redhakan, insya ALLAH ..ALLAH S.W.T juga redhakan.tenang rohnya bersama para solihin. klu bercerita pasal org awam kena tembak, knp kita xbercerita ttg polis, tentera yang dah ramai terkorban sbb nak jaga keamanan negara? pada pendapat aku, dlm konteks zaman skrang …penjenayah ada kat mn2..tak kira muda, tua, kanak2, perempuan mengandung dsb..aku xsebelahkan mn2 pihak… tapi masyarakat kita xpnh nak btrima ksh kpd pihak berkuasa yang siang mlm bekerja untuk mnjaga keamanan negara. klu tiada yang nak berbakti dan hanya bual kosong kat kedai kopi, negara kita bkn setakat dijajah diminda, tetapi negara gak tergadai. xsemua kes jenayah bley papar kat media n kat org rmai, tapi x ada org sedar pun.. mmg kita xberada di kalangan family arwah, tp kita pun x berada di kalangan family yang pendapatan kuarganya hanya bergantung kpd ayah sbg seorg anggota polis yg nyawanya hanya 50-50 stp kali bertugas. itu dah ajal arwah dan itu ketentuan ILAHI..jadi, yang hidup harus teruskan khidupan ni dan ambil apa yang dah berlaku sbg pengajaran.

    1. Terima kasih siver007 sbb sudi komen! :D
      Apa yang ko ckp tu ada kebenarannya. Macam aku cakap, dalam hal ni, takde pihak yang boleh dipersalahkan 100%. Semua pihak ada share kesalahannya yang tersendiri. Cuma isu yang aku nak sampaikan ialah isu penggunaan senjata api oleh polis. Pada aku, garis panduan yang ada mesti diikuti. Aku setuju, polis memang banyak berjasa kepada kita. Tapi, aku taknak sebab nila setitik, rosak susu sebelanga. :)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s