Punched and hit but police won't be taking action
-
guide to getting away with assault in singapore:Originally posted by ORIGAMIST:Funny, if I remember correctly, a taxi driver hit an MP in AMK area and he was charged ...
1. choose your targets - MPs, foreigners, especially ang mohs, not okay, peasants, no problem, kantang peasants still boleh, as long as they confirmed are confirmed peasants, blue collar heartlander types lagi better ... they don't know enough of the law to file a civil suit, not that they can afford a lawyer after paying for their koyoh anyways ...
2. be mindful of who you are .... if you are ang moh, and classified as a foreign talent, you can get away with even drug offenses no problem ... if you're a local elite, no problem either ... plus points if you get your face plastered regularly on the tatler ...
3. choose your location and timing .... crowds are okay, no one will lift a finger to help your victim anyways ... chances are, people will flip open their handphones to take videos of your victims getting pwnzed, instead of calling the police ....
4. don't be afraid of the mata, they are more afraid of complaints and paperwork, sides, many of those on patrol are NSF who only want to get off at 5 .... -
But they did not.. so it should show that they didnt have enough proof?Originally posted by the Bear:actually, as long as there is proof that there was violence, the cops should be able to arrest the perp..
and YES!! if i happen to see an animal being abused, i WILL kaypoh
and if the guy is going to attack me, GOD HELP HIM
how do we know if the animal is being abused man....
edit:
we also dont know if they had enough proof or not.
-
yes you're right, there's always two sides to the story ... perhaps I'm being cynical here ....Originally posted by Pitot:There is always 2 sides to the story.
Its easy to visualise what happened and say that the officers shld arrest the man. But they need proof.
If they arrest the man, he could have wrote a letter to ST and said, hey i didnt do anything man! I am innocent until proven guilty! where did that go? I was treated like i was guilty!
Its the the law makers. unhappy about it? want to help the police do their job?
go do something to make the lawmakers change the law.
If not you will see this happen more and more n more.
The officers clearly had an option to treat this as a civil case. so help make that option a non option. instead of saying they are not doing their job.
Of course if they have to make an arrest.. u will again see people saying.. everything also arrest.. gov trying to suppress the population!
cant impress everyone.
then again, if only one party needs to go to the hospital, that's quite telling eh ? ....
I'm sorry ... perhaps I'm just sick of reading about incidents like these, and watching video clips on youtube ... and at the same time, watching legions of policemen surrounding a few harmless nutters from the SDP every time the latter decides to stage a comedy act .... -
If she requests for an ambulance. They would have to call one.Originally posted by Fatum:then again, if only one party needs to go to the hospital, that's quite telling eh ? ....
And besides, she didnt even post the result of the checkup... -
This kind of argument has been used far too often, citing the other extreme as the basis why action is not taken, and is fast losing legitimacy.Originally posted by Pitot:There is always 2 sides to the story.
Its easy to visualise what happened and say that the officers shld arrest the man. But they need proof.
If they arrest the man, he could have wrote a letter to ST and said, hey i didnt do anything man! I am innocent until proven guilty! where did that go? I was treated like i was guilty!
Its the the law makers. unhappy about it? want to help the police do their job?
go do something to make the lawmakers change the law.
If not you will see this happen more and more n more.
The officers clearly had an option to treat this as a civil case. so help make that option a non option. instead of saying they are not doing their job.
Of course if they have to make an arrest.. u will again see people saying.. everything also arrest.. gov trying to suppress the population!
cant impress everyone.
As per the previous thread, why are discretionary powers not given to the police? If they feel their hands are tied, might as well resign since they can't carry out their job.
Even if the law catagorizes such an act under a civil suit and the police claim bureaucratic red tape, what's to stop the guy from repeating his assault once the officers are gone from the scene?
Should it become another 'i told you so' case, where inaction from the police resulted in more serious consequences for the victim? Who will take responsibility for it then?
Allowing the police to take the easier choice of two options plainly displays their 'passion' for lesser paperwork and no-trouble, instead of 'to protect and to serve'.
If such an incident is not arrestable, why the double standards for Seng Han Tong? Can Wong Kan Seng (or yourself) answer this question? -
hmmz the person who rushed to the shop is a female arh?
then say he tried to molest her lor. got his dna on her clothes and body too>?? -
The letter writer obviously hasn't learnt from the previous case. No fracture, no case. Its that simple.
-
perhaps you're right peetoot .... yeah, I've seen enough of those querulous ah sohs ...Originally posted by Pitot:If she requests for an ambulance. They would have to call one.
And besides, she didnt even post the result of the checkup...
but let's give her the benefit of the doubt, and put the specifics aside for the moment shall we ? ... I'm just venting out my feelings with my posts above ...
something is going very wrong with our society ... -
uhhh.. the lady got slugged?
she was running away from the dude.. took refuge in the kopitiam?Originally posted by Pitot:But they did not.. so it should show that they didnt have enough proof?
how do we know if the animal is being abused man....
edit:
we also dont know if they had enough proof or not. -
If you think this shouldnt happen, den lobby for the law to change.Originally posted by BillyBong:This kind of argument has been used far too often, citing the other extreme as the basis why action is not taken, and is fast losing legitimacy.
As per the previous thread, why are discretionary powers not given to the police? If they feel their hands are tied, might as well resign since they can't carry out their job.
Even if the law catagorizes such an act under a civil suit and the police claim bureaucratic red tape, what's to stop the guy from repeating his assault once the officers are gone from the scene?
Should it become another 'i told you so' case, where inaction from the police resulted in more serious consequences for the victim? Who will take responsibility for it then?
Allowing the police to take the easier choice of two options plainly displays their 'passion' for lesser paperwork and no-trouble, instead of 'to protect and to serve'.
If such an incident is not arrestable, why the double standards for Seng Han Tong? Can Wong Kan Seng (or yourself) answer this question?
ANd dont bring in the politics here, i am here to discuss about the letter. Not interested in the politics my friend. -
it has always been wrong.Originally posted by Fatum:something is going very wrong with our society ... -
thats what she said man.. what about the guy's side..Originally posted by the Bear:uhhh.. the lady got slugged?
she was running away from the dude.. took refuge in the kopitiam?
What abt the shopkeeper? He would be a very good withness..
but looking at the case.. dont think that he gave his statement. -
well its one side of the story. she may not even be telling the truth. although the fact that police will not take action unless serious injuries is real.Originally posted by Fatum:perhaps you're right peetoot .... yeah, I've seen enough of those querulous ah sohs ...
but let's give her the benefit of the doubt, and put the specifics aside for the moment shall we ? ... I'm just venting out my feelings with my posts above ...
something is going very wrong with our society ...
and when was our society right? -
that's the trouble with the people around... they are selectively blind..
well, hey.. here's another.. if the woman needs to seek shelter and the man is behaving aggressively.. that's Criminal Intimidation...
whatever the way you look at it, the cops should do something..
the sad thing is that like one of them said, there is discretionary powers.. but the spineless higher-ups won't stand by their officers when they exercise it... they're too concerned with the KPIs...
and i know what i'm talking about here.. i get enough &$@# from higher ups about KPIs when we should be standing our ground and fighting it out...Originally posted by Pitot:thats what she said man.. what about the guy's side..
What abt the shopkeeper? He would be a very good withness..
but looking at the case.. dont think that he gave his statement. -
Pretty much says it all.Originally posted by the Bear:but the spineless higher-ups won't stand by their officers when they exercise it... -
Is that the best you can come up with? 'lobby for change'?Originally posted by Pitot:If you think this shouldnt happen, den lobby for the law to change.
ANd dont bring in the politics here, i am here to discuss about the letter. Not interested in the politics my friend.
And where did i bring in politics? Wong Kan Seng is the home affairs ministers, in short the 'comdr-in-chief' of the our home team, making him indirectly responsible for their actions/inactions.
Seng Han Tong, politics aside, is just another citizen of this country, who is clearly afforded preferential treatment in identical circumstances, except he didn't run for cover in a Kopitiam.
Stop trying to skirt the obvious and address the question: Why is preferential treatment extended? -
unfortunately, no man is above the law..
however, some are more equal than others...
would be good if the citizens of ivory towers get hammered with the kind of BS they propagate..
back to that topic..
there was criminal intimidation.. nothing was done?
has the cowardice of the top caused the rank and file to become cynical and demoralised?Originally posted by Pitot:If you think this shouldnt happen, den lobby for the law to change.
ANd dont bring in the politics here, i am here to discuss about the letter. Not interested in the politics my friend. -
I was stating my opinion on what happened.Originally posted by BillyBong:Is that the best you can come up with? 'lobby for change'?
And where did i bring in politics? Wong Kan Seng is the home affairs ministers, in short the 'comdr-in-chief' of the our home team, making him indirectly responsible for their actions/inactions.
Seng Han Tong, politics aside, is just another citizen of this country, who is clearly afforded preferential treatment in identical circumstances, except he didn't run for cover in a Kopitiam.
Stop trying to skirt the obvious and address the question: Why is preferential treatment extended?
And u quoted me.
Stop trying to force me to answer ur question when i wasnt even making a reference to the preferential treatment issue.
I already siad i was here to give my opinion about the case. -
so if i go beat the fuck out of the guy who said that, the police wont take action too?Originally posted by BillyBong:April 4, 2007
the police would not be taking any action as it was a 'civil case'. -
Got to ask the frontline men. However, i doubt they will give u a strong answer.Originally posted by the Bear:unfortunately, no man is above the law..
however, some are more equal than others...
would be good if the citizens of ivory towers get hammered with the kind of BS they propagate..
back to that topic..
there was criminal intimidation.. nothing was done?
has the cowardice of the top caused the rank and file to become cynical and demoralised?
The attacks on the policemen serving our nation should stop.
Of course the bad apples should be made known to all.
Do one thing get F. do the other get F also. LPPL situation. -
In response to your earlier quote of my opinions, i simply showed you preferential treatment exists, which increases the legitimacy of the victim's letter, showing an obvious lack of justice whatever the law says.Originally posted by Pitot:I was stating my opinion on what happened.
And u quoted me.
Stop trying to force me to answer ur question when i wasnt even making a reference to the preferential treatment issue.
I already siad i was here to give my opinion about the case.
Whatever your intentions, it seemed you clearly believe the officers did the 'right' thing, because they were simply following 'procedure'.
Either way, there is no need to answer my question, because you clearly don't have an answer at all. -
If you can speculate so much, why cant u speculate from the other side of the story?Originally posted by BillyBong:In response to your earlier quote of my opinions, i simply showed you preferential treatment exists, which increases the legitimacy of the victim's letter, showing an obvious lack of justice whatever the law says.
Whatever your intentions, it seemed you clearly believe the officers did the 'right' thing, because they were simply following 'procedure'.
Either way, there is no need to answer my question, because you clearly don't have an answer at all. -
Why is there a need to speculate when the victim has provided a vivid account of the whole incident?Originally posted by Pitot:If you can speculate so much, why cant u speculate from the other side of the story?
The home team clearly exercised their authority by informing the victim to lodge a formal complaint, thereby following 'procedure' as dictated.
Have i speculated at all? -
Tell me something new...?
-
Originally posted by BillyBong:Why is there a need to speculate when the victim has provided a vivid account of the whole incident?
The home team clearly exercised their authority by informing the victim to lodge a formal complaint, thereby following 'procedure' as dictated.
Have i speculated at all?Originally posted by BillyBong:Whatever your intentions, it seemed you clearly believe the officers did the 'right' thing, because they were simply following 'procedure'.
Either way, there is no need to answer my question, because you clearly don't have an answer at all.