Punched and hit but police won't be taking action
-
If you persist in your view that i speculated, then answer my question. No wait, you already refused to answer....Originally posted by Pitot:....
Can't help it if my inference is taken as 'speculation', but hey prove me wrong. -
I wouldn't want to attack a bear......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
-
Really meh?? last time my sec sch gangster fight student police come gib them probation leh... so fight in sch kena fight outside wont kena?
kids out there now u know where to pick a fight eh -
Ha ha ha haarrr....
I can only laugh at such a system wherein no action will be taken by Police for Civil Cases, but if you are an MP, any case however slight can be escalated to the High Courts...!
Hahahaharrrr....
Instant Justice here is not for us common folks, we only get Instant Noodles...
wake up dah... -
What do u mean by civil case??
-
and they are asking why s'porean have bo chap attitude
-
let hope the bloody police chief come out to explain the matter. wtf and they still want to increase the civil servant salaries
-
If the police cannot protect you, then you better protect yourself.
Bring a bicycle chain, knife, parang or samurai sword with you wherever you go.
-
By and large a fight can be described as disrupting public order, in which case both will get arrested.
So in this case, the police decided to "siam". -
Never hear this unwritten law in the civil service meh?
Arrow to someone else if you can
If cannot arrow, siam
If cannot siam, hide
If cannot hide, delay
Better then being the scapegoat.
But tsk, tsk, tsk, how can somebody punch a woman over a kitten? -
no wonder our crime rate "so low"
beating up people dont count as crime liaoz
but window falling down is a CRIME 
-
Why do you think that the Singapore Police Force has the highest resignation rate among the entire Singapore work force? This is just one of the many reasons.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. -
Depends on the injuries that the other guy sustained. If it results in a fracture, emasculation, loss of sight/hearing, dismembering of any joints, permanent disfugration or any other criteria that would allow the case to be classified as voluntarily causing grevious hurt, sec 325 cap 224, then you will be placed under arrest.Originally posted by OO_OO_OO:so if i go beat the fuck out of the guy who said that, the police wont take action too?
If not, then it will fall under voluntarily causing hurt, sec 323 cap 224. In which, you would know by now, would require a magistrate's complaint to allow the police to have full investigative/arrest powers.
One reason why voluntarily causing hurt requires such a procedure is because it is needed to filer out the less serious cases from the ones which are more severe, but do not fall under sec 325 cap 224. As you can see, there is no in-between. Either you get injured real bad or you don't.
And technically, voluntarily causing hurt happens all the time. Even if you were to playfully hit your friend on the arm, then that would be voluntarily causing hurt too. As would be a slap to the face.
If an arrest is made everytime a call is made for cases of alleged assault, can you imagine what would happen? People will be saying cops jump the gun too early and are arrest-happy. And our lockups will overflow.
However, if it happens in view of the cops themselves, then they have full powers to effect arrest. -
If you hit an MP, you are deemed to be assaulting a public servant, and if he is working, then you would be assaulting him while he is in the discharge of his duties. An arrest will be the result.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? -
That's funny, because i don't see how teachers or other civil servants are likewise protected in that manner, off duty or otherwise?Originally posted by Tiggerific:If you hit an MP, you are deemed to be assaulting a public servant, and if he is working, then you would be assaulting him while he is in the discharge of his duties. An arrest will be the result.
It's a terrific law, that somehow manages to look after their own, completely ignoring the masses it was meant to protect instead.
I still don't see how the logic of of the term 'non-seizable' is applied to someone who continuously plummets someone else with obvious contempt for the law. If the police won't take responsibility, they are simply encouraging vigilantes. -
Isnt this plainly a criminal case?
if i am poor, then how? then everyone can punch me coz i got no $$ to file a case?
wtf we need police for? -
Assaulting a civil servant will only apply if the person is in the midst of carrying out his duty, sec 354 cap 224 [penal code].Originally posted by BillyBong:That's funny, because i don't see how teachers or other civil servants are likewise protected in that manner, off duty or otherwise?
It's a terrific law, that somehow manages to look after their own, completely ignoring the masses it was meant to protect instead.
I still don't see how the logic of of the term 'non-seizable' is applied to someone who continuously plummets someone else with obvious contempt for the law. If the police won't take responsibility, they are simply encouraging vigilantes.
Using criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of his duty.
Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both.
So, for example, if a student hits his teacher, this law will be applied. The law can be applied to other civil servants too, but the catch is that they have to be in the midst of carrying out their duties when they were assaulted. This is the only way in which the charge can go through. If not, case cannot jalan.
And I will do my best to resist the temptation to reply to your middle stanza, which reeks of sarcasm and is totally uncalled for. -
if you are poor, then you can seek legal aid.Originally posted by laurence82:Isnt this plainly a criminal case?
if i am poor, then how? then everyone can punch me coz i got no $$ to file a case?
wtf we need police for?
Alternatively, and some coppers do not know this, but all cases of voluntarily causing hurt are viewed on a case-by-case basis. Bearing in mind the merits of each case, the Head of Investigation can give his sanction and full investigation will be conducted without having to proceed with magistrate complaints.
And by law, assault is defined as a different thing altogether.
Assault.
Whoever makes any gesture or any preparation, intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault. -
You didn't do very well in that aspect.Originally posted by Tiggerific:And I will do my best to resist the temptation to reply to your middle stanza, which reeks of sarcasm and is totally uncalled for.
The sarcasm was pointedly obvious: if the law is flawed, shouldn't it be tweaked to protect the people? Throwing the book may tame some, but certainly will not encourage spirit-mindedness, with the 'mind my own business' attitude being openly practiced and subtly endorsed by our own police.
And they constantly 'remind' us to stay vigilant? For their benefit or ours? -
Brother, I apologise.Originally posted by BillyBong:You didn't do very well in that aspect.
The sarcasm was pointedly obvious: if the law is flawed, shouldn't it be tweaked to protect the people? Throwing the book may tame some, but certainly will not encourage spirit-mindedness, with the 'mind my own business' attitude being openly practiced and subtly endorsed by our own police.
And they constantly 'remind' us to stay vigilant? For their benefit or ours?
But you must understand that we have to act in accordance with the law. Yes, without a doubt, there are flaws, but in this case, the only way we as common people can go about rectifying it is to make a formal request with our MPs so that they can 'debate' it out in whatever it is they do at parliament house. Or wherever it may be.
And yes, discretonary powers can be applied, but only under certain circumstances. For example, non-seizable offences that occur in view of police officers will be treated as seizable offences, ie the offender can be arrested without a warrant. For non-seizable offences, there are restrictions to which the investigative & legal powers that they have.
basically there are two types of investigation cases: Police-Initiated investigations and people-initiated investigations. Unfortunately, sec 323 cap 224 would fall under the latter.
And for what it's worth, staying vigilant is for everyone's benefit. -
the police is only to protect the governments interests, not the citizens.
and they still put up all those posters with captions like "we are the ones keeping u safe at night, etc.." -
If you really think that Singapore is a very safe place, then I can only say that ignorance is bliss.Originally posted by mrwonderful:the police is only to protect the governments interests, not the citizens.
and they still put up all those posters with captions like "we are the ones keeping u safe at night, etc.." -
Let's review the situation that is contributing to dissent among the people:Originally posted by Tiggerific:Brother, I apologise.
But you must understand that we have to act in accordance with the law. Yes, without a doubt, there are flaws, but in this case, the only way we as common people can go about rectifying it is to make a formal request with our MPs so that they can 'debate' it out in whatever it is they do at parliament house. Or wherever it may be.
And yes, discretonary powers can be applied, but only under certain circumstances. For example, non-seizable offences that occur in view of police officers will be treated as seizable offences, ie the offender can be arrested without a warrant. For non-seizable offences, there are restrictions to which the investigative & legal powers that they have.
basically there are two types of investigation cases: Police-Initiated investigations and people-initiated investigations. Unfortunately, sec 323 cap 224 would fall under the latter.
And for what it's worth, staying vigilant is for everyone's benefit.
When Seng Han Tong gets 'assaulted', the perpertrator is arrested on the spot without a moment's hesitation. When the average man on the street is punched and beaten, he is offered a benign response. No arrests are made and no attempt to dilligently offer chase while the trail is warm, even after repeated requests from the victim.
After consulting the lawbook, yes it is proven that the police acted 'appropriately'. A civil servant performing his 'duties' was assaulted and the police duly acted according to the law. On the other hand, the guy assaulted at Geylang was not a civil servant, hence was required to lodge a complaint to the magistrate's court to pursue a 'civil case'.
Does this make sense? Both got assaulted, but the law offers secure protection to one party and rather neglects the other. Could the lopsided nature of this conundrum be more revealing? Or is it a broken reflection of a system gone very wrong in its approach?
This obvious flaw further widens the gap between equals, and adds weight to the phase: 'some are more equal than others'
As advocates of change and improvement, should we not try to constantly improve a system? I cannot fault the Police for not always being around when they are needed most, but they deserve to drop points for not responding when they should.
Some at least... -
If one touches someone on the wrong place,he might get flogging for molestation.But punching someone (excluding public officers)is just causing hurt under the law and the police can't arrest him.What's wrong with the law?
-
The kitten was tied tightly to a fence, that to me is grounds for an animal abuse case. Punching a woman should have already triggered at least two charges.
The man should have been in the slammer.