Breaking News: Two SDP leaders arrested by Police!

mancha SG

Yesterday it may be a public place. Like a beach or a park.
Today the same place may be a gazetted security zone.
Tomorrow that place may revert to a public place again.
This may happen accordingly as a situation unravel.

Therefore the police will "advise" you accordingly.
And if you refuse to obey, and continue to be stubborn, you will be arrested.

You are arrested for refusal to obey the directions of the police, not for "peaceful protest".

Its amazing how these anti-Singapore goblins can distort and present a skewed version of events.

And they complain against that biased reporting themselves. They are just evil and dishonest.

LazerLordz SG

I can't be bothered by this incessant argument.

But I must point out one thing, both of them, while bundled into the van by force and unnecessarily so, they were NOT arrested per se.

foxtrout8 SG

i agree, they were NOT arrested. they were escorted out of a protected area.

mancha SG

Walk into an army camp, and refuse the order to leave.

Walk into the port, and refuse to obey the port police.

Walk unauthorised into a restricted area of the airport.

You will be bundled away. First.

Arrested and charged later.

If at all.

maurizio13 SG

Originally posted by foxtrout8:

i do understand my friend.

"seizable offence" means an offence for which and seizable case means a case in which a police officer [b]may ordinarily arrest without warrant according to the third column of Schedule A;

the police officer may ...arrest without warrant, the law didnt say must

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/html/homepage.html

i believe with reasons that they did not arrest but they escort them out using the protected areas and protected places act.[/b]

Marcus Tan believes that his "very honest, timid and shy" nephew, who is in his mid 30s, who was arrested at the OG Complex at Albert Street last Saturday (30 Dec), is innocent.

He was believed by the security guards to have committed theft and was arrested by the police.

A livid Marcus sent STOMP an email last Sunday (31 Dec 2006). He said: "Who would want to display something that they have stolen so visibily? It was a genuine mistake! But nobody cared. The police were called in and he was taken away, handcuffed in public!"

The police received a call at about 11.50am on 30 Dec 2006 informing them of a case of shop theft from a shopping complex along Albert Street.

Upon their arrival, Marcus' nephew was already detained by the security officer. He was subsequently handed over to police and placed under arrest for theft.

Marcus' nephew had been shopping at OG Shopping Complex at Albert Street alone when he spotted some bargain bins just outside the store, part of an ad-hoc promotion by OG. With an unpaid packet of singlets in his hand, he walked out of the store to get a pillow to purchase, intending to go back into the store to pay for all the items together.

Said a police spokesperson: "When there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed a seizable offence the police may arrest the suspect. Handcuffs are used in arrests as there is always a risk of the suspect resisting arrest or trying to escape, except in occasions where the officers are confident of managing the risks, given the situation."

"However an arrest - whether or not handcuffs are used - must be seen in the correct light. It is neither meant to embarrass the suspect nor imply guilt. Even if a person is handcuffed in the course of his arrest, the Police still regards the person as innocent until and unless pronounced guilty by the court."

Police investigations are still ongoing.

Source: http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/viewPost1215.aspx

No! You don't understand anything at all.

Goes to prove how much you really know about Singapore laws and procedure.

Your information is only restricted to internet Google, not real procedural methods used by the police force.

LazerLordz SG

Now, the issue here is pre-emption of guilt that would have triggered the police to escort them out.

The most balanced thing to do would have to simply check them for any dangerous items, and since they've said on camera that they're going for lunch, give them the benefit of the doubt.

Alert the chaps inside that if they do something else disruptive and not have lunch as they said they would, then remove them.

Let's not all get carried away with kiasuism. In my opinion, focusing so much resources on these chaps is contributing to a potential weakness in the area security framework, because you're drawing down resources which could have better spent monitoring unknown elements.

These two fellows are known entities, you can be sure they are not terrorists or Greenpeace/PETA/Korean Farmers/Andean protester sorts.

googoomuck SG

Excerpts from ST free story:

Areas around 3 key Asean Summit venues 'protected'

"Such a security zone would allow police to conduct checks on persons found within the zone, and order persons found therein to leave the security zone if they pose a security threat to the Asean summit," said the police.

"Persons found engaging in activities which may compromise security within the security zones will be arrested and removed."

Members of the public are advised to keep away from the security zone unless they have a legitimate reason to be there.

Unless the hotels restaurants and lounges are also closed to public, anyone who wants to go there to eat has a legitimate reason to be there.

Police have the authority to search them for items, which may compromise security. I have no quarrel with that but theres no legitimate reason whatsoever to prevent the couple from going to the hotel to DINE.

Tell me. Why is that a problem?

maurizio13 SG

In Singapore, the basic presumption of guilt is always sticky till proven innocent. Laughing

I agree, they police should have just monitored them and remove them if they pose a security threat.

I think it's stupid to waste manpower resources of around two dozen police officers in the assigned location, on two members of the public (with political agenda), who poses no form of security threat.

The pair only pose an embarassment threat to the P4P government, not a security threat. Laughing

While the two dozen officers were focussing their attention on the duo, afew people who poses a genuine security threat could have slipped through.

foxtrout8 SG

wah my friend, dont insult yourself as if you know the procedures damn well and i dont.

i have quoted you 2 sections within the criminal procedure code on why there is no MUST ARREST for seziable offences and there is no MUST handcuff in all arrest.

it is legal for a police officer not to arrest a person whom committed seziable offence. it is also legal for a police officer if he/she chooses not to handcuff an arrested person. and there, the sign of arrest doesnt mean handcuff.

to benefit you i quote again,

"seizable offence" means an offence for which and seizable case means a case in which a police officer may ordinarily arrest without warrant according to the third column of Schedule A;

No unnecessary restraint.
28. (1) The person arrested shall not be subjected to more restraint than is necessary to prevent his escape.

both under the CPC

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_retrieve.pl?actno=REVED-224&doctitle=PENAL+CODE%0A&date=latest&method=part

foxtrout8 SG

Originally posted by maurizio13:

[b]Said a police spokesperson: "When there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed a seizable offence the police [b]may arrest the suspect. Handcuffs are used in arrests as there is always a risk of the suspect resisting arrest or trying to escape, except in occasions where the officers are confident of managing the risks, given the situation."[/b]

[/b]

your quote also prove my point that police may or may not arrest someone committed a seizable offence. police may or may not handcuff an arrested party depending on situation.

foxtrout8 SG

i think this arguement should go into the way of questioning how untactful and unwise the police was when they escort the group out.

the problem of legality is out of the question because clearly with as many possible quotation of the law that i had made, i had shown that it is legal. i however find that there is no point in rushing into unfound conclusion of abduction, kidnap, wrongful restraint just because some people in some website fancied it.

maurizio13 SG

I really peifu your interpretation lor.

Said a police spokesperson: "When there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed a seizable offence the police may arrest the suspect. Handcuffs are used in arrests as there is always a risk of the suspect resisting arrest or trying to escape, except in occasions where the officers are confident of managing the risks, given the situation."

Source: http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/viewPost1215.aspx

I really have to hand it to you. Go consult your English teacher on this.

You are telling me that the police has a choice of not arresting someone who has committed a seizable offence?

Is that right?

My quote from a police spokesperson states the police officer has a choice to arrest the person of a seizable offence if there are reasonable grounds.

It doesn't say that if a person has committed a seizable offence, the police can don't arrest him. You are stating that if the police officer saw someone murdering (seizable offence) another person, the police officer can choose not to arrest the person. Makes sense?

Police may or may not handcuff anybody for a seizable offence? Go call up the police hotline to ask the procedure for seizable offence. Else go ask any of your friends who are in the police force.

The SOP of seizable offence is always to handcuff the suspect. It's standard, like in the army, you have certain SOP, you don't deviate from those SOP.

I think you make a mockery of the law, not me.

If you still choose to interpret it the way you want to, just to win a discussion, it's up to you, no point for me to explain.

Your interpretation is, if the police sees a murder (seizable offence), the police officer can choose not to arrest the murderer.

For all seizable offence, the police can sometimes choose to handcuff the suspect, on other times if they feel up to it, they can decide not to handcuff the suspect. This is SOP. In the army, sometimes during BMT, in our full battle order items, we can choose not to carry entrenching tool and ground sheet.

foxtrout8 SG

Originally posted by maurizio13:

I really peifu your interpretation lor.

[b]Said a police spokesperson: "When there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed a seizable offence the police may arrest the suspect. Handcuffs are used in arrests as there is always a risk of the suspect resisting arrest or trying to escape, except in occasions where the officers are confident of managing the risks, given the situation."

Source: http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/viewPost1215.aspx

I really have to hand it to you. Go consult your English teacher on this.

You are telling me that the police has a choice of not arresting someone who has committed a seizable offence?

Is that right?

My quote from a police spokesperson states the police officer has a choice to arrest the person of a seizable offence if there are reasonable grounds.

It doesn't say that if a person has committed a seizable offence, the police can don't arrest him. You are stating that if the police officer saw someone murdering (seizable offence) another person, the police officer can choose not to arrest the person. Makes sense?

Police may or may not handcuff anybody for a seizable offence? Go call up the police hotline to ask the procedure for seizable offence. Else go ask any of your friends who are in the police force.

The SOP of seizable offence is always to handcuff the suspect. It's standard, like in the army, you have certain SOP, you don't deviate from those SOP.

I think you make a mockery of the law, not me.

If you still choose to interpret it the way you want to, just to win a discussion, it's up to you, no point for me to explain.

Your interpretation is, if the police sees a murder (seizable offence), the police officer can choose not to arrest the murderer.

For all seizable offence, the police can sometimes choose to handcuff the suspect, on other times if they feel up to it, they can decide not to handcuff the suspect. This is SOP. In the army, sometimes during BMT, in our full battle order items, we can choose not to carry entrenching tool and ground sheet.
[/b]

you know the difference between may, shall and must?

the law says may arrest or must arrest or shall arrest?

http://dictionary.law.com/ and look for the difference

the law says may arrest and thus shows that there is a choice.

maurizio13 SG

You have shown that it's legal?

You didn't even rebutt my points.

Regulate is to control within certain boundaries and you interpret in one of yoru replies as the police regulate, regulate and regulate till the pair is towards the exit then push them out.

If what you said about subsection 4(2) is true (that the police officer can remove the violator from the area), then why is there a need for subsection 4(3)? If the police has the authority to remove them from the area, subsection 4(3) becomes irrelevant. Maybe they have extra paper and ink, so they decided to use it up??? Laughing

Protected Areas:
(1).....

(2) Any person who is in any protected area shall comply with such directions for regulating his movement and conduct as may be given by an authorised officer, and an authorised officer may search any person entering, or seeking to enter, or being in, a protected area, and may detain any such person for the purpose of searching him.

(3) If any person while in a protected area fails to comply with any direction given under subsection (2), then, without prejudice to any proceedings which may be taken against him, he may be removed from the area by an authorised officer.

Laughing

foxtrout8 SG

the third part exist to give the authorised officers the power to escort anyone whom refuse to comply with the directions of the officer out of a protected area in the second part which includes, regulating movement, searching etc.

i made a parallel of the traffic policemen on why regulating movement includes the power to ask you to move out.

i never say the police have the power to remove you under the second part. asking you to exit does not equate to removing you. Removal is an physical action eg escorting out, warning you to exit is a verbal action with authority.

thus clearly under the second part, the police have the power to order you to move out. refuse to do so, they then remove you under the third part.

LazerLordz SG

Remember that the letter of the law is not wholly superior to the spirit of the law, as they need to exist together in concord, and in light of any greater strategic securityconcerns. That's the challenge to all authorities out there to realise what is the greater priority in security.

As far as I am concerned, it is a waste of police resources. Evidently, one Superintendent-level officer had to be diverted away from more important duties. If the AGC can announce that they will not enforce Section 377A, then the argument that this is an offence debatable and able to be unenforceable surely stands together.

foxtrout8 SG

i agree and i believe it is passable if the police officer chooses not to enforce however i am sticking here because some peope dont know that the police have the right to enforce and theres nothing illegal about it.

maurizio13 SG

If they have the power under subsection 4(2) and the suspect refuses to leave, you mean they need another subsection 4(3) to make the suspect leave. Laughing

I suppose the roads that traffic police regulate is now protected areas and protected places?

If the traffic police direct me to another exit, I can subsequently make a u-turn and go back to the same spot. Traffic is really a bad choice for your analogy, because you cannot stop in the middle of the road, whereas a person walking in the pavement can choose to stop.

You might as well say, the traffic police was regulating pedestrian on the walkway because the traffic lights were malfunctioning, the traffic police asked the pedestrians to walk, but some pedestrians chose not to walk and remain on the same side. Laughing

If you ask or request, the person can reject your request. Simple?

But what the police have done is exercise subsection 4(3) without even the suspect violating subsection 4(2).

I think the police did not follow procedure resulting in a violation of the Kidnapping Act, wrongful restraint.

So if you claim that the police asked them to leave, but they have no right to.

As agreed by you earlier.

So subsection 4(2) in the substance of the word "regulating" is NOT removal, then what rights have the police ask that the pair leave the area. Removal means detach, to severe from.

So if the police officer did not have the right to ask them to leave, the pair did not violate subsection 4(2).

If the pair did not violate subsection 4(2), why did the police enforce subsection 4(3)?

The reason why Superintendant Michael Tan acted so, was because he lost his cool after Mr. John Tan commented on him being a coward hiding behind his men.

Once you lose your cool, you lose reason and logic. Your adrenalin just takes over, you can see how piss he was after that comment from the video. He raised his voice.

LazerLordz SG

Touche.

Why come down personally to deal with this if you know you can't handle it.

maurizio13 SG

Very Happy

« Previous Page Next Page »