Punched and hit but police won't be taking action
-
Originally posted by BillyBong:
Actually, it is not a 'civil case'. a civil case is one in which police intervention is not required, simply because there is no offence disclosed. however, in this case, there is an offence disclosed, therefore it is not a 'civil case'. the officers were wrong to claim as such. this type of offence is a 'non-seizable offence'.
Let's review the situation that is contributing to dissent among the people:
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: [b]'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...[/b]
the main difference being, the police cannot arrest the perpetrator without a warrant, and there are also limited powers of investigation. certain special rights [sec 120, 121, 125 and 126] of the criminal procedure code [cap 68] cannot be exercised at all. yes, the police can and will investigate, but their powers are limited to a certain extent. this is what happens when the offence is a non-seizable one. if the offence is a seizable offence, then there will be no issues because an arrest can be effected immediately, without a warrant. and the special rights as mentioned above can be exercised too.
again, as I said, the difference in the two cases that you have mentioned is that one guy is a civil servant deemed to be on duty while the other is not. but i also believe that the reason why people react strongly to this matter is because of the perceived lack of action on the Police's part. To assume that, however, is very, very wrong.
preliminary investigations will be under way. however, there is a limit to police powers in these type of cases, as I have said. so, in order for police to be able to exercise full powers of investigation, the police would require either the green light from a magistrate, or a sanction from the head investigation of the police div concerned. So all the Police can do will be to conduct preliminary & limited investigations until they receive the green light from the magistrate.
the primary purpose in requiring a magistrate's intervention in such cases is because as I have mentioned before, technically, voluntarily causing hurt happens all the time. the hurt caused can be from anything from a quick flick of the hand, to a punch. the hurt caused is starkly different, but it will still fall back into the same classification.
the magistrate will hear out each case, and depending on each case's merits, he will decide if police intervention is necessary. if it is, then the police division concerned will then be empowered with full investigation powers.
you also have to understand that the Police do not have unlimited powers, they're not above the law. they too have their hands tied sometimes. It is not really about a lack of initiative, but rather a sucky feeling knowing that they literally cannot do much, even though their help is very much needed.
and for what it's worth, i've also added a link showing how one can go about making a magistrate's complaint.
http://app.subcourts.gov.sg/criminal/page.aspx?pageid=10028 -
in reply to PRP.
Outraging of the modesty of a women and voluntarily causing hurt/volutarily causing grevious hurt although both of the above offences involves physical contact. Its the action taken and intention of the person which will be taken into consideration to decide what offence he/she has committed.
When u are in bed with a women, u wun go punching her vital sexual organs i guess. n if u are going 2 fight a women u wun go n fondle wif her sexual organs i guess.
so please make the right analogy. thanks. -
In all aspects, the probable reason why these are happening is because the law has not been further compartmentalized to cover obvious bases. With regards to 'non-seizable' offence, where police officers without a warrent cannot arrest a person who is deemed to have committed an offence, it has to be made clear what precise catagory this falls under.Originally posted by Tiggerific:Actually, it is not a 'civil case'. a civil case is one in which police intervention is not required, simply because there is no offence disclosed. however, in this case, there is an offence disclosed, therefore it is not a 'civil case'. the officers were wrong to claim as such. this type of offence is a 'non-seizable offence'.
the main difference being, the police cannot arrest the perpetrator without a warrant, and there are also limited powers of investigation. certain special rights [sec 120, 121, 125 and 126] of the criminal procedure code [cap 68] cannot be exercised at all. yes, the police can and will investigate, but their powers are limited to a certain extent. this is what happens when the offence is a non-seizable one. if the offence is a seizable offence, then there will be no issues because an arrest can be effected immediately, without a warrant. and the special rights as mentioned above can be exercised too.
again, as I said, the difference in the two cases that you have mentioned is that one guy is a civil servant deemed to be on duty while the other is not. but i also believe that the reason why people react strongly to this matter is because of the perceived lack of action on the Police's part. To assume that, however, is very, very wrong.
preliminary investigations will be under way. however, there is a limit to police powers in these type of cases, as I have said. so, in order for police to be able to exercise full powers of investigation, the police would require either the green light from a magistrate, or a sanction from the head investigation of the police div concerned. So all the Police can do will be to conduct preliminary & limited investigations until they receive the green light from the magistrate.
the primary purpose in requiring a magistrate's intervention in such cases is because as I have mentioned before, technically, voluntarily causing hurt happens all the time. the hurt caused can be from anything from a quick flick of the hand, to a punch. the hurt caused is starkly different, but it will still fall back into the same classification.
the magistrate will hear out each case, and depending on each case's merits, he will decide if police intervention is necessary. if it is, then the police division concerned will then be empowered with full investigation powers.
you also have to understand that the Police do not have unlimited powers, they're not above the law. they too have their hands tied sometimes. It is not really about a lack of initiative, but rather a sucky feeling knowing that they literally cannot do much, even though their help is very much needed.
and for what it's worth, i've also added a link showing how one can go about making a magistrate's complaint.
http://app.subcourts.gov.sg/criminal/page.aspx?pageid=10028
In cases where evidence of injury and eyewitness allows an IO to draw a reasonable assessment of the situation, they should be given powers to make discretionary arrests, if only to conduct their interrogations earlier while the case is still warm. This should not be seen as officers acting above the law or abusing their powers.
In the case of the Mazda rookie who took an MX-5 for a spin and ended up causing the death of the sales executive, surely there was sufficient evidence to at least suspend his license pending the outcome of investigation? How he could continue to visit show rooms and check out new cars is really beyond me.
At the end of the day, it is too convenient to hide behind procedure in the performance of official duties. If it impedes an officer, then it should be reviewed and revised. -
The above is Ms. Kong's interpretation of what happened to her. Anyone reading her article will feel incensed at the police for not doing more. However, none of us really know what happened, do we? Ms. Kong stated that ' Suddenly, a man shouted at me, claiming I was trying to steal his kitten. Before I could utter a word, he punched me in the face.'Originally posted by BillyBong:April 4, 2007
Punched and hit but police won't be taking action
ON THE night of March 13 I chanced upon a kitten at Block 506 along Bishan Street 11. It was tied to a fence so tightly that it looked as if it was having difficulty breathing so I decided to try to release it. Suddenly, a man shouted at me, claiming I was trying to steal his kitten.
Before I could utter a word, he punched me in the face. As I staggered backwards I tried to explain but he punched me a second time. Fearing for my life, I picked myself up and ran. The man chased after me, hurling abuse along the way.
I ran into a nearby shop to seek refuge as well as to call the police. The man followed me in, proclaiming that he wasn't scared of the authorities. He grabbed my bag and used it to strike me.
The shopkeeper told the man to back off as he did not want trouble inside his shop.
After calling the police a few times, two officers finally arrived about 20 minutes later. One took down my particulars as well as my account of what had happened while the other appeared to do the same with my assailant.
An ambulance was called and I was taken to hospital for a checkup. Upon being discharged, I immediately filed a police report.
Three days later, when I managed to speak to the officer-in-charge on the phone, I was told that the police would not be taking any action as it was a 'civil case'. I was told to file a magistrate's complaint, which I did.
What is the role of the police in such cases, where hurt has been caused?
What kind of message is the police sending to people such as the individual who assaulted me?
Kong Lai Meng (Ms)
Now if we are to visualize the scene, we have to conclude that two things could have happened to cause Ms. Kong getting punched.
1) The man is mentally unstable, lurking around the area looking for
someone to hit and Ms. Kong happened to be his target;
2) The man HAD words with Ms. Kong and she used insulting words that
provoked and incited the man to punch her
My first train of thought is, if I was in Ms. Kong's shoes, I would have called the police to complain about the kitten being tied up to the fence. That is, if there is a guy hovering near the fence.
My second thought is, what is that guy doing near her? Assuming what Ms. Kong said about the guy accusing her of stealing his kitten is true, can anyone here say, she kept quiet all the time even as she attempted to free the kitten? And if Ms. Kong is just a guai guai girl/woman, she would have retreated when she heard the guy's accusation, wouldn't she? I mean, if faced with a possible nasty man, the natural instinct for a meek person is flight not fight, am I right? After all, her sole intention was to free a kitten not to engage in verbal warfare with anyone, correct?
Whatever it is, it is wrong for the man to hit her, of course. Ms. Kong claimed she was punched on her face. In that case, based on a normal man's strength, that punch would have caused some form of bleeding, especially if the nose got it. Why did the man targeted her face and not shoved her away? I suspect it was to shut her up, possible?
All in all, as a woman myself, I would not engage in aggravation with any stranger in public because I feel there are other recourses I can take if I am to be in a similar case scenario as Ms. Kong. Other than calling the police or the SPCA, I would also call the hotline of New Paper.
IF, what Ms. Kong said is the truth and the whole truth, then she should get a lawyer and fight for her rights. However, if the man turns out to be a IMH outpatient, then she'll have to consider it her bad luck lor. -
Originally posted by MamaRos:
Your public display of apathy is precisely why singaporeans will look the other way instead of stepping forward to help.
The above is Ms. Kong's interpretation of what happened to her. Anyone reading her article will feel incensed at the police for not doing more. However, none of us really know what happened, do we? Ms. Kong stated that ' Suddenly, a man shouted at me, claiming I was trying to steal his kitten. Before I could utter a word, he punched me in the face.'
Now if we are to visualize the scene, we have to conclude that two things could have happened to cause Ms. Kong getting punched.
1) The man is mentally unstable, lurking around the area looking for
someone to hit and Ms. Kong happened to be his target;
2) The man HAD words with Ms. Kong and she used insulting words that
provoked and incited the man to punch her
My first train of thought is, if I was in Ms. Kong's shoes, I would have called the police to complain about the kitten being tied up to the fence. That is, if there is a guy hovering near the fence.
Whatever it is, it is wrong for the man to hit her, of course. Ms. Kong claimed she was punched on her face. In that case, based on a normal man's strength, that punch would have caused some form of bleeding, especially if the nose got it. Why did the man targeted her face and not shoved her away? I suspect it was to shut her up, possible?
All in all, as a woman myself, I would not engage in aggravation with any stranger in public because I feel there are other recourses I can take if I am to be in a similar case scenario as Ms. Kong. Other than calling the police or the SPCA, I would also call the hotline of New Paper.
IF, what Ms. Kong said is the truth and the whole truth, then she should get a lawyer and fight for her rights. However, if the man turns out to be a IMH outpatient, then she'll have to consider it her bad luck lor.
It doesn't matter whether the aggressor owned the kitten; it doesn't matter what excuse the man had.
In the first place, restraining a kitten is animal abuse. Any compassionate human being would have responded with the same instinct - free the kitten regardless.
Your preference of 'calling the cops' is simply passing the buck, when at that point of time, it seemed a straight-forward matter any decent person could accomplish, certainly something that did not require police assistance.
When set upon by a deranged stranger making false accusations, why assume him to be a mental case? Why draw this conclusion as an excuse when he is more likely a typical street thug and bully? His brazen claim that he is 'not afraid of the authorities' clearly demonstrates contempt and utter disregard for the law, and certain displays no psychotic behaviour.My second thought is, what is that guy doing near her? Assuming what Ms. Kong said about the guy accusing her of stealing his kitten is true, can anyone here say, she kept quiet all the time even as she attempted to free the kitten? And if Ms. Kong is just a guai guai girl/woman, she would have retreated when she heard the guy's accusation, wouldn't she? I mean, if faced with a possible nasty man, the natural instinct for a meek person is flight not fight, am I right? After all, her sole intention was to free a kitten not to engage in verbal warfare with anyone, correct?
Why think at all if you continue to postulate and draw speculation out of thin air? By making so many assumptions about the writer, have you fallen into your own trap of making presumptions? How a person responds to any situation is surely up to what experience or how level-headed the person is.
There is nothing to conclude whether Ms Kong handled herself well in the situation, if at all. The facts simply are: an attempt was made to free a trapped animal. During the process, the would-be rescuer was assaulted, and verbally abused, sufficient enough to involve the police, a shopkeeper and outpatient treatment at a local hospital.
Your entire 'mind my own business' approach bellies the apathetic reflection of Singaporeans content to 'stay out of trouble' rather than step forward to right a simple wrong. -
For a full list of offences which are seizable, and those which are non-seizable, you can check it out under the criminal procedure code. all offences under the different acts, different laws in singapore are listed there.Originally posted by BillyBong:In all aspects, the probable reason why these are happening is because the law has not been further compartmentalized to cover obvious bases. With regards to 'non-seizable' offence, where police officers without a warrent cannot arrest a person who is deemed to have committed an offence, it has to be made clear what precise catagory this falls under.
I agree with you on this one. However, it is not possible for discretionary powers to be exercised all the time. I'll quote you an example:
In cases where evidence of injury and eyewitness allows an IO to draw a reasonable assessment of the situation, they should be given powers to make discretionary arrests, if only to conduct their interrogations earlier while the case is still warm. This should not be seen as officers acting above the law or abusing their powers.
let's say you were a victim of road rage, and you call for the police. upon police arrival, both you and your assailant are still there. you are obviously still very much distressed. and upon being interviewed by the police, your assailant makes a scene and is behaving in a very disorderly manner. in this instance, he could be arrested. however, he will not be placed under arrest for hitting you. rather, he would have been arrested for behaving in a disorderly manner, thereby disrupting the peace of the place. this is just one example of exercising discretion. If the alleged assailant is of unsound mind, then he will be arrested for being of unsound mind. It's another example of discretion.
It's about analysing the situation, and if an arrest needs to be effected, using the appropriate laws to do it. Interrogations will definitely take place, but you have to understand that the Police do not have the right to detain anyone to do it. Unless of course, the offence is a seizable one, eg theft, robbery, causing hurt by dangerous mean, causing grevious hurt, etc.
A whole lot of factors come into play. It could be the evidence attained, medical reports, coroner's inquiry verdict/findings, etc. It could also be due to other unforeseen circumstances that we do not know of.
In the case of the Mazda rookie who took an MX-5 for a spin and ended up causing the death of the sales executive, surely there was sufficient evidence to at least suspend his license pending the outcome of investigation? How he could continue to visit show rooms and check out new cars is really beyond me.
At the end of the day, it is too convenient to hide behind procedure in the performance of official duties. If it impedes an officer, then it should be reviewed and revised.
And if the laws are what rile you the most, then it really is no point at all lashing out at the frontliners who have to work around/with them, is there? -
If we take law in our own hands, won't we get punished? isn't it unfair?
-
hit a woman?
tmd! -
How will the police know whom they should believe? How you people know that the guy telling the story is telling the whole truth?
-
we dont know until an investigation is carried out but the police dont even want to take a report, not to mention about doing any investigating.
the police investigators are only concerned about political matters, including political events; any thing tt threatens the stability of the govt like guns or replica firearms or acts of sedition, or any case involving embezzelment or cheating of govt $ or taxes; ie smuggling ciggs, illegal betting, etc than civil cases in their day to day activities.
only when ppl get killed then they will open a case as it is very serious has to go to high court and maybe becos high court or newspapers not much business. lol
oh yeah and policre purposely do tai ji push to magistrate or district court becos they know no man in the streeet will inititate court proceedings when the costs are so high and it will drag on for long long. plus end result tt guy will most likely be fined a moderate amount only. -
These two points disturb me the most.Originally posted by Tiggerific:let's say you were a victim of road rage, and you call for the police. upon police arrival, both you and your assailant are still there. you are obviously still very much distressed. and upon being interviewed by the police, your assailant makes a scene and is behaving in a very disorderly manner. in this instance, he could be arrested. however, he will not be placed under arrest for hitting you. rather, he would have been arrested for behaving in a disorderly manner, thereby disrupting the peace of the place. this is just one example of exercising discretion. If the alleged assailant is of unsound mind, then he will be arrested for being of unsound mind. It's another example of discretion..........A whole lot of factors come into play. It could be the evidence attained, medical reports, coroner's inquiry verdict/findings, etc. It could also be due to other unforeseen circumstances that we do not know of.
And if the laws are what rile you the most, then it really is no point at all lashing out at the frontliners who have to work around/with them, is there?
Given your interpretation of road rage, i can draw a simple conclusion:
A road rage incident, minus eyewitness accounts is purely one word against the other. Even with injuries, it will be virtually impossible for police to ascertain guilt or make any arrests, unless they personally witness the incident themselves.
So imagine if you suffered from a fellow driver's road rage - He cut dangerously into your path, jammed the brakes, almost causing an accident. You horned him obviously, he was seriously rattled, stopped and exited his car, waving a golf club. Before you realised it, he smashed your windscreen and tried beating you with it. But then the police arrived, and he promptly tossed the golf club back into the concealment of his trunk and acted calmly, all before the police had a whiff of what transpired.
So despite your protestations, he calmly refutes your 'wild claims' and spins a different story, painting you as the aggressor, all the while cooperating with the police and despite the fact that your windscreen is the one that is clearly shattered.
Obviously, without further evidence, he's not gonna get arrested, and subsequent court proceedings will be lengthy, draggy and above all costly, despite the fact that you are perfectly innocent.
The 2nd item you mentioned was that lashing out at police officers is misdirected rage. True, but being the best people to determine what should or should not be done during an incident, aren't they in the best position to decide and advise lawmakers? Or have they adopted the 'mind my own business and just follow procedure' mindset? Even if they believe it to be wrong?
Like i said earlier, i don't blame officers for being absent 95% of the time, but failing to repond adequately during the remaining 5% doesn't really make my streets any safer either. -
BillyBong, I post to give my point of view, i.e. how I feel and think about the incident. I may be wrong and I also may be right. Isn't freedom of speech allowed in sgForum? I see more unihibited airings of pov's here than I see in other forums. However, it would be good to stick to contribution of the subject matter rather than ostracizing any posters' pov that does not agree with yours, am I right?Originally posted by BillyBong:Why think at all if you continue to postulate and draw speculation out of thin air? By making so many assumptions about the writer, have you fallen into your own trap of making presumptions? How a person responds to any situation is surely up to what experience or how level-headed the person is.
There is nothing to conclude whether Ms Kong handled herself well in the situation, if at all. The facts simply are: an attempt was made to free a trapped animal. During the process, the would-be rescuer was assaulted, and verbally abused, sufficient enough to involve the police, a shopkeeper and outpatient treatment at a local hospital.
Your entire 'mind my own business' approach bellies the apathetic reflection of Singaporeans content to 'stay out of trouble' rather than step forward to right a simple wrong.
Chill.... -
My apologies if you were offended.Originally posted by MamaRos:BillyBong, I post to give my point of view, i.e. how I feel and think about the incident. I may be wrong and I also may be right. Isn't freedom of speech allowed in sgForum? I see more unihibited airings of pov's here than I see in other forums. However, it would be good to stick to contribution of the subject matter rather than ostracizing any posters' pov that does not agree with yours, am I right?
Chill....
Like you said, freedom of speech is surely everyone's right. It just sickens me when people suggest relying on uniforms with authority to tackle errant offenders, when stepping forward could be a much quicker and straight-forward solution.
But perhaps the situation is too intimidating for the average joe. Perhaps we Singaporeans expect law enforcers to be everywhere at the same time. Perhaps i'm asking too much for locals to step forward and tell off people who eat on the trains, or smoke in lifts etc.
Being taught initiative during our younger days has evidently not rubbed off once we reached adulthood. It's the same with emptying one's trays at fast food franchises; we expect someone to clean up after us.
ENV officers are vigorously issuing fines to those errant smokers at coffeeshops outside the yellow box, and still the public demands better enforcement.
Our poor poor officers indeed. -
Your reply disturbs me too, Mr Bong.
One word against the other, yes. But again, as we have discussed before, the extent of the injuries is very important. If, upon receiving instant medical attention [in cases like this an ambulance will most certainly be activated], it has been discovered that the injuries are most severe, then an arrest will definitely be effected.Originally posted by BillyBong:These two points disturb me the most.
Given your interpretation of road rage, i can draw a simple conclusion:
A road rage incident, minus eyewitness accounts is purely one word against the other. Even with injuries, it will be virtually impossible for police to ascertain guilt or make any arrests, unless they personally witness the incident themselves.
Seriously speaking, under normal circumstances, how would a normal person smash another's windscreen? certainly not barehanded, no? even if he did it barehanded, literally, there would definitely be marks on his hands to prove it, wouldn't it? Since it would take a pretty substantial amount of force to break glass.
So imagine if you suffered from a fellow driver's road rage - He cut dangerously into your path, jammed the brakes, almost causing an accident. You horned him obviously, he was seriously rattled, stopped and exited his car, waving a golf club. Before you realised it, he smashed your windscreen and tried beating you with it. But then the police arrived, and he promptly tossed the golf club back into the concealment of his trunk and acted calmly, all before the police had a whiff of what transpired.
So despite your protestations, he calmly refutes your 'wild claims' and spins a different story, painting you as the aggressor, all the while cooperating with the police and despite the fact that your windscreen is the one that is clearly shattered.
Obviously, without further evidence, he's not gonna get arrested, and subsequent court proceedings will be lengthy, draggy and above all costly, despite the fact that you are perfectly innocent.
A broken windscreen is not a normal thing. So definitely the police will believe the word of the victim who said that the aggresor used a golf club or whatever to break his windscreen. a search on the vehicle will then be conducted, to see just what it is that was used to break the windscreen. again, analyzing the situation and application of initiative/discretion will come to the fore here.
In this particular scenario that you have described, the police would by then have discovered the golf club, much with the victim's help. by now, there will be a much clearer picture of who is the victim and who, the perpetrator, wouldn't it? So, upon recording statements of both parties, an assessment of the damage done, any injuries to both parties, and bearing in mind the usage of the golf club, as well as the fact that the aggresor waved a golf club and tried to beat the vicitm with it, the only conclusion any sane person can foresee is this:
that the perpetrator be arrested on the spot for criminal intimidation, sec 506 of the penal code [cap 224]. for there is a very real threat on the victim's life.
this, Mr Bong, is not a road rage case. this is a very serious, life-threatening case of criminal intimidation, in which the police can and definitely will effect an arrest immediately.
issues regarding our nation's laws are being brought up every day. but whether the lawmakers do something about it or not is a totally different thing altogether.
The 2nd item you mentioned was that lashing out at police officers is misdirected rage. True, but being the best people to determine what should or should not be done during an incident, aren't they in the best position to decide and advise lawmakers? Or have they adopted the 'mind my own business and just follow procedure' mindset? Even if they believe it to be wrong?
Like i said earlier, i don't blame officers for being absent 95% of the time, but failing to repond adequately during the remaining 5% doesn't really make my streets any safer either. -
haha. what a load of absolute balls. you have no idea how many reports the police take in a day, as well as phonecalls. and you obviously have no idea too, just how many people lodge magistrate complaints. quite a bit, actually.Originally posted by mrwonderful:we dont know until an investigation is carried out but the police dont even want to take a report, not to mention about doing any investigating.
the police investigators are only concerned about political matters, including political events; any thing tt threatens the stability of the govt like guns or replica firearms or acts of sedition, or any case involving embezzelment or cheating of govt $ or taxes; ie smuggling ciggs, illegal betting, etc than civil cases in their day to day activities.
only when ppl get killed then they will open a case as it is very serious has to go to high court and maybe becos high court or newspapers not much business. lol
oh yeah and policre purposely do tai ji push to magistrate or district court becos they know no man in the streeet will inititate court proceedings when the costs are so high and it will drag on for long long. plus end result tt guy will most likely be fined a moderate amount only.
so don't talk nonsense when you know next to nothing about what goes on, please. you risk misinforming people who don't know, and alienating yourself from those in the know. -
did u go and look up govt statistics just to answer my question? or do u work in the law sector or studied law? if u are then i assume u really are in the knowhow of sg law, if not u probably just getting all ur info from some govt website.Originally posted by Tiggerific:haha. what a load of absolute balls. you have no idea how many reports the police take in a day, as well as phonecalls. and you obviously have no idea too, just how many people lodge magistrate complaints. quite a bit, actually.
so don't talk nonsense when you know next to nothing about what goes on, please. you risk misinforming people who don't know, and alienating yourself from those in the know.
anyway what u said above is not a rebuttal of what i said but just mentioning completely different facts. did i ever disagree that police do not take in many reports or complaints daily? its not a question of whether police receive many reports or complaints a day, but at end of the day is there any closure? the only point is magistrate complaints, but i think i wrote wrongly it wld be a district court not a magistrate court for this kind of case. this would be settled by the lower district court, no? i cant be bothered to refer to my law notes again.
but the most strange of all is the absence of the jury system in sg courts. ever wonder why? -
Fighter number one: He beat meOriginally posted by mrwonderful:we dont know until an investigation is carried out.
Fighter number two: He started it
Fighter number one: No, he started it...
Fighter number two: No, he started it...
Fighter number one: No, he started it...
Fighter number two: No, he started it...
Fighter number one: No, he started it...
Fighter number two: No, he started it...
Police: go and settle this at the magistrate courts... -
I think a drawn out discussion on this is not necessary. However, like i said, the police saw nothing, and only a broken windscreen. It could have been shattered by flying pebbles, a separate accident or so forth.Originally posted by Tiggerific:Seriously speaking, under normal circumstances, how would a normal person smash another's windscreen? certainly not barehanded, no? even if he did it barehanded, literally, there would definitely be marks on his hands to prove it, wouldn't it? Since it would take a pretty substantial amount of force to break glass.
A broken windscreen is not a normal thing. So definitely the police will believe the word of the victim who said that the aggresor used a golf club or whatever to break his windscreen. a search on the vehicle will then be conducted, to see just what it is that was used to break the windscreen. again, analyzing the situation and application of initiative/discretion will come to the fore here.
In this particular scenario that you have described, the police would by then have discovered the golf club, much with the victim's help. by now, there will be a much clearer picture of who is the victim and who, the perpetrator, wouldn't it? So, upon recording statements of both parties, an assessment of the damage done, any injuries to both parties, and bearing in mind the usage of the golf club, as well as the fact that the aggresor waved a golf club and tried to beat the vicitm with it, the only conclusion any sane person can foresee is this:
that the perpetrator be arrested on the spot for criminal intimidation, sec 506 of the penal code [cap 224]. for there is a very real threat on the victim's life.
this, Mr Bong, is not a road rage case. this is a very serious, life-threatening case of criminal intimidation, in which the police can and definitely will effect an arrest immediately.
The victim can claim all he wants, but the aggressor will react like an angel and whitewash his claims, instead accusing him of being the aggressor. Without witnesses, there is NO WAY the police can ascertain the circumstances and make an arrest like what you claimed. It is totally one word against the other.
Furthermore, in accident cases, EVERYONE LIES. That's a fact of life. The victim will exaggerate his story while the culprit will pin the blame on the victim. There is absolutely no honesty and no morals among drivers under these circumstances.
This is probably one of the reasons why TP decided to outsource non-injury related cases. -
well, for starters, i studied law, and i live through law-and-order situations each day.Originally posted by mrwonderful:did u go and look up govt statistics just to answer my question? or do u work in the law sector or studied law? if u are then i assume u really are in the knowhow of sg law, if not u probably just getting all ur info from some govt website.
anyway what u said above is not a rebuttal of what i said but just mentioning completely different facts. did i ever disagree that police do not take in many reports or complaints daily? its not a question of whether police receive many reports or complaints a day, but at end of the day is there any closure? the only point is magistrate complaints, but i think i wrote wrongly it wld be a district court not a magistrate court for this kind of case. this would be settled by the lower district court, no? i cant be bothered to refer to my law notes again.
but the most strange of all is the absence of the jury system in sg courts. ever wonder why?
and to quote yourself, you did say that
the issues with your reply would be: the insinuation that the police are not concerned about cases such as these, and that they would be purposely 'tai ji'-ing cases to magistrate/district courts because they are unwilling to take action. that is a most unfair statement to make."the police dont even want to take a report, not to mention about doing any investigating". [/quote]
and to quote the rest of your whole post:
[quote]Originally posted by mrwonderful:"the police investigators are only concerned about political matters, including political events; any thing tt threatens the stability of the govt like guns or replica firearms or acts of sedition, or any case involving embezzelment or cheating of govt $ or taxes; ie smuggling ciggs, illegal betting, etc than civil cases in their day to day activities".
"only when ppl get killed then they will open a case as it is very serious has to go to high court and maybe becos high court or newspapers not much business. lol"
"oh yeah and policre purposely do tai ji push to magistrate or district court becos they know no man in the streeet will inititate court proceedings when the costs are so high and it will drag on for long long. plus end result tt guy will most likely be fined a moderate amount only".
you should know that referral to magistrates only apply to non-seizable cases. either the magistrate will give the green light for police to have full powers of investigation, or the head of investigation of the particular police division will do so. it is not a matter of 'pushing' the responsibility to the courts. but rather, it is doing the most that they can with what limited powers that they temporarily have, before they are given full legal powers of investigation by the magistrate/head investigation. these are two different things altogether.
and yes, while i agree with you that political cases, internal security cases [eg the one you cited on sedition], as well as the ones like embezzlement, cheating et al are of particular interest due to the sensitivity & complexity of the cases & victims involved, day-to-day cases like theft, robbery are also of interest too. if an offence has already been disclosed, then the police will need to step in and intervene on behalf of the victim, no? of course, this would also be in accordance with what legal powers that they have.
Closure in cases where investigation is involved will most definitely take time. and to be frank, most cases take lots of time to be closed. factors like the victims, perpetrators, evidence available, all play a part, and that's not forgetting those other mitigating factors too. whether or not one receives closure will depend on a lot more than some hypothetical factors which we both may discuss here.
and to answer your last question... hmmm.. i cannot be sure, but i think it would have something to do with the possibility of influencing the outcome of the trial by enticing/targetting any one member of the jury. it's along those line; something i read once before somewhere. can't be exact with the source though, sorry... what's your opinion though, on the absence of jury in our courts? -
You are probably spot on. Jury duty would surely not have succeeded in an immature community like Singapore, being unable to tell the firm difference between justice and the law.Originally posted by Tiggerific:....and to answer your last question... hmmm.. i cannot be sure, but i think it would have something to do with the possibility of influencing the outcome of the trial by enticing/targetting any one member of the jury. it's along those line; something i read once before somewhere. can't be exact with the source though, sorry... what's your opinion though, on the absence of jury in our courts?
With so many cases pending and administrative paperwork cluttering the courts, was it any surprise that the jury system was scrapped in favour of a single presiding Judicial Commissioner/Judge to be granted full powers to decide the outcome of a case?
Ultimately, our society has not matured to a level where they can be trusted to provide fair and sound judgement, and many among us are still lured by the familiar scent of money.
It is left to the capable hands of trained benchers schooled in the art of law and indoctrined to be impervious to bribes that ensures a 'squeaky clean' judicial system, at least until we are sufficiently learned. -
With all due respects to the bylaws and formalities that governs policing procedures, wouldn't the process of refering to Magistrate, allow the party or parties in question, ample time to get away with whatever was committed which was deemed 'not a seizable? As such the complainant stand to lose out?Originally posted by Tiggerific:the issues with your reply would be: the insinuation that the police are not concerned about cases such as these, and that they would be purposely 'tai ji'-ing cases to magistrate/district courts because they are unwilling to take action. that is a most unfair statement to make.
you should know that referral to magistrates only apply to non-seizable cases. either the magistrate will give the green light for police to have full powers of investigation, or the head of investigation of the particular police division will do so. it is not a matter of 'pushing' the responsibility to the courts. but rather, it is doing the most that they can with what limited powers that they temporarily have, before they are given full legal powers of investigation by the magistrate/head investigation. these are two different things altogether.
and yes, while i agree with you that political cases, internal security cases [eg the one you cited on sedition], as well as the ones like embezzlement, cheating et al are of particular interest due to the sensitivity & complexity of the cases & victims involved, day-to-day cases like theft, robbery are also of interest too. if an offence has already been disclosed, then the police will need to step in and intervene on behalf of the victim, no? of course, this would also be in accordance with what legal powers that they have.
Closure in cases where investigation is involved will most definitely take time. and to be frank, most cases take lots of time to be closed. factors like the victims, perpetrators, evidence available, all play a part, and that's not forgetting those other mitigating factors too. whether or not one receives closure will depend on a lot more than some hypothetical factors which we both may discuss here.
and to answer your last question... hmmm.. i cannot be sure, but i think it would have something to do with the possibility of influencing the outcome of the trial by enticing/targetting any one member of the jury. it's along those line; something i read once before somewhere. can't be exact with the source though, sorry... what's your opinion though, on the absence of jury in our courts? -
it would depend on what you mean by 'get away'. do you mean if the person leaves singapore, for example?Originally posted by ShutterBug:With all due respects to the bylaws and formalities that governs policing procedures, wouldn't the process of refering to Magistrate, allow the party or parties in question, ample time to get away with whatever was committed which was deemed 'not a seizable? As such the complainant stand to lose out?
however, the same can also be said of the bail system, you see. sometimes people exploit loopholes in the laws such as these. it's unfortunate, and something should be done about it. but then, this is something which is out of our hands, isn't it?
the best people to comment/react with regards to issues like these would be the lawmakers themselves. -
i wonder when is it that that day will arrive, mr bong. if it would ever. but i agree with you; as much as our people would want to think othewise, our society is still not that mature, sad to say. plenty of societal problems go unannounced/ignored.Originally posted by BillyBong:You are probably spot on. Jury duty would surely not have succeeded in an immature community like Singapore, being unable to tell the firm difference between justice and the law.
With so many cases pending and administrative paperwork cluttering the courts, was it any surprise that the jury system was scrapped in favour of a single presiding Judicial Commissioner/Judge to be granted full powers to decide the outcome of a case?
Ultimately, our society has not matured to a level where they can be trusted to provide fair and sound judgement, and many among us are still lured by the familiar scent of money.
It is left to the capable hands of trained benchers schooled in the art of law and indoctrined to be impervious to bribes that ensures a 'squeaky clean' judicial system, at least until we are sufficiently learned.
-
So what are the authorities trying to tell us? That we should take action on the assailant because they won't? And so we should beat up the assailant, rescue the kitten and run since we can't get charged either?
-
Stupid protect yourself by hiiting back.. I make sure the guy get more serious injury then me since i won't be charge anyway...
