Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 36789 LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 170

Thread: Handcuff for taking flood photos?

  1. #141

    Default Re: Handcuff for taking flood photos?

    Quote Originally Posted by reachme2003 View Post
    i think whether he wears a credential pass or not is not the issue here...........
    it's very important at least to me. If the MIB knew that he is a VIP or from the media, and has broken the law, and then he was handcuffed, then the MIB is
    We never know now since it didn't happen, that if he showed his CP, and resulted in the MIB covering his two eyes, then I say the whole of the MIB is a disgrace.
    always the Light, .... always.

  2. #142

    Default Re: Handcuff for taking flood photos?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shoooters View Post
    I'm don't think we should blame the whole of the police force for what this stupid one has done. imo.. i think this policeman is really stupid!! how can he handcuff the photographer? if the photographer accidentally slip and fell and get himself drown in the drain.. how?? he is actually putting his life in danger. if there is a tsunami how? is he going to handcuff him? if he really is causing obstructions or endangering his own life then let him be.. the most he can rescue the photographer and then slap him with a heavy fine and not to the extend of handcuffing him..I hope the management will sack him..

    Its not nice to say sack this people sack that people w/o knowing. Even in times of uncertainty, maybe even you could not judge properly right?

    Thats what I think he did, maybe he handcuffed him for the right reason but by some, its not. we dont know.

    If he kena sack for doing what he think is right (which nothing happen except for the bruises), I dun think its fair for him.
    My Flickr iownthislensthatlensthislensthatlens

  3. #143

    Default Re: Handcuff for taking flood photos?

    Quote Originally Posted by skylover View Post
    According to what I know, if a PO is at the scene and He does that, the first approach is to warn him to get off the road and not make a scene. If after some warning which is usually at least 3 times, he will be arrested under penal code # 268. Public nuisance

    268. A person is guilty of a public nuisance, who does any act, or is guilty of an illegal omission, which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public, or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right.

    Explanation.A common nuisance is not excused on the ground that it causes some convenience or advantage.

    Obstructing public servant in discharge of his public functions
    186. Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 months, or with fine which may extend to $2,500, or with both.

    Disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant
    188. Whoever, knowing that by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to $1,000, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health, or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or an affray, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 6 months, or with fine which may extend to $3,000, or with both.
    [51/2007]

    Explanation.It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm.
    a simple thread on whether the PO was right or wrong ion producing his cuffs ended up with all the penal codes and wiki codes being bandied around
    of course if the law want to do anything or cover anything they can throw every alphabets in the codes at you
    the question here is did the PO over-react, abuse his authority, did the photog overstepped his boundary??
    no more codes please..

  4. #144

    Default Re: Handcuff for taking flood photos?

    Quote Originally Posted by ricsal View Post
    Its not nice to say sack this people sack that people w/o knowing. Even in times of uncertainty, maybe even you could not judge properly right?

    Thats what I think he did, maybe he handcuffed him for the right reason but by some, its not. we dont know.

    If he kena sack for doing what he think is right (which nothing happen except for the bruises), I dun think its fair for him.
    As you said, his thinking that it is "right" but to most of us, it is wrong. if it is right, this issue wouldn't be appearing in the medias. right??

    i think he'd overreacted. maybe sack is too much.. i change it to demotion + education on when to use handcuff.

    just a thought.. if every P.O thinks this way..and if there is a war or something.. do you think it is right for the P.Os will handcuff every journalist that are nearby in order to keep them safe?
    Last edited by Shoooters; 19th July 2010 at 05:29 PM.

  5. #145

    Default Re: Handcuff for taking flood photos?

    Quote Originally Posted by skylover View Post
    Er.. i mention in my previous thread ma. The issue now is the real conversation between the PO and the photographer right from the start. The article didn't even state the whole conversation. If we do not know the whole conversation, we cannot judge anything base on it. The PO has given warning but what sort of warning? In between before he got cuff was there any further conversation? What was been said or mentioned that leads to him been cuff away? All these we do not know. These small details are the things we should get it right first before we can conclude base the PO's SOP and who's right or wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by WISHBONEASH View Post
    a simple thread on whether the PO was right or wrong ion producing his cuffs ended up with all the penal codes and wiki codes being bandied around
    of course if the law want to do anything or cover anything they can throw every alphabets in the codes at you
    the question here is did the PO over-react, abuse his authority, did the photog overstepped his boundary??
    no more codes please..
    When we have the whole story then that's when the penal codes comes in. We are all not even there. How do you know what exactly happen? What we debating here are based on bits and pieces not the whole piece. There are so many missing information. Either the PO or the photographer we cannot conclude who is right or wrong in the first place.
    Nikkon D90 | AF-S NIKKOR 18-105mm 1:35-5.6G | DI866 External Flashlight | AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G

  6. #146

    Default Re: Handcuff for taking flood photos?

    Quote Originally Posted by skylover View Post
    When we have the whole story then that's when the penal codes comes in. We are all not even there. How do you know what exactly happen? What we debating here are based on bits and pieces not the whole piece. There are so many missing information. Either the PO or the photographer we cannot conclude who is right or wrong in the first place.
    ya right, so let's cut out all the chapter this chapter that. btw, i do read the penal code for fun sometimes

  7. #147
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Beyond Space-Time Continuum
    Posts
    6,324

    Default Re: Handcuff for taking flood photos?

    imo. PO did his job to protect. GWC kpkb coz he cannot do his job, so create sensation to sell newspaper.

  8. #148
    Senior Member +evenstar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Singapore / United Kingdom
    Posts
    5,655

    Default Re: Handcuff for taking flood photos?

    Quote Originally Posted by TMC View Post
    imo. PO did his job to protect. GWC kpkb coz he cannot do his job, so create sensation to sell newspaper.
    I don't think it is right to be calling a news photographer a GWC.

    btw, advertising WTS in ur sig is not allowed IIRC
    eat. drink. shoot

  9. #149

    Default Re: Handcuff for taking flood photos?

    ummm... where is the "central divider" on Bukit Timah Road?

    Anyway, if the water was moving, it's pretty easy to lose balance. Also, unless the PO dunnoe where to cuff, being cuffed at that location seems to indicate resistance on the Photog part.... juz my opnion.
    Gallery | Facebook Page Spreading the Good photography.

  10. #150

    Default Re: Handcuff for taking flood photos?

    Quote Originally Posted by CYRN View Post
    Also, unless the PO dunnoe where to cuff, being cuffed at that location seems to indicate resistance on the Photog part.... juz my opnion.
    not sure weather there is any directives from the TOP to stop at any means, anyone from shooting or video, since it has caused the country so much embarrassment from the media and internet. or maybe i see too many american movies
    always the Light, .... always.

  11. #151
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Beyond Space-Time Continuum
    Posts
    6,324

    Default Re: Handcuff for taking flood photos?

    Quote Originally Posted by +evenstar View Post
    I don't think it is right to be calling a news photographer a GWC.

    btw, advertising WTS in ur sig is not allowed IIRC
    oops that one has been there for so long that I have forgotten about it. LOL. My settings cant see signatures

    Well that is not what I think. For this drama, I dont think I can see him as anything more than a GWC
    Last edited by TMC; 19th July 2010 at 08:46 PM.

  12. #152
    Member/Tangshooter Ambious's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Singapore, Taiwan, Malaysia
    Posts
    1,216

    Default Re: Handcuff for taking flood photos?

    Let's spread this news around and see what others think... Anyway, it's in the news... So no harm spreading more so that the police or government with know how to properly handle the situations next time...

  13. #153
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    sing
    Posts
    3,353

    Default Re: Handcuff for taking flood photos?

    Small deal, lah.
    Get over it.
    Over-anxious cop and provocative newsman clash.
    Incident is used to sell newspapers.

    Location may have something to do with it. Bukit Timah area has powerful peoples' residences.

    If the area flooded was Woodlands Avenue 7 or Jurong West Street 51 or Loyang Drive, then perhaps no one would have bothered about anyone taking photos of the flooded area.
    Last edited by ricohflex; 19th July 2010 at 09:16 PM.

  14. #154
    Senior Member limwhow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Life revolves arOnd East Coast
    Posts
    7,049

    Default Re: Handcuff for taking flood photos?

    Quote Originally Posted by ricohflex View Post
    Small deal, lah.
    Get over it.
    Over-anxious cop and provocative newsman clash.
    Incident is used to sell newspapers.


    ...
    This is one of the more sensible opinions.

  15. #155
    Member/Tangshooter Ambious's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Singapore, Taiwan, Malaysia
    Posts
    1,216

    Default Re: Handcuff for taking flood photos?

    Quote Originally Posted by ricohflex View Post
    Small deal, lah.
    Get over it.
    Over-anxious cop and provocative newsman clash.
    Incident is used to sell newspapers.

    Location may have something to do with it. Bukit Timah area has powerful peoples' residences.

    If the area flooded was Woodlands Avenue 7 or Jurong West Street 51 or Loyang Drive, then perhaps no one would have bothered about anyone taking photos of the flooded area.
    Quote Originally Posted by limwhow View Post
    This is one of the more sensible opinions.
    This can happen to any of us... They got press power to back them up but most of us don't... If it's not correct rightly, we'll had more hard time than the press photog...

  16. #156

    Default Re: Handcuff for taking flood photos?

    Quote Originally Posted by sci70716 View Post

    Was the fight still on when the police arrived? If not, yes, the victim must lodged a magistrate complaint or proceed with civil sue. The law does not give police the right to arrest someone for Voluntary Causing Hurt.

    However if he is drunk and making a scene, he could be arrested for disorderly behaviour or arrest both man (assailant cos he won and victim cos he was bleeding? Its subjective) for affray.Different scenarios call for different application of the law. What you see might not necessary be what really hap...could be the supposed victim actually assaulted the other party. We never know.

    Anyway back to this case, I really hope SPF could step up and give a proper explaination while the paper should also exercise restraint in its reporting. It really could just be a storm in a teacup.
    to summarise my story, there were actually 3 assailants attacking a taxi driver. all punching
    and kicking the defenceless victim. if it was not some onlookers that seperated them and
    stop the 3 assailants, the victim could be killed of brain concussion due to the excessive
    blows to his head. 2 got away b4 the POs arrive. 1 was too drunk to even know which way
    to run, so kena caught. (when the POs arrived at the scene, we pointed out to the PO
    the direction this drunken escape, instead of running to get the assailant, the PO walks like
    patrolling on orchard road. if he was not drunk, he could walk faster than the PO).

    from what i know, before any PO can make an arrest of a suspect, a senior rank PO is
    required to call his ops room or senior office, duty officer for permission and instruction.
    the ops room will assess the case, to determine if any crime is committed b4 a PO on the
    ground can take out his 'rolex king'. so for the case i described above, the DO from ops
    room probably had said:" nevermind, ah beng hit ah seng, no criminal offence for now
    unless the victim die or suffer serious injury. for now, let the ah beng carry-on with
    his happy hours and finish off his balance johnny walker."


    look, this is a stardard procedure for a non criminal case.
    (unless is a clear cut criminal case than the PO is exempted to call ops room, the PO should
    know what is clear cut lah). so, for this case, if the PO handcuffed the photographer without
    verifying with the ops room, and later release the photographer knowing that he has no
    case, i think i hv to say good luck to him. on the other hand if he did, than how could the
    DO in ops room knows what was the situation on the ground which granted him to cuff a
    non suspect n release him later?

    i dont know, something is juz not right some way.
    Last edited by yeobt; 20th July 2010 at 12:21 AM.
    Taoism 你知[道]吗?http://yeobt.multiply.com
    Read With An Open Mind And Surely You Will Be Benefited.

  17. #157

    Default Re: Handcuff for taking flood photos?

    Quote Originally Posted by yeobt View Post
    to summarise my story, there were actually 3 assailants attacking a taxi driver. all punching
    and kicking the defenceless victim. if it was not some onlookers that seperated them and
    stop the 3 assailants, the victim could be killed of brain concussion due to the excessive
    blows to his head. 2 got away b4 the POs arrive. 1 was too drunk to even know which way
    to run, so kena caught. (when the POs arrived at the scene, we pointed out to the PO
    the direction this drunken escape, instead of running to get the assailant, the PO walks like
    patrolling on orchard road. if he was not drunk, he could walk faster than the PO).

    from what i know, before any PO can make an arrest of a suspect, a senior rank PO is
    required to call his ops room or senior office, duty officer for permission and instruction.
    the ops room will assess the case, to determine if any crime is committed b4 a PO on the
    ground can take out his 'rolex king'. so for the case i described above, the DO from ops
    room probably had said:" nevermind, ah beng hit ah seng, no criminal offence for now
    unless the victim die or suffer serious injury. for now, let the ah beng carry-on with
    his happy hours and finish off his balance johnny walker."


    look, this is a stardard procedure for a non criminal case.
    (unless is a clear cut criminal case than the PO is exempted to call ops room, the PO should
    know what is clear cut lah). so, for this case, if the PO handcuffed the photographer without
    verifying with the ops room, and later release the photographer knowing that he has no
    case, i think i hv to say good luck to him. on the other hand if he did, than how could the
    DO in ops room knows what was the situation on the ground which granted him to cuff a
    non suspect n release him later?

    i dont know, something is juz not right some way.
    Yes, the will be SOP to follow for every cases however get ur facts right before making such comment. There is no such thing like verifying with ops rm before making decision. PO only relay facts them. I believed that the PO had his grounds to restrain him otherwise he will nid to face the music.. no pt debating who is right or wrong as none of us were at scene at tt pt.

  18. #158
    Senior Member denniskee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    bukit batok
    Posts
    5,468
    photography makes one sees things from all angles.

  19. #159
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default Re: Handcuff for taking flood photos?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lenscapes View Post
    Interesting story...will have to see how it developed or covered up..
    I was going to post this when I read this but it seems synapseman beat me to it:

    Quote Originally Posted by synapseman View Post
    You are all wrong.

    There was no flood. Never had one. The last flood we had was in 1972.

    We are not the type of country that has floods.
    Although I would add, that we don't have a police force, either.

  20. #160
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default Re: Handcuff for taking flood photos?

    Quote Originally Posted by Canonised View Post
    In Singapore, where most things are tightly controlled (in the name of peace and prosperity for its citizens), nobody is above the laws, becoz our garment don't believe in giving exception for fear that citizens will work around the rules ...
    Maybe we don't work around the rules because we live in fear? Who controls the law makers?

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 36789 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •