Handcuff for taking flood photos?

[romeo tango]

I agreed that the mark is quite suspicious. Usually the officer will handcuff at the wrist, below the watch and not above it. The handcuff is too small to cuff the upper forearm.

Like I mentioned in my earlier post, the journalist might have disobey an instruction not to proceed further :

PENAL CODE (CHAPTER 224)

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.

Something is not right, how come the marks looked so red one? as far as I know for most people.. the lower end of your wrist towards the hand is smaller than the part as picture shown, can easily just move down and no marks. Of course being hand-cuffed for taking photos? that is too much also.

link here : http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_vers...and&version=currentVersion&query1=obstruction

 

[papajanggo33]

actually police officer in singapore don't know what is their power, police are the low enforcer, they got no rights to determine anyone is right or wrong, they have no rights ot handcuff anyone. They can only issue summon if anyone break the law and let the court decide if the person is right or wrong. In this case, the police already wrong, the officer can get sued.

you seems lost at what you are trying to point out here. suggest you google on criminal procedure code more

 

[romeo tango]

I understand where you are coming from. But under certain circumstances, where the act of a person could cause harm to himself / herself, or to other person, the PO can use the handcuff as a temporary restrain to restrain the person. I believed the journalist must have been warn a few times, else the officer will not cuff him. Trust me, there are times where verbal warnings are not heel, especially when the action could be the scope of the day ...

Hmm... I don't buy that explanation leh, unless clear warnings have been repeated disobeyed, else it is not right to hand-cuff people leh. Some people feel taboo as that is a sway thing to get you know.

 

[romeo tango]

Totally agreed :thumbsup::thumbsup:

They don't exaggerate, people don't find the news exciting, nobody will read it. That's news these days. You can't just tell people the truth, people will just get bored. Must dramatize a bit

 

[romeo tango]

Good one :thumbsup:

you hear this from where, the chio bu photographers you met earlier today? :bsmilie:

 

[romeo tango]

Well, handcuff him based on this :

PENAL CODE
(CHAPTER 224)

He was lucky he was let off after 1 hour and not bring back to lockup and charged for obstructing a public servant from carrying out his duty ..

wtf.... handcuff him based on what?

 

[romeo tango]

Sorry, bro / sis, the POs don't carry pistols, they carry revolver. Only the special groups carry pistols. Remember the Outram MRT case ? Yes, the POs have the rights to determine the level of threat and what to use. Thank you for standing up for the man in blue

What nonsense. If they got no right to determine, then tell me why they have pistols and handcuffs. They are entitled to fire at life-threatening situations. So u say they got no right to determine right and wrong? Maybe u should try and see if they have the rights to determine right or wrong :bsmilie:

 

[takafan]

Sorry, bro / sis, the POs don't carry pistols, they carry revolver. Only the special groups carry pistols. Remember the Outram MRT case ? Yes, the POs have the rights to determine the level of threat and what to use. Thank you for standing up for the man in blue

Really? I have seen ordinary police officers with pistols and baton as well walking on the streets quite often. I thought police officers on patrol duties/crowd control etc, usually have pistols with them. Didn't know only special groups have them. What are the special groups?

 

[ricsal]

Please get your facts right. Police Officers are empowered to arrest anyone who break the law, simply put, anyone who rob, steals, rape, murder, the list goes on ... the POs have every right to handcuff the perps. You are belittleing the POs by saying that they can only issue summon. Maybe you are too young to understand the real police work.

Now I understand u need to be very old to understand real police work :bsmilie:

Just kiddin.

But whatever it is, I think media knows there is pressure in SG that by putting more drama in it, watever reason police tried to explain, the public still thinks they are wrong to cuff him.

I'm not surprise later at any coffee shop can hear old uncles starting to say negative things about this. coz there are still minority of people who see by hate n not by sight.:sweat:

 

[romeo tango]

I believed what you saw were the SOC group, the "Ang Chia" Officers.

The rest are not the NPCOs.

Sorry can't say much. Don't know whether this is under the OSA or not. I believe the SPF webby should have such info.

Really? I have seen ordinary police officers with pistols and baton as well walking on the streets quite often. I thought police officers on patrol duties/crowd control etc, usually have pistols with them. Didn't know only special groups have them. What are the special groups?

 

[romeo tango]

Ha ha ha, I know I am very old to know all this

Yeah, and I know you are kidding :bsmilie:

That's why there are so many anti-police people around ...

It's sad, isn't it ? That they risk their lives to protect Singaporean and yet people chose to discredit them ...

Now I understand u need to be very old to understand real police work :bsmilie:

Just kiddin.

But whatever it is, I think media knows there is pressure in SG that by putting more drama in it, watever reason police tried to explain, the public still thinks they are wrong to cuff him.

I'm not surprise later at any coffee shop can hear old uncles starting to say negative things about this. coz there are still minority of people who see by hate n not by sight.:sweat:

 

[denniskee]

question, i not siding any party here.

printing the "news" on papers, photo of the PO in question, being "chief reporter" of local newspaper, u mean he is so stupid to "frame" the PO or the company (cant be they dont have a bunch legal advisor + lawyers) dare print the "news" without "evidents"?

next question :

could it be that there was a instruction pass down within the force to "cap" the news as it doesnt reflect well about the authority that are involve?

last question :

could it be a over zelous PO who are not sure about whats going on, panic and did the wrong thing, hence an isolated case?

 

[ricsal]

Ha ha ha, I know I am very old to know all this

Yeah, and I know you are kidding :bsmilie:

That's why there are so many anti-police people around ...

It's sad, isn't it ? That they risk their lives to protect Singaporean and yet people chose to discredit them ...

Haiz, dunno lah. they said 1 drop can create a big ripple.

There is a saying "Your good deeds people will never remember, but your bad deeds even if it was mistaken, people will remember till they die" Bad luck for that officer but at least he did what he has to do.

 

[limwhow]

question, i not siding any party here.

printing the "news" on papers, photo of the PO in question, being "chief reporter" of local newspaper, u mean he is so stupid to "frame" the PO or the company (cant be they dont have a bunch legal advisor + lawyers) dare print the "news" without "evidents"?

I believe something must have happened.
But to what extent - this is the question in everyone's mind.
Without photo evidence or witnesses, it will all merely be verbal.
But certainly, the way it was written up and the way the 'mark' on the forearm managed to hold up there for 5 hours, smacks of sensationalism.

Otherwise, who would buy WanBao to read, and any one of you think we would be all here discussing this in the early hours of the morning?

 

[denniskee]

I believe something must have happened.
But to what extent - this is the question in everyone's mind.
Without photo evidence or witnesses, it will all merely be verbal.
But certainly, the way it was written up and the way the 'mark' on the forearm managed to hold up there for 5 hours, smacks of sensationalism.

Otherwise, who would buy WanBao to read, and any one of you think we would be all here discussing this in the early hours of the morning?

i dont think the company is so stupid as to use this just to boost sales, it is the police force in question here and we know when integraty of PO is involve, it is a very big thing.

 

[limwhow]

i dont think the company is so stupid as to use this just to boost sales, it is the police force in question here and we know when integraty of PO is involve, it is a very big thing.

A total agreement from me you have there.
Sadly, despite all the sensationalism, this incident IS a very big thing.
And all eyes will be on where this case leads to.

 

[denniskee]

A total agreement from me you have there.
Sadly, despite all the sensationalism, this incident IS a very big thing.
And all eyes will be on where this case leads to.

MM, SM, PM, Mr Wong already jumping up & down by now i think. the PO and reporter in question i think by now had been called to assist in the investigation.

 

[ninelives]

i dont think the company is so stupid as to use this just to boost sales, it is the police force in question here and we know when integraty of PO is involve, it is a very big thing.

agree too. this is a very sensitive issue. i advise everyone use your common sense and dont say anything stupid. dont add fuel to fire. dont ever think you can say anything on the internet.

 

[skylover]

agree too. this is a very sensitive issue. i advise everyone use your common sense and dont say anything stupid. dont add fuel to fire. dont ever think you can say anything on the internet.

I agree. Let's wait for updates from their higher authority to release press release.
If the PO follow the SOP strictly than the PO is save from all the comments made about him.

 

[Jerry Chan]

I hope its all a big misunderstanding. Let's hear both sides of the story to determine what has actually happened. Whether is it a misjudgement by the PO or over-dramatisation of the report, please don't get carry away......