Breaking News: Two SDP leaders arrested by Police!
-
i think this arguement should go into the way of questioning how untactful and unwise the police was when they escort the group out.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Now, the issue here is pre-emption of guilt that would have triggered the police to escort them out.
The most balanced thing to do would have to simply check them for any dangerous items, and since they've said on camera that they're going for lunch, give them the benefit of the doubt.
Alert the chaps inside that if they do something else disruptive and not have lunch as they said they would, then remove them.
Let's not all get carried away with kiasuism. In my opinion, focusing so much resources on these chaps is contributing to a potential weakness in the area security framework, because you're drawing down resources which could have better spent monitoring unknown elements.
These two fellows are known entities, you can be sure they are not terrorists or Greenpeace/PETA/Korean Farmers/Andean protester sorts.
the problem of legality is out of the question because clearly with as many possible quotation of the law that i had made, i had shown that it is legal. i however find that there is no point in rushing into unfound conclusion of abduction, kidnap, wrongful restraint just because some people in some website fancied it. -
I really peifu your interpretation lor.Originally posted by foxtrout8:your quote also prove my point that police may or may not arrest someone committed a seizable offence. police may or may not handcuff an arrested party depending on situation.
Said a police spokesperson: "When there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed a seizable offence the police may arrest the suspect. Handcuffs are used in arrests as there is always a risk of the suspect resisting arrest or trying to escape, except in occasions where the officers are confident of managing the risks, given the situation."
Source: http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/viewPost1215.aspx
I really have to hand it to you. Go consult your English teacher on this.
You are telling me that the police has a choice of not arresting someone who has committed a seizable offence?
Is that right?
My quote from a police spokesperson states the police officer has a choice to arrest the person of a seizable offence if there are reasonable grounds.
It doesn't say that if a person has committed a seizable offence, the police can don't arrest him. You are stating that if the police officer saw someone murdering (seizable offence) another person, the police officer can choose not to arrest the person. Makes sense?
Police may or may not handcuff anybody for a seizable offence? Go call up the police hotline to ask the procedure for seizable offence. Else go ask any of your friends who are in the police force.
The SOP of seizable offence is always to handcuff the suspect. It's standard, like in the army, you have certain SOP, you don't deviate from those SOP.
I think you make a mockery of the law, not me.
If you still choose to interpret it the way you want to, just to win a discussion, it's up to you, no point for me to explain.
Your interpretation is, if the police sees a murder (seizable offence), the police officer can choose not to arrest the murderer.
For all seizable offence, the police can sometimes choose to handcuff the suspect, on other times if they feel up to it, they can decide not to handcuff the suspect. This is SOP. In the army, sometimes during BMT, in our full battle order items, we can choose not to carry entrenching tool and ground sheet. -
Originally posted by maurizio13:
you know the difference between may, shall and must?
I really peifu your interpretation lor.
[b]Said a police spokesperson: "When there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed a seizable offence the police may arrest the suspect. Handcuffs are used in arrests as there is always a risk of the suspect resisting arrest or trying to escape, except in occasions where the officers are confident of managing the risks, given the situation."
Source: http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/viewPost1215.aspx
I really have to hand it to you. Go consult your English teacher on this.
You are telling me that the police has a choice of not arresting someone who has committed a seizable offence?
Is that right?
My quote from a police spokesperson states the police officer has a choice to arrest the person of a seizable offence if there are reasonable grounds.
It doesn't say that if a person has committed a seizable offence, the police can don't arrest him. You are stating that if the police officer saw someone murdering (seizable offence) another person, the police officer can choose not to arrest the person. Makes sense?
Police may or may not handcuff anybody for a seizable offence? Go call up the police hotline to ask the procedure for seizable offence. Else go ask any of your friends who are in the police force.
The SOP of seizable offence is always to handcuff the suspect. It's standard, like in the army, you have certain SOP, you don't deviate from those SOP.
I think you make a mockery of the law, not me.
If you still choose to interpret it the way you want to, just to win a discussion, it's up to you, no point for me to explain.
Your interpretation is, if the police sees a murder (seizable offence), the police officer can choose not to arrest the murderer.
For all seizable offence, the police can sometimes choose to handcuff the suspect, on other times if they feel up to it, they can decide not to handcuff the suspect. This is SOP. In the army, sometimes during BMT, in our full battle order items, we can choose not to carry entrenching tool and ground sheet.
[/b]
the law says may arrest or must arrest or shall arrest?
http://dictionary.law.com/ and look for the difference
the law says may arrest and thus shows that there is a choice. -
You have shown that it's legal?Originally posted by foxtrout8:i think this arguement should go into the way of questioning how untactful and unwise the police was when they escort the group out.
the problem of legality is out of the question because clearly with as many possible quotation of the law that i had made, i had shown that it is legal. i however find that there is no point in rushing into unfound conclusion of abduction, kidnap, wrongful restraint just because some people in some website fancied it.
You didn't even rebutt my points.
Regulate is to control within certain boundaries and you interpret in one of yoru replies as the police regulate, regulate and regulate till the pair is towards the exit then push them out.
If what you said about subsection 4(2) is true (that the police officer can remove the violator from the area), then why is there a need for subsection 4(3)? If the police has the authority to remove them from the area, subsection 4(3) becomes irrelevant. Maybe they have extra paper and ink, so they decided to use it up???Originally posted by foxtrout8: 23 November 2007 -- 09:33 PM5)since you said 'control = regulate' do you agree that the police have the right to regulate movement in a protected area to the extent of controlling your movement one way to the exit by the 4 (2) of protected area and protected places act?
Protected Areas:
(1).....
(2) Any person who is in any protected area shall comply with such directions for regulating his movement and conduct as may be given by an authorised officer, and an authorised officer may search any person entering, or seeking to enter, or being in, a protected area, and may detain any such person for the purpose of searching him.
(3) If any person while in a protected area fails to comply with any direction given under subsection (2), then, without prejudice to any proceedings which may be taken against him, he may be removed from the area by an authorised officer. -
the third part exist to give the authorised officers the power to escort anyone whom refuse to comply with the directions of the officer out of a protected area in the second part which includes, regulating movement, searching etc.Originally posted by maurizio13:If what you said about subsection 4(2) is true (that the police officer can remove the violator from the area), then why is there a need for subsection 4(3)? If the police has the authority to remove them from the area, subsection 4(3) becomes irrelevant. Maybe they have extra paper and ink, so they decided to use it up???
Protected Areas:
(1).....
(2) Any person who is in any protected area shall comply with such directions for regulating his movement and conduct as may be given by an authorised officer, and an authorised officer may search any person entering, or seeking to enter, or being in, a protected area, and may detain any such person for the purpose of searching him.
(3) If any person while in a protected area fails to comply with any direction given under subsection (2), then, without prejudice to any proceedings which may be taken against him, he may be removed from the area by an authorised officer.
i made a parallel of the traffic policemen on why regulating movement includes the power to ask you to move out.
i never say the police have the power to remove you under the second part. asking you to exit does not equate to removing you. Removal is an physical action eg escorting out, warning you to exit is a verbal action with authority.
thus clearly under the second part, the police have the power to order you to move out. refuse to do so, they then remove you under the third part. -
Remember that the letter of the law is not wholly superior to the spirit of the law, as they need to exist together in concord, and in light of any greater strategic securityconcerns. That's the challenge to all authorities out there to realise what is the greater priority in security.Originally posted by foxtrout8:i think this arguement should go into the way of questioning how untactful and unwise the police was when they escort the group out.
the problem of legality is out of the question because clearly with as many possible quotation of the law that i had made, i had shown that it is legal. i however find that there is no point in rushing into unfound conclusion of abduction, kidnap, wrongful restraint just because some people in some website fancied it.
As far as I am concerned, it is a waste of police resources. Evidently, one Superintendent-level officer had to be diverted away from more important duties. If the AGC can announce that they will not enforce Section 377A, then the argument that this is an offence debatable and able to be unenforceable surely stands together. -
i agree and i believe it is passable if the police officer chooses not to enforce however i am sticking here because some peope dont know that the police have the right to enforce and theres nothing illegal about it.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Remember that the letter of the law is not subordinate to the spirit of the law, and any larger strategic concerns. That's the challenge to all authorities out there to realise what is the greater priority in security.
As far as I am concerned, it is a waste of police resources. If the AGC can announce that they will not enforce Section 377A, then the argument that this is an offence debatable and able to be unenforceable surely stands together. -
If they have the power under subsection 4(2) and the suspect refuses to leave, you mean they need another subsection 4(3) to make the suspect leave.Originally posted by foxtrout8:the third part exist to give the authorised officers the power to escort anyone whom refuse to comply with the directions of the officer out of a protected area in the second part which includes, regulating movement, searching etc.
i made a parallel of the traffic policemen on why regulating movement includes the power to ask you to exit.
asking you to exit does not equate to removing you. Removal is an physical action eg escorting out, warning you to exit is a verbal action with authority.
I suppose the roads that traffic police regulate is now protected areas and protected places?
If the traffic police direct me to another exit, I can subsequently make a u-turn and go back to the same spot. Traffic is really a bad choice for your analogy, because you cannot stop in the middle of the road, whereas a person walking in the pavement can choose to stop.
You might as well say, the traffic police was regulating pedestrian on the walkway because the traffic lights were malfunctioning, the traffic police asked the pedestrians to walk, but some pedestrians chose not to walk and remain on the same side.
If you ask or request, the person can reject your request. Simple?
But what the police have done is exercise subsection 4(3) without even the suspect violating subsection 4(2).
I think the police did not follow procedure resulting in a violation of the Kidnapping Act, wrongful restraint.
So if you claim that the police asked them to leave, but they have no right to.
As agreed by you earlier.
So subsection 4(2) in the substance of the word "regulating" is NOT removal, then what rights have the police ask that the pair leave the area. Removal means detach, to severe from.Originally posted by foxtrout8: 23 November 2007 -- 11:35 PMi agree regulating does not imply removal. removal is the taking away of something from a location but regulation of people movement does means in my opinion the control and the direction (as in directing) of the movement of people.
So if the police officer did not have the right to ask them to leave, the pair did not violate subsection 4(2).
If the pair did not violate subsection 4(2), why did the police enforce subsection 4(3)?
The reason why Superintendant Michael Tan acted so, was because he lost his cool after Mr. John Tan commented on him being a coward hiding behind his men.
Once you lose your cool, you lose reason and logic. Your adrenalin just takes over, you can see how piss he was after that comment from the video. He raised his voice. -
Touche.
Why come down personally to deal with this if you know you can't handle it. -
Originally posted by LazerLordz:Remember that the letter of the law is not wholly superior to the spirit of the law, as they need to exist together in concord, and in light of any greater strategic securityconcerns. That's the challenge to all authorities out there to realise what is the greater priority in security.
As far as I am concerned, it is a waste of police resources. Evidently, one Superintendent-level officer had to be diverted away from more important duties. If the AGC can announce that they will not enforce Section 377A, then the argument that this is an offence debatable and able to be unenforceable surely stands together.
-
The government is only responding to the people like me in the majority of the population who support the existing laws. Those who choose not to respect our laws must face the penalty....period.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Well, like I said, the law is an ass too.
What sort of a law prohibits peaceful expression of one's beliefs? A daft one, and the PAP is stupid enough to retain it. -
Ah, what would this thread be without your hallowed perspective.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:The government is only responding to the people like me in the majority of the population who support the existing laws. Those who choose not to respect our laws must face the penalty....period.
Give the ongoing legal debate a try lah.
Sorry, but perhaps you should return to Singapore and get reacquainted with dear old mother country first.
It's hard to see from all that fog over there. How's the heating aye? -
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
You mean to tell me after you watched the video, you interpret the 12 police officers encircling the pair in extremely close proximity, with another 12 police officers in a radius of 15 meters away and forcing them into the van was "asking"???
the third part exist to give the authorised officers the power to escort anyone whom refuse to comply with the directions of the officer out of a protected area in the second part which includes, regulating movement, searching etc.
i made a parallel of the traffic policemen on why regulating movement includes the power to ask you to move out.
[b]i never say the police have the power to remove you under the second part. asking you to exit does not equate to removing you. Removal is an physical action eg escorting out, warning you to exit is a verbal action with authority.
thus clearly under the second part, the police have the power to order you to move out. refuse to do so, they then remove you under the third part.
[/b]
If you say that is so, I say so be it.
Removing is a very neutral word, in this context, it means to be severed from the area.
You can say the police severed the pair from the area, or, the police separated the pair from the area. -
So if you claim that the police asked them to leave, but they have no right to.
As agreed by you earlier.[/quote]
thank you for putting words into my mouth again and again but i did not say that the police have no right in that situation.
you gave the example of a pedestrian crossing the road. it has no relevence to the protected area and places act because as you know the pedestrain have a choice to or not to cross but in the protected area act, anyone cannot choose not to comply with the direction of a authorised officer if not will be escorted out. -
you misread my point again.Originally posted by maurizio13:You mean to tell me after you watched the video, you interpret the 12 police officers encircling the pair in extremely close proximity, with another 12 police officers in a radius of 15 meters away and forcing them into the van was "asking"???
.
forcing them into the van was escorting them out. asking them was over after so many talk that moved to stern warning. -
If you say that the police has right in the Protected Area and Protected Places Act to ask the pair to leave. Can you cite me a section or subsection that provides them the RIGHT???Originally posted by foxtrout8:thank you for putting words into my mouth again and again but i did not say that the police have no right in that situation.
you gave the example of a pedestrian crossing the road. it has no relevence to the protected area and places act because as you know the pedestrain have a choice to or not to cross but in the protected area act, anyone cannot choose not to comply with the direction of a authorised officer if not will be escorted out.
Don't understand your second paragraph.
Else,
Neither has your example of traffic police directing traffic in an accident any relevance to the Protected Areas and Protected Places Act. -
Under what section and subsection did the act empowered the police officer, to "ask" the pair to leave?Originally posted by foxtrout8:you misread my point again.
forcing them into the van was escorting them out. asking them was over after so many talk that moved to stern warning. -
Your treatment of citizens inconsistently, is also a violation of the Constitution Of The Republic of Singapore. You selectively choose to handcuff some while not handcuffing others.Originally posted by foxtrout8:i agree and i believe it is passable if the police officer chooses not to enforce however i am sticking here because some peope dont know that the police have the right to enforce and theres nothing illegal about it.
Equal protection
12. —(1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.
(2) Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens of Singapore on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.
(3) This Article does not invalidate or prohibit —
(a) any provision regulating personal law; or
(b) any provision or practice restricting office or employment connected with the affairs of any religion, or of an institution managed by a group professing any religion, to persons professing that religion.
It is unconstitutional. All citizens have the right to fair treatment.
Supremacy of Constitution
4. This Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic of Singapore and any law enacted by the Legislature after the commencement of this Constitution which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void. -
Article 4 points to a potential flaw in many Parliamentary amendments thus far. But we would need a progressive Supreme Court to see that.
-
all citizens have rights to fair treatments with exceptions. have you read the exceptions?Originally posted by maurizio13:Your treatment of citizens inconsistently, is also a violation of the Constitution Of The Republic of Singapore. You selectively choose to handcuff some while not handcuffing others.
Equal protection
12. —(1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.
(2) Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens of Singapore on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.
(3) This Article does not invalidate or prohibit —
(a) any provision regulating personal law; or
(b) any provision or practice restricting office or employment connected with the affairs of any religion, or of an institution managed by a group professing any religion, to persons professing that religion.
It is unconstitutional. All citizens have the right to fair treatment.
Supremacy of Constitution
4. This Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic of Singapore and any law enacted by the Legislature after the commencement of this Constitution which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void. -
in the example that i gave of the motorist insisting of moving ahead despite warning that there are evidences in front, warrents the police to take action because the motorist's action goes against the preservation of law.Originally posted by maurizio13:Neither has your example of traffic police directing traffic in an accident any relevance to the Protected Areas and Protected Places Act.
your example of a predestrain crossing the road is invalid because nothing against the preservation of law is done when she chooses not to cross the road.
the preservation of the protected area and protected places act was breached when the group refuse to comply with the orders of the police vested under 4(2) to regulate their movement.
as i said, regulating the movement includes asking them to move out. -
Please state, what exceptions?Originally posted by foxtrout8:all citizens have rights to fair treatments with exceptions. have you read the exceptions? -
the protection against discriminations is limited onli to ground of religion, race, descent or place of birth.[b] thats mean, it is illegal only if say the police discriminate againsty you for your religion, race, descent and birth place.[/b]Originally posted by maurizio13:Please state, what exceptions?
it is totally legal say for example for an individual to proclaim that he or she only hire people with no criminal records. althought it is outright discrimination but the law on equality doesnt go so far as to protect people from being discriminated because of crime records.
so did the police treat them (chee and her group of people) discriminately based on their race, religion, descent or place or birth?
Equal protection
12. —(1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.
(2) Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens of Singapore on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment. -
So there are evidences in front of Ms. Chee and Mr. John Tan that their movement forward will destroy?Originally posted by foxtrout8:in the example that i gave of the motorist insisting of moving ahead despite warning that there are evidences in front, warrents the police to take action because the motorist's action goes against the preservation of law.
your example of a predestrain crossing the road is invalid because nothing against the preservation of law is done when she chooses not to cross the road.
the preservation of the protected area and protected places act was breached when the group refuse to comply with the orders of the police vested under 4(2) to regulate their movement.
as i said, regulating the movement includes asking them to move out.
Ms. Chee and Mr. John Tan is more of the scenario I depicted, they were taking a walk, directed by a traffic police (because the traffic lights was down) to walk at a traffic junction, but choose not to walk.
And your explanation of regulate their movement is to regulate the pair to the circumference of the boundary and push them out?
You already agreed that "to regulate" is not to make them be detached from the location.
In the Protected Areas And Protected Places Act, they have a subsection 4(2) which they can "enforce" asking a person to leave and subsection 4(3) which they can make a person leave.
Nonsensical don't you think?
Next time if I work as a security guard, my supervisor asked that I regulate the movement of a person in a boundary. I will regulate the person to the exit and ask him to leave.
If I work as a prison officer, my supervisor ask that I regulate the movement of the prisoner in an exercise area, I will regulate the prisoner to the exit. -
Originally posted by maurizio13:
i never said anything about asking them to go to the boundary then push them out. i am warning now not to add words into my mouth again and again.
So there are evidences in front of Ms. Chee and Mr. John Tan that their movement forward will destroy?
Ms. Chee and Mr. John Tan is more of the scenario I depicted, they were taking a walk, directed by a traffic police (because the traffic lights was down) to walk at a traffic junction, but choose not to walk.
And your explanation of regulate their movement is to regulate the pair to the circumference of the boundary and push them out?
You already agreed that "to regulate" is not to make them be detached from the location.
In the Protected Areas And Protected Places Act, they have a subsection 4(2) which they can "enforce" asking a person to leave and subsection 4(3) which they can make a person leave.
Nonsensical don't you think?
[b]Next time if I work as a security guard, my supervisor asked that I regulate the movement of a person in a boundary. I will regulate the person to the exit and ask him to leave.
If I work as a prison officer, my supervisor ask that I regulate the movement of the prisoner in an exercise area, I will regulate the prisoner to the exit.
[/b]
i am saying regulating the movement allows the police officer to ask them to move out of the area.
if you are a prison officer, yes you can ask them to MOVE anywhere but not LEAVE because the prisioner's movement can only be confined to the prision (unless if there are other legal permissions). if unless chee and her group can only be confined to the protected area around shangrila and that they cannot be outside the protected area, the police can ask them to MOVE OUT.
the security officer can ask people to move out of a perimeter. if you live in a condo, you will understand.