Wrong but satisfying.

[KneesUp]

The most legitimate form of self defence would have been to mount his bicycle and leave the scene. In the UK at least it only becomes legitimate self defence when all other reasonable options are exhausted. Under the circumstances I can quite understand the rider wanting to poke the feller, but he elected to continue his participation in the confrontation instead instead of simply leaving so it would be unlikely a court would accept that as self defence over here. It's hardly self defence when you have time to lay your bicycle on a soft surface and then step forward towards the other party.

Best he could hope for in the UK is that it wouldnt be in the public interest to prosecute. More likely they'd both be on for affray or S.4 POA.

I'm not at all sure on any laws, let alone those in Singapore.

In all honesty I think I would have ridden off too, because I'm a runner, not a fighter (not physical fights, at least - too pretty) but in doing so I'd be well aware that the bloke with the truck who was trying to run me over previously would be even more annoyed and thus, even more determined to run me over. It'd be fine, I reckon, if there was lots of traffic the cyclist could cut through, but it doesn't look like that - the chances of him being nudged off again by the truck driver are high. So, although for me (as a veteran of no fights) riding off might be my best bet when faced with an angry man with a handheld weapon (the fire extinguisher) I think it would also be reasonable to assume that a guy who has come at someone aggressively with two different weapons would continue to be aggressive unless stopped. For example, by being banged on his jaw by a left he never saw coming.

 

[Drago]

I stand corrected - but would he not be worried about the driver following him & continuing his assault ?

He clearly wasn't worried about being assaulted or he wouldn't have stepped up to meet the gentleman at all.

Don't get me wrong, the driver deserves some bad karma, but self defence wouldn't stand a chance of floating here. Clearly the law over there thinks differently, which is good news for the cyclist.

 

[KneesUp]

He clearly wasn't worried about being assaulted or he wouldn't have stepped up to meet the gentleman at all.

Don't get me wrong, the driver deserves some bad karma, but self defence wouldn't stand a chance of floating here. Clearly the law over there thinks differently, which is good news for the cyclist.

He was walking away until the guy ran at him with the extinguisher - at which point he turned to face the threat because that is a natural instinct. That's not 'stepping up to meet the gentleman' - that's not turning your back on the guy running at you with clear intent to harm you.

 

[Drago]

He didn't turn to face the threat due to natural instinct - he took the time to ensure he was laying the bicycle down on something soft! He confronted the bloke for no other reason that he wanted to.

If he tried to use the natural

If he were in genuine fear I'm pretty sure he can cycle faster than the driver could run, and in the UK the CPS would want him to explain why he didn't. Using force in self defence (in the UK) is the last resort, not something one escalates to immediately.

The fact that the van driver is a tool does'nt make it open season. If he were in genuine fear he would have fled. That was an act of retribution, not of genuine self defence.

 

[Globalti]

I think the cyclist is a European while the driver is Chinese. Would that affect the attitude of the Police?

 

[KneesUp]

He didn't turn to face the threat due to natural instinct- he took the time to ensure he was laying the bicycle down on something soft! He confronted the bloke for no other reason that he wanted to.

If he were in genuine fear I'm pretty sure he can cycle faster than the driver could run, and in the UK the CPS would want him to explain why he didn't. Using force in self defence (in the UK) is the last resort, not something one escalates to immediately.

You might have spotted that the driver has a truck that he can drive? One which he has demonstrated that he is happy to use as a weapon.

 

[MichaelW2]

Turning your back on an advancing attacker with an impact weapon is no defense, it is presenting a target. The cyclist was retreating when attacked, applied reasonable force when he felt himself in danger.
This is clearly self defence.

 

[ColinJ]

The most legitimate form of self defence would have been to mount his bicycle and leave the scene. In the UK at least it only becomes legitimate self defence when all other reasonable options are exhausted. Under the circumstances I can quite understand the rider wanting to poke the feller, but he elected to continue his participation in the confrontation instead instead of simply leaving so it would be unlikely a court would accept that as self defence over here. It's hardly self defence when you have time to lay your bicycle on a soft surface and then step forward towards the other party.

Best he could hope for in the UK is that it wouldnt be in the public interest to prosecute. More likely they'd both be on for affray or S.4 POA.

I have watched it twice and I don't think that the cyclist had time to remount and accelerate away before the driver got to him. If he had tried then I think that he would have been dragged back off the bike so I think that he WAS defending himself. I can see that it might go either way in court though.

 

[Gravity Aided]

I believe that in Singapore, from what I've heard from fellows at work, a lot of things, like littering, shouting inside a building, and being generally noisy, are all rather seen as a crime or misdemeanor, but that may be dated information. In the States, I think there would be a greater view of this as a justified use of force, and the cyclist would be considered to have used a force commensurate with the attack against him. When you attack a person with a vehicle, then get out with a fire extinguisher t o use as a weapon, then the District Attorney (like a Sheriff Substitute, representing the State) may press such charges as assault with a motor vehicle, assault with a deadly weapon (2 counts, truck, fire extinguisher) and threat to do bodily harm. Of course, that can all go to court, and a jury may let one off, as happened here once, in a similar instance.