Breaking News: Two SDP leaders arrested by Police!
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
The govt has always been using 'security' as a pretext to cling on to the out-dated laws regarding illegal assembly. These laws were enacted in the fifties to fight armed insurgency. As there is no more armed insurgency these laws should be repealed long ago.
Please feel free to respond to the queries below.
The act? Who pass the act through parliament? P4P lackeys?
What does not make illegal for the police to be selective in their regulation, does not necessarily make something morally right. Rules like what you brought out in the Penal Code, where the gathering of more than 5 people is an offence subject to the discretion of the police department. So what is right or wrong is directly linked to the P4P government, since they control all the civil services.
Ms. Chee has a previous record of illegal activities? A threat to the public peace?
Can you cite me what illegal activities were these? The basic right of peaceful protest? What public peace did Ms. Chee threatened? Was there a riot associated with Ms. Chee? Maybe you can cite me the place where the violent riot occurred?
Ms. Chee and Mr. John Tan taking a walk to Shangrila Hotel, where it was clearly a deserted area, devoid of much human activity cept for the police force. What threat to public peace was there? Were the police feeling compelled to join in the "supposed protest" or joining the two in Shangrila Hotel for a meal?
So your definition of [b]criminal record is peaceful public protest? Last I know, peaceful protest is not a felony charge in a democratic country.
[/b]
Our police force should also maintain its professional neutrality and not allow itself to become a tool of the ruling party. -
HI, U REFERRING TO BEGGAR ?Originally posted by foxtrout8:are u ok?
BEGGAR OK, NO MC
TOMORROW IS ANOTHER BEGGING DAY. -
Chee Siok Chin and John Tan could be there to stir up a bit of mischief. Annoying but harmless.
It is not about what the police know but what they can prove. The police could not prove that.
IMO, the police should have given them the benefit of the doubt and let them go in the hotel to eat. Afterall, the hotel is under very tight security already.
The police have created a brouhaha. -
They only have the right to remove person(s) from the protected area, provided the person(s) breached subsection 4(2) as clearly stated in subsection 4(3).Originally posted by foxtrout8:it is a lawful detention (as in detaining is lawful) because the officers have the power to regulate the movement of people within the protected area (one notch above protected places) under the protected area act. failure to comply with the officer under that act is an offence.
Protected areas.
4. —(1) If as respects any area it appears to the Minister to be necessary or expedient that special measures should be taken to control the movements and conduct of persons therein he may by order declare that area to be a protected area for the purposes of this Act.
(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 Police Officer in charge Mr. Michael Tan committed an offence of wrongful restraint and abduction.
Either you didn't understand the Protected Areas And Protected Places Act (Chapter 256), or, you intentionally mislead us.
The subsection 4(3) [removal from area] is supposed to be used only when the person has violated subsection 4(2).
But has Ms. Chee or Mr. John Tan violated subsection 4(2)?
Regulating his/her movement in which area?
Was there proper boundaries to demarcate the areas, so that her movement could be regulated?
Regulate: means to control her movement in the area
Even if police officer had erroneously requested that she not go into Shangrila Hotel; did she violate that request by stepping into Shangrila Hotel. From the video, it was shown that she was still outside the walls of Shangrila Hotel, she hasn't even stepped into the hotel. So.....what breach has she committed that resulted the use of subsection (3) that force her removal or abduction?
Ms. Chee outside Shangrila Hotel Part 1
Ms. Chee outside Shangrila Hotel Part 2
Did she denied a search by the police officers, if the police officers had even requested a search? All they wanted was to victimize her because of her political affiliations.
If there were no proper boundaries to differentiate between the different zones, it's not possible to control her movements.
As the video showed, Ms. Chee wasn't even inside Shangrila Hotel.
If subsection 4(2) was not breached, the use of subsection (3) was not justified.
I think the officer in question had himself violated the Kidnapping Act (Chapter 151), section 3.
Abduction, wrongful restraint or wrongful confinement for ransom
3. Whoever, with intent to hold any person for ransom, abducts or wrongfully restrains or wrongfully confines that person shall be guilty of an offence and shall be punished on conviction with death or imprisonment for life and shall, if he is not sentenced to death, also be liable to caning.
I might be wrong, but I think you have a vested interest in this issue regarding the wrongful restraint by the police officers. I don't think you have a political cause, but your defence of the police strictly based on legality makes it so.
Thank you. -
double post
-
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
I am not a fan of the Dr. Chee, so I am not too aware of their history in your so called crimes. You claim that the Chee's has past records of unlawful demonstration. Which law did they break? Were they convicted for unlawful demonstration?
[b]CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE
Freedom of speech, assembly and association
14. —(1) Subject to clauses (2) and (3) —
(a) every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) all citizens of Singapore have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms; and
(c) all citizens of Singapore have the right to form associations.
(2) Parliament may by law impose —
(a) on the rights conferred by clause (1) (a), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or to provide against contempt of court, defamation or incitement to any offence;
(b) on the right conferred by clause (1) (b), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof or public order; and
(c) on the right conferred by clause (1) (c), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, public order or morality.
Considering Chee's lately being outspoken against the military junta, considering her past records of unlawful demostration, the police whom has the authority over people's movement in that protected area has reasonable grounds to turn her away in pre-empting the breach of law and order.
Instead of questioning the action of the police, why not ask about how convenient of Chee claiming that she was for lunch but being in the area that host a regional meeting, in midst of her political actions against the junta.
Wasnt she inciting trouble for everybody including herself to make some stand? Wasnt she there for a covert motive?[/b]
I think most of us here don't have the slightest doubt that her intentions were political, but did she violate any laws. The action of abduction by the police was totally uncalled for.
Whether there are other motives, it's up to the police to prove as the burden of proof resides with them. Unless, we are guilty unless proven guilty, the police wrongful restraint was uncalled for. -
Only subsection 4(2) of the Protected Areas and Protected Places Act (Chap 256) has been breached can subsection 4(3) come into play.Originally posted by foxtrout8:it is a lawful detention (as in detaining is lawful) because the officers have the power to regulate the movement of people within the protected area (one notch above protected places) under the protected area act. failure to comply with the officer under that act is an offence.
Else it's wrongful restraint on the part of the police.
Protected areas.
4. —(1) If as respects any area it appears to the Minister to be necessary or expedient that special measures should be taken to control the movements and conduct of persons therein he may by order declare that area to be a protected area for the purposes of this Act.
(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. -
What directions did the police officer ask that Ms. Chee abide by?Originally posted by foxtrout8:they are detained in my opinion (with reference to facts above) for not abiding the direction of a police officer in a protected area under the protected area and places act. please note that it got nothing to do with unlawful assembly.
Not going to Shangrila Hotel?
Did her foot touch the entrance of Shangrila Hotel?
She was abducted in a public road, not even in the grounds of Shangrila Hotel.
Then she was not in breach of the request by the officer. -
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
[b]first get it straight, my comments above are not to dispute the rational behind the law. I am not here to testify whether those law that was put into place by the government are democratic or not.
I am here to defend that by singapore's law the police is legal in their action against chee and her gang. To the extent of the Singapore penal code, the police did not cross the boundary into kidnap, unlawful discrimination, police bullying.
the police was there to enforce whatever that is in the law. who whom pen down the law, the motive, purpose of the law is out of the question for a professional police force. it is for the public to quesiton it, put up pentition against it to the politician...but stay away from insulting the police force.
does a professional army question his political leader the legitimacy of any war? i ask...[/b]
Does the police take order from our political leaders and not ask questions??? -
Sad to say our police force is a loyal supporter of P4P regime.Originally posted by pearlie27:The govt has always been using 'security' as a pretext to cling on to the out-dated laws regarding illegal assembly. These laws were enacted in the fifties to fight armed insurgency. As there is no more armed insurgency these laws should be repealed long ago.
Our police force should also maintain its professional neutrality and not allow itself to become a tool of the ruling party. -
I am not aware whether he has a permit, but if Dr. Chee was the only speaker speaking. Why was Ms. Chee and company wrongfully restraint too, afterall Dr. Chee is the one speaking without a permit?Originally posted by foxtrout8:thank you for pointing out that it is a video on the honglim issue.
on viewing the video now, i like to ask, have they applied for a permit?
so it seems that one is on a permit issue, the other (this thread) is on the protected area and protect places act issue. i believe they are different.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jp-Ywg9vOG8&feature=related
But maybe you can shed some light this other video. Do you need a permit to stand outside Shenton Way? Was Shenton Way a Protected Area then?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOa3m4hsl3M&feature=related -
ALTHOUGH POLICE ALWAYS AFTER BEGGAR, BEGGAR SUPPORTS POLICE ACTION IN THIS CASE.
ARREST THEM. FIND LAW TO CHARGE THEM.
THEY ARE OPENLY CHALLENGING THE AUTHORITY, IF THE POLICE IS TOO LENIENT, THERE WOULD BE MOR CHEES CREATING TROUBLES.
THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO SILENT A PERSON IS TO SLAP HIM BEFORE HE CAN EVEN OPEN HIS MOUTH.
THE POLICE HAVE DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB. WELLDONE SINGAPORE POLICE.
ANYONE WANTS TO BECOME DOG MUST BE SMART TO FIND A GOOD MASTER, DONT FIND A MASTER THAT BACKSIDE ALWAYS KENNA WHACK.
NOW THE SMART MASTER AFTER BACKSIDE KENNA, HIDE BEHIND AND LET THE DOGS GO AND GET INTO TROUBLES.
BE BEGGAR'S DOG BETTER. 1 DAY 3 MEALS, NOT NEED TO DO PROTEST, NO NEED TO KENNA CATCH BY POLICE. IF BEGGAR BEGGED MORE MONEY, GOT ABALONE TO EAT. -
Originally posted by maurizio13:The subsection 4(3) [removal from area] is supposed to be used only when the person has violated subsection 4(2).
But has Ms. Chee or Mr. John Tan violated subsection 4(2)?
Regulating his/her movement in which area?
Was there proper boundaries to demarcate the areas, so that her movement could be regulated?
Regulate: means to control her movement in the area
Even if police officer had erroneously requested that she not go into Shangrila Hotel; did she violate that request by stepping into Shangrila Hotel. From the video, it was shown that she was still outside the walls of Shangrila Hotel, she hasn't even stepped into the hotel. So.....what breach has she committed that resulted the use of subsection (3) that force her removal or abduction?
If subsection 4(2) was not breached, the use of subsection (3) was not justified.What directions did the police officer ask that Ms. Chee abide by?
SPF Media Releases
Not going to Shangrila Hotel?
Did her foot touch the entrance of Shangrila Hotel?
She was abducted in a public road, not even in the grounds of Shangrila Hotel.
Then she was not in breach of the request by the officer.
16 Nov 2007 Area around the key event venues gazetted as a protected area/ places under the Protected Areas and Protected Places Act
As part of the security measures for the ASEAN summit, Police have gazetted the premises of Shangri-la, Raffles City Convention Center (RCCC), and Asian Civilisation Museum (ACM), as well as 500 metres of the perimeter surrounding these places and the Istana, as Protected Areas under the Protected Areas and Protected Places Act. This is similar to arrangements made at the recent APEC Australia 2007, and at the WTO in Hong Kong 2005. Such a security zone would allow police to conduct checks on persons found within the zone, and order persons found therein to leave the security zone if they pose a security threat to the ASEAN Summit.
It was stated clearly that 500m around the hotel is a protected area. I believe the group of people were within that 500ms. If so, why its wrong to enforce the protected area and protected places act? -
This is more like stale news......breaking news is when PAP leaders get arrested for something>can wait long long for that to happen.
-
The wording on their T-shirts coupled with their presence in a public area in both videos very much shows that they are demostrating.Originally posted by maurizio13:I am not aware whether he has a permit, but if Dr. Chee was the only speaker speaking. Why was Ms. Chee and company wrongfully restraint too, afterall Dr. Chee is the one speaking without a permit?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jp-Ywg9vOG8&feature=related
But maybe you can shed some light this other video. Do you need a permit to stand outside Shenton Way? Was Shenton Way a Protected Area then?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOa3m4hsl3M&feature=related
Is outdoor demostration legal in Singapore?
on the first video, Ms chee wasnt speaking but her presence and motive there with the t-shirt on very much shows that she was part of the assembly.
my friend can you be more objective? are they just standing outside shenton way or are they demostrating outside shenton way as you can see in the second video? yes you do need a permit for an assembly outside shenton way.
Please do not make a mockery out of this. Im not trying to quote the protected area act for every situation when the chees got into trouble. Furthermore, we havent finish with the Shangri-la incident yet. -
So you're saying we cannot wear such t-shirts? Oh please.Originally posted by foxtrout8:The wording on their T-shirts coupled with their presence in a public area in both videos very much shows that they are demostrating.
Is outdoor demostration legal in Singapore?
on the first video, Ms chee wasnt speaking but her presence and motive there with the t-shirt on very much shows that she was part of the assembly.
my friend can you be more objective? are they just standing outside shenton way or are they demostrating outside shenton way as you can see in the second video?
Please do not make a mockery out of this. Im not trying to quote the protected area act for every situation when the chees got into trouble. Furthermore, we havent finish with the Shangri-la incident yet. -
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
Still the police cannot prove that Chee and partner were a security threat or had illegal intentions. They were not leading a gang of protesters. Most they can do is intercept the participants(Asean leaders) in transit to ask questions or say something. Which I think is virtually impossible due to even heavier security forces presence within the hotel.
SPF Media Releases
16 Nov 2007 Area around the key event venues gazetted as a protected area/ places under the Protected Areas and Protected Places Act
As part of the security measures for the ASEAN summit, Police have gazetted the premises of Shangri-la, Raffles City Convention Center (RCCC), and Asian Civilisation Museum (ACM), as well as [b]500 metres of the perimeter surrounding these places and the Istana, as Protected Areas under the Protected Areas and Protected Places Act. This is similar to arrangements made at the recent APEC Australia 2007, and at the WTO in Hong Kong 2005. Such a security zone would allow police to conduct checks on persons found within the zone, and order persons found therein to leave the security zone if they pose a security threat to the ASEAN Summit.
It was stated clearly that 500m around the hotel is a protected area. I believe the group of people were within that 500ms. If so, why its wrong to enforce the protected area and protected places act?[/b]
Sub section (2) only has provision for detainment for the purpose of searching and checks. Subsection (1) only has provisions for control of movement within the protect area, not barring of entry unless proven with to be security threat. Chee and company have no history of violent crimes or inciting riots. Only speaking in public without permit. (that in itself is a ludicrous law. I need a permit to talk?)
The police were goaded into using force. If they'll(the police) would have just let them in, send a couple of officers to shadow the pair, prolly nothing would have happened. Chee expected to be stopped, John Tan was ready to video in the event it happened. The police was suckered really, this time round. -
we know that they were protesting from looking at their T-shirts, from their assembly outside a public area right?Originally posted by LazerLordz:So you're saying we cannot wear such t-shirts? Oh please.
have i answered your question?? -
Police playing the dangerous game of politics
Singapore Democrats
22 Nov 07
The police released a statement saying that 'in contrast to [Chee Soon Juan's] acts of civil disobedience, Singaporeans and Myanmar nationals in Singapore have organised themselves to express their sentiments and concern for the Myanmar situation in a lawful manner'.
It was a stupendous spin.
In August this year a group of Burmese nationals marched down the length of Orchard Road. The protesters were warned not once but twice. The group defied the warnings and continued their peaceful march.
A month later, our Burmese friends congregated outside the Burmese embassy for a vigil. Again despite repeated warnings from the police, the protesters stayed put and even returned on subsequent evenings.
Two nights ago, a group of 40 to 50 Burmese again congregated at Orchard Road in a protest. This is despite countless warnings from the police.
Defying unjust laws that suppress human rights is civil disobedience.
The fact that the police has chosen not to taken punitive action against these protesters does not make it any different from the nonviolent action that the SDP and its supporters have been doing.
Which brings us to the next point. The police are selective in who it chooses to prosecute. To charge in court Burmese nationals standing in solidarity with their counterparts at home who are being beaten and killed, is political stupidity at its gravest. The PAP Government knows this.
So rather than arrest the Burmese protesters, the police work furiously behind-the-scenes to intimidate these people.
Our men-in-blue regularly visit Peninsula Plaza where Burmese nationals hangout, bear down on university officials and monks in temples, and conduct investigations on individual Burmese all in an effort to stop them from organising activities.
Being in a foreign land, these people have little choice but to comply. It doesn't mean that they agree with the law that prohibits public protest – the same law, by the way, that exists in their homeland.
The Singapore Democrats and our supporters, on the other hand, are citizens of Singapore. The rights of our people have been robbed by the Government and we demand their return.
The Burmese, being foreigners, may back down. We do not.
For police to make the statement that they did further demonstrates their indulgence in partisan politics when they, as civil servants, ought to be strictly neutral.
This continued use of the police by the PAP to suppress dissent, and thus perpetuate its own power, is a dangerous game. Unlike in the past, the actions of our police force is widely and quickly disseminated through the Internet.
When the public sees it as being used to protect the PAP leaders, confidence in the police to enforce law and order impartially and without fear or favour will be eroded.
When state institutions are seen to no longer serve the interests of the public but rather the ruling clique, problems come very quickly. If it is trouble that the PAP is looking for, it will find it sooner rather than later.
The Government is caught in a delicate position. Crackdown on dissent and be condemned by the ever-growing democratic world. On the other hand it knows that if it allows Singaporeans to protest in public, then its days as an authoritarian regime are clearly numbered.
Singaporeans can see through this charade that the PAP and its police force are playing, and they want it stopped.
http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/articleburmaprotest71.html -
Back to this again....Originally posted by Jontst78:Sub section (2) only has provision for detainment for the purpose of searching and checks. Subsection (1) only has provisions for control of movement within the protect areas act, not barring of entry unless proven with to be security threat. Chee and company have no history of violent crimes or inciting riots. Only speaking in public without permit. (that in itself is a ludicrous law. I need a permit to talk?)
.
Protected areas.
4. —(1) If as respects any area it appears to the Minister to be necessary or expedient that special measures should be taken to control the movements and conduct of persons therein he may by order declare that area to be a protected area for the purposes of this Act.
(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.
So does the law says anything about proving (i believe u mean, evidence required right)? the police were acting on reasonable-grounds-to-believe in this incident. yes, sanctioned by the law.The police were goaded into using force. If they'll(the police) would have just let them in, send a couple of officers to shadow the pair, prolly nothing would have happened. Chee expected to be stopped, John Tan was ready to video in the event it happened. The police was suckered really, this time round
it was unfortunate that the stupid police took a very untactful approach to the chees, however there is nothing unlawful that the police had done in this incident. -
Then again, when chee challenged the officer to "cite me a law" the cop was dumbfounded. "this place is gazatted under the protect places act" is as vague as all other PAP justifications for their decisions. Like George Yeo saying "the arms we sold to burma were not used against the protesters."(and wehave to take his word for it?) I was rather disappointed with that really. Expected more of the police force that just got their pay raised.
-
500 meters around the hotel gazetted as a protected area ?Originally posted by foxtrout8:It was stated clearly that 500m around the hotel is a protected area. I believe the group of people were within that 500ms. If so, why its wrong to enforce the protected area and protected places act?
Did the Gazette make clear where does the 500 meter begin and the area clearly demarcated, or was it a simple administrative act without clear delineation ?
500 meters from the hotel building, or 500 meters from the perimeter wall of the grounds around the hotel ?
500 meters measured from the footprint or the hotel building walls - will mean that the defined Gazetted Area limits will be up to the property wall where the Orange Grove Road meet the main drive way entrance to and exit from; and will actually mean the entire perimeter of the Hotel Ground is a protected area.
The area along Orange Grove Road is not a gazetted protected area, and remains publicly accessible.
If 500 meters begins from the perimeter wall {where the main drive way entrance and exit connect to Orange Grove Road} - it will result in the Gazetted Area limits stretching 500 meters radiating around the Hotel Grounds that will encroach into neighboring private properties too.
It will mean that from the drive way entrances or exits, the gazetted areas will extend 500 meters to either side of Orange Grove Road {one direction towards Orchard Hotel, and the other direction towards RELC}, with the net covering a radius of 500 meters to include all private buildings around the Shangri-la grounds.
If the place has been gazetted - as in all protected areas such as MINDEF, Military installations, and all protected areas - did the Police physically demarcate the gazetted area with clear signages in the form of Public Notices that resemble the specified dimensions of red signboards issuing clear warning of trespass ? -
mismanagement of the police i agree. if they were more cool headed, im sure they can cite them the law by their sections.Originally posted by Jontst78:Then again, when chee challenged the officer to "cite me a law" the cop was dumbfounded. "this place is gazatted under the protect places act" is as vague as all other PAP justifications for their decisions. Like George Yeo saying "the arms we sold to burma were not used against the protesters."(and wehave to take his word for it?) I was rather disappointed with that really. Expected more of the police force that just got their pay raised. -
Nothing about barring entry tho. Unless regulating of movement includes barring entry. Its does however have provisions for escorting them to coffeehouse or eating establishment, making sure they dun go near the delegates. Detainment for the purpose of searching, and no searching was done.Originally posted by foxtrout8:Protected areas.
4. —(1) If as respects any area it appears to the Minister to be necessary or expedient that special measures should be taken to control the movements and conduct of persons therein he may by order declare that area to be a protected area for the purposes of this Act.
(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.
So does the law says anything about proving (i believe u mean, evidence required right)? -
it is sad to see that our intellectual discussion had been led into the arguement of where the exactly 500m mark lies.Originally posted by Atobe:500 meters around the hotel gazetted as a protected area ?
Did the Gazette make clear where does the 500 meter begin and the area clearly demarcated, or was it a simple administrative act without clear delineation ?
500 meters from the hotel building, or 500 meters from the perimeter wall of the grounds around the hotel ?
500 meters measured from the footprint or the hotel building walls - will mean that the defined Gazetted Area limits will be up to the property wall where the Orange Grove Road meet the main drive way entrance to and exit from; and will actually mean the entire perimeter of the Hotel Ground.
If 500 meters begins from the perimeter wall that include the main drive way entrance and exit that connect to Orange Grove Road - it will result in the Gazetted Area limits stretching 500 meters radiating around the Hotel Grounds that will encroach into neighboring properties.
It will mean that from the drive way entrances or exits - the gazetted areas will extend 500 meters to either side of Orange Grove Road {one direction towards Orchard Hotel, and the other direction towards RELC}.
If the place has been gazetted - as in all protected areas such as MINDEF, Military installations, and all protected areas - did the Police physically demarcate the gazetted area with clear signages in the form of Public Notices that resemble the specified dimensions of red signboards issuing clear warning of trespass ?
are there signs to warn trespassers? are there vehicular check post and where they are located?
i dont know. i never been there. maybe you like to tell mi.
my point is simple, to the extent of the law, the police actions were legal.