Assault 'a civil case', so no police action
-
Originally posted by redstone:
Enough has been said about our law enforcement and there's no need to repeat it, lest Audrey Ang give another sermon about lighter side of police bureaucracy.
letter was in Today yesterday. (notwithstanding that the assailant may be a mental case)
[b]"Bashed up by adult"
Letter from Zarina Jaffar
On Sept 24 at about 5.30pm, my 12-year-old son, who had just returned from the library, called to inform me that he would be at the playground behind my block in Woodlands to chat with some friends.
.
Barely half an hour later, I received a call informing me that my son had been beaten up. He had been punched in the nose, jumped on and kicked repeatedly by an adult male of about 30 years of age. My son's three friends had stood there frozen in shock.
.
My husband and I rushed to the scene to find our son lying on the floor with a bloody nose, crying.
.
Other adults in the area just looked the other way. When I tried to find out what had happened, they gestured as if to say, don't bother me. But I understand why they did not want to get involved..
While I would like to commend the police for their prompt response to my call, I was disappointed that they couldn't do much.
.
As this is a non-seizable case, the police are not empowered to arrest the man until I lodge a formal complaint to the magistrate.
.
My son said he had seen this man on a few occasions, sometimes talking to himself and, at other times, acting friendly. This seems to suggest that he could be mentally troubled.
.
If the talk among my neighbours is to be believed, my son may not be his first victim. My boy did not provoke him but was attacked out of the blue.
.
From my understanding, the police can take action only when there is serious injury or a loss of life and limb. My boy had a swollen nose and cuts on his head and was given outpatient treatment. This is termed as a "simple injury".
.
I should think that any form of assault, especially unprovoked and involving a young victim, should be covered by the Children and Young Persons Act — no matter how "simple" it is — and the police should have the right to act without a court order.
.
Making our own enquiries, we found out which block and probable floor on which assailant lived. But this information was of no use as the police couldn't do much.
.
My husband is even toying with the idea of giving the assailant as good as our son got.
.
It seems there is a loophole in the law that can be easily exploited. All along, we had believed that any form of assault, however minor, gave the police the power of arrest.
.
I am glad the man did not have a weapon with him at that time or the consequences would have been graver.
.
We find it a hassle to lodge a complaint with the magistrate and are willing to let the matter rest if it is proven that the assailant is, indeed, mentally ill.
.
However, I do hope the authorities will ensure that he seeks medical help. Otherwise, he will continue to be a menace to residents in my neighbourhood."[/b]
I'm more keen to focus on the fact that people simply stood by and did NOTHING while some stranger beat up on a 12-yr-old. Our people are not just apathetic, they're PATHETIC.
Sometimes, if s-h-i-t happens, i can't say i'll depend too much on my fellow Singaporeans for help. This is where ang mohs outscore us heavily and i'm ashamed to agree. -
I look at the article, and have the following to raise:
>> What is the Police good for, if their hands are tied up by Red Tapes?
- this issue of 'loopholes' in the policing system should be raised in
parliament by respective MPs, so that the Police can serve the general
public more effectively.
>> What is a mentally unsound person doing in society?
-If he has a mental background or history, the immediate members of his
family should be held responsible for what happened. The person should
be kept in a Mental Institute - not in society where he can cause harm.
>> If parents of child were aware of such a character around in their
neighborhood, why was child NOT supervised or allowed to play alone?
This incident I feel, happened because of complacency on the part of victim's parents. -
I agree with what you said, Billy.Originally posted by BillyBong:Enough has been said about our law enforcement and there's no need to repeat it, lest Audrey Ang give another sermon about lighter side of police bureaucracy.
I'm more keen to focus on the fact that people simply stood by and did NOTHING while some stranger beat up on a 12-yr-old. Our people are not just apathetic, they're PATHETIC.
Sometimes, if s-h-i-t happens, i can't say i'll depend too much on my fellow Singaporeans for help. This is where ang mohs outscore us heavily and i'm ashamed to agree.
But it's purely cause and effects that people in our society, do not emulate those of our western counterparts. Society here were over decades, taught to look after their own needs as there will be no Hand Outs, No Free Lunches, and so forth.
As a result, it has become every man to himself.
As an example, I would like to quote; A child grows up to become what he/she is, based on HOW he/she was brought up.
We now have in our hands, 40 years of corrections to make in the character of our society. -
The hilarious thing is that if a gay couple are having sex in the privacy of their own bedroom and accidentally leave the curtains open and a nosy neighbour reports them, it IS a seizable offence under singapore law.
Go figure. -
Have you ever seen a mango, with some green and some yellow patches all over because it is not fully ripe yet? And if you eat it, it will be sour and sweet?Originally posted by av98m:The hilarious thing is that if a gay couple are having sex in the privacy of their own bedroom and accidentally leave the curtains open and a nosy neighbour reports them, it IS a seizable offence under singapore law.
Go figure.
Well, this fitfully describes our policing and legal system here!
Half Ripe! -
BTW, there are quite a few regular nutcases that wander around the Clementi area, usually talking to themselves but sometimes they will start conversations with complete strangers. Those I've encountered are all middle aged men. Don't leave your kids alone around Clementi central, especially at McDonalds.
-
You know, back in the days when i was young and reckless, about 3-4 years ago, me and my gang beat up this very guai lan kid. The police was called and we were all arrested.
Thats was really some experience, after some intergoration, we were let off and this case is over.
haha...tht poor boy kenna beaten by like 6-7 of us. We really thrash him. But serve him right...he was far too guai lan. We take the law in our hands. screw the police. -
First, itÂ’s a seedy place.
Second, the place is full of sleazy characters.
Third, it was 11:30 pm, April 15, Sat.
WhatÂ’s a doctor doing alone in the wrong place at the wrong time among the wrong kind of people.?
Eating his favourite food? WhatÂ’s that? Beaver?
ItÂ’s a waste of resource to have police patrolling these premises too frequently. So, I would think that police would engage the help of sleazy characters to help watch over the areas. I learned about this possibility from Hollywood moviesÂ….hehe
There must be thousands of people in that area but only a doctor got beaten up that night!
Drunken brawls are common but having 6,7 men beat up a man is unusualÂ…Â…unless the man had it coming to him. -
hi,Originally posted by redstone:
I think there's nothing wrong with what actions and police advised. This case is classified as Voluntarily Causing Hurt. As in this case, even police is called in, as this offence was not commited in the presence of the police officers, therefore it's not a seizable offence and it's consider as civil suit claim.
The victim should lodge a complaint at the Subordinate court to file for Magistrate complaint and then let the magistrate to decide whether to assign the officers to effect the arrest of the assailant.
This may sound upset or cause anger to the complainant, but it's how the law runs. In the meantime, the victim should go to the hospital for a medical review and get the medical report. -
Their actions commensurate with their pay.Originally posted by PRP:When Dr Liew was assaulted by strangers, common sense tell us the police should take immediate action to arrest the attackers.So what had gone wrong with the policemen?Lazy or no common sense?
Pay peanut, get monkey.
-
hmm.. Mind to elaborate what did that guy do?Originally posted by pinkish purple papayas:You know, back in the days when i was young and reckless, about 3-4 years ago, me and my gang beat up this very guai lan kid. The police was called and we were all arrested.
Thats was really some experience, after some intergoration, we were let off and this case is over.
haha...tht poor boy kenna beaten by like 6-7 of us. We really thrash him. But serve him right...he was far too guai lan. We take the law in our hands. screw the police. -
The underlying requirement: the victim should go to the hospital for a medical review and get the medical report. is either conceived by a pencil pusher or a desktop bureaucrat.Originally posted by batmanbegins:hi,
I think there's nothing wrong with what actions and police advised. This case is classified as Voluntarily Causing Hurt. As in this case, even police is called in, as this offence was not commited in the presence of the police officers, therefore it's not a seizable offence and it's consider as civil suit claim.
The victim should lodge a complaint at the Subordinate court to file for Magistrate complaint and then let the magistrate to decide whether to assign the officers to effect the arrest of the assailant.
This may sound upset or cause anger to the complainant, but it's how the law runs. In the meantime, the victim should go to the hospital for a medical review and get the medical report.
If the police are incapable of even detaining obvious assailants after an OBVIOUS crime has been committed, then a sense of lawlessness is sweeping over Singapore. I could easily beat up on another person, claim that person stared and provoked me, and the police can't do a damn thing.
If that's justice for you, then go ahead and 'agree' with the police actions.
The biggest gangsters in Singapore are the police themselves; now that they've been exposed as inadequate, they cling to the law and use it to brow beat the 'dumb' public into submission. -
You want 'justice'?
PAY FOR IT....
-
Originally posted by BillyBong:
As usual, you have let loose a a barrage of vitriolic comments without considering the merits of distinguishing between seizable and non-seizable offences. Without such a distinction, we will force the police to arrest every husband or wife in a domestic dispute or kids who slap each other in the playground. Not only is that a waste of valuable police resources, do you really want to turn Singapore into a police state?
The underlying requirement: [b]the victim should go to the hospital for a medical review and get the medical report. is either conceived by a pencil pusher or a desktop bureaucrat.
If the police are incapable of even detaining obvious assailants after an OBVIOUS crime has been committed, then a sense of lawlessness is sweeping over Singapore. I could easily beat up on another person, claim that person stared and provoked me, and the police can't do a damn thing.
If that's justice for you, then go ahead and 'agree' with the police actions.
The biggest gangsters in Singapore are the police themselves; now that they've been exposed as inadequate, they cling to the law and use it to brow beat the 'dumb' public into submission. [/b]
Making it a requirement for a magistrate's order in non-seizable offences will enable a judge to decide if there is a prima facie case for further police action. That is reasonable and will weed out frivolous and groundless allegations. -
Maybe, you should try reading what you just wrote, after having been beaten up black and blue by some gang of hoodlums....Originally posted by oxford mushroom:As usual, you have let loose a a barrage of vitriolic comments without considering the merits of distinguishing between seizable and non-seizable offences. Without such a distinction, we will force the police to arrest every husband or wife in a domestic dispute or kids who slap each other in the playground. Not only is that a waste of valuable police resources, do you really want to turn Singapore into a police state?
Making it a requirement for a magistrate's order in non-seizable offences will enable a judge to decide if there is a prima facie case for further police action. That is reasonable and will weed out frivolous and groundless allegations.
.. then if you can still quote the same, I'd respect your views.
-
Once again, you use the excuse of domestic disturbance as a benchmark to explain why the police require to follow 'procedure' before making any arrests.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:As usual, you have let loose a a barrage of vitriolic comments without considering the merits of distinguishing between seizable and non-seizable offences. Without such a distinction, we will force the police to arrest every husband or wife in a domestic dispute or kids who slap each other in the playground. Not only is that a waste of valuable police resources, do you really want to turn Singapore into a police state?
Making it a requirement for a magistrate's order in non-seizable offences will enable a judge to decide if there is a prima facie case for further police action. That is reasonable and will weed out frivolous and groundless allegations.
I believe i have already answered you on that part, and i totally agree that there must be some pre-conditions to dictate arrest. I'm not saying arrest everyone and anyone who so much as crosses the line, but if the police are unable to assess the situation on the spot and require a magistrate to determine the adequate course of action, what does that say about our boys in blue?
How EFFECTIVE will they be then?
In this instance, it hardly constitutes 'domestic disturbance' does it? In fact, it clearly falls under rioting (without dangerous weapons).
What's to stop the police from arresting those responsible on the spot? They're willing to pull out all the stops for Chee and co, but defer a clearly criminal act to the magistrate's court?
What kind of double standards are we adopting here? -
Originally posted by BillyBong:
The police has to follow the law and now they find a 'good' law to 'keng'.
The underlying requirement: [b]the victim should go to the hospital for a medical review and get the medical report. is either conceived by a pencil pusher or a desktop bureaucrat.
If the police are incapable of even detaining obvious assailants after an OBVIOUS crime has been committed, then a sense of lawlessness is sweeping over Singapore. I could easily beat up on another person, claim that person stared and provoked me, and the police can't do a damn thing.
If that's justice for you, then go ahead and 'agree' with the police actions.
........ now that they've been exposed as inadequate, they cling to the law and use it to brow beat the 'dumb' public into submission. [/b] -
The police must follow the law and until the law is changed, they cannot act above the law and effect an illegal arrest.Originally posted by BillyBong:I'm not saying arrest everyone and anyone who so much as crosses the line, but if the police are unable to assess the situation on the spot and require a magistrate to determine the adequate course of action, what does that say about our boys in blue?
Should we change the law then? You have every right to petition your MP to draft a bill of amendment but until it is passed, bot you and the police must obey the law.
Police are enforcers of the law, it is not for them to judge if there is a prima facie case. That remains the prerogative and the duty of a magistrate. -
I am sure you would take the law into your own hands in those circumstances.Originally posted by ShutterBug:Maybe, you should try reading what you just wrote, after having been beaten up black and blue by some gang of hoodlums....
.. then if you can still quote the same, I'd respect your views. -
Myself, under those circumstances, being outnumbered and beaten up for no reasons and if I'm still alive and able to take note of the assailants, I would seek Police assistance. And if going through the "prescribed" legal procedures led to the culprits getting away, I'd publicly EXPOSE the inefficiency of the system!Originally posted by oxford mushroom:I am sure you would take the law into your own hands in those circumstances.
-
By responding to rioting, they are required to act. If not arrest, then what are they expected to do? Read out verbal warnings?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:The police must follow the law and until the law is changed, they cannot act above the law and effect an illegal arrest.
Should we change the law then? You have every right to petition your MP to draft a bill of amendment but until it is passed, bot you and the police must obey the law.
Police are enforcers of the law, it is not for them to judge if there is a prima facie case. That remains the prerogative and the duty of a magistrate.
I fail to see how upholding the law does not extend to making necessary arrests and due action where called upon. This just smacks of a failure to take the necessary responsibility demanded of the blue uniform.
It's shameful when a cop will go out of his way to observe and interrogate anyone who speaks to alternative party members, going as far as videotaping their conversations and the people involved, when they won't lift a finger to address real criminal activities. -
Do you know the legal definition of rioting? The alleged offence in this case was committed by one man, for God's sake:Originally posted by BillyBong:In this instance, it hardly constitutes 'domestic disturbance' does it? In fact, it clearly falls under rioting (without dangerous weapons).He had been punched in the nose, jumped on and kicked repeatedly by an adult male of about 30 years of age.
Please go and read up on Criminal Law. The police was right in classifying this case as voluntarily causing hurt. -
A PAP MP was punched by a taxi driver
Regarding the recent case of a PAP MP was punched by a taxi driver,why didn't the police classify it as a 'non-seizable' offence and asked the MP to make a complaint to a magistrate?In fact,the MP said he pardoned the taxi driver.
Is the case a 'non-seizable' offence? -
A PAP MP was punched by a taxi driver
Regarding the recent case of a PAP MP was punched by a taxi driver,why didn't the police classify it as a 'non-seizable' offence and asked the MP to make a complaint to a magistrate?In fact,the MP said he pardoned the taxi driver.
Is the case a 'non-seizable' offence? -
Fine. One man.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Please go and read up on Criminal Law. The police was right in classifying this case as voluntarily causing hurt.
Would the situation have changed had it been 2 or more? Judging by the very first case that started this thread, the answer is a firm NO.
You're missing the point.