Handcuff for taking flood photos?

[roadrunner_552]

拍淹水照片　《联合晚报》主任被上手铐扣留1小时

http://news.omy.sg/News/Local+News/Story/OMYStory201007171513-169105.html

 

[axis90x]

:bigeyes:
what for sia!

 

[The Hulk]

Damn. WTF is the police doing? Are we living in Somalia or some Communist Stalin regime?

 

[csy]

Poor Uncle Shafie... :cry:

It's not the first time that the police has been LESS than respectful to photojournalists. 我们一向井"水"不犯河"水" (pun intended). But this is way over the line :angry:

MROs wake up and please educate your guys!

 

[limwhow]

Well, I am not in the position to comment on this episode, neither am I standing on any side.

But something in the article is very fishy.
Apparently the police officer hand-cuffed the reporter. And when the reporter questioned that, and wanted to take a picture of the cuff with his handphone, the police officer immediately removed the handcuff.
And yet, at the last part of the report, it was stated that the marks of the cuff remained 5 hours after the incident.

I find that very hard to believe. And as such, there lies the basis of my opinion that there is a huge amount of dramatisation.

 

[alantkh]

Well, I am not in the position to comment on this episode, neither am I standing on any side.

But something in the article is very fishy.
Apparently the police officer hand-cuffed the reporter. And when the reporter questioned that, and wanted to take a picture of the cuff with his handphone, the police officer immediately removed the handcuff.
And yet, at the last part of the report, it was stated that the marks of the cuff remained 5 hours after the incident.

I find that very hard to believe. And as such, there lies the basis of my opinion that there is a huge amount of dramatisation.

but whatever it is, certain facts should be true, ie he got hand cuff. I don't think wanbao is crazy enough to tell such a lie.

 

[dannyfoxy]

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.

 

[lightrules]

I sincerely hope the Police force explain this
to the voters .
Abuse of power can't be tolerated

 

[Kit]

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 serious?

 

[Ghaz1]

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.

Then why are they issued with handcuffs in the first place???

Issue summon?
I don't think he was handcuffed by Traffic Police...

 

[romeo tango]

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.

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.

 

[romeo tango]

I am not too sure how accurate was the report, but this line throws in some doubt :

吴庆顺说，警员叫他走开, 他礼貌要求再拍一张照片 ...

I am sure all of us know how presistence a journalist can be in getting the scope photo. The journalist could put his own life in danger (or others) by going forward to take the shot. The police warned him to stay away. I can only guess that the journalist did not heel the warning but presisted and was handcuffed for causing obstruction to a public servant. The used of a handcuff does not mean that a person is under arrest. It can be use as a temporary restrain measure to prevent that person from causing injury to himself/herself or to others.

 

[azul123]

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.

 

[azul123]

It can be use as a temporary restrain measure to prevent that person from causing injury to himself/herself or to others.

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.

 

[Reportage]

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.

all the courts have to do is check the history of the officer in question like how many marks the officer got for any tests on any law subjects.

Odd if the theory scores is borderline yet still assigned patrol and dispatch duties.

 

[night86mare]

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

 

[brapodam]

Well, I am not in the position to comment on this episode, neither am I standing on any side.

But something in the article is very fishy.
Apparently the police officer hand-cuffed the reporter. And when the reporter questioned that, and wanted to take a picture of the cuff with his handphone, the police officer immediately removed the handcuff.
And yet, at the last part of the report, it was stated that the marks of the cuff remained 5 hours after the incident.

I find that very hard to believe. And as such, there lies the basis of my opinion that there is a huge amount of dramatisation.

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

 

[redstone]

wtf.... handcuff him based on what?

 

[Lenscapes]

Interesting story...will have to see how it developed or covered up..

 

[takafan]

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.

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: