What if cuffing him was the only option at that moment in time to keep him out of harm's way......
What if cuffing him was the only option at that moment in time to keep him out of harm's way......
You are all wrong.
There was no flood. Never had one. The last flood we had was in 1972.
We are not the type of country that has floods.
I agree with what Kit has mention. PO's duty is to protect lives and property. If the action of the photojournalist will cause harm to himself, PO or public. It is the duty of PO to make sure he is save from harm's way.
Since a warning has been given to him and he insist on doing it his way. I find no wrong with the PO cuffing him and bringing him away from the location to prevent him from getting harm at the same time the build up of onlooker near there.
:bsmilieo was afraid chief reporter will kick or punch him?, why din activate sof, dangerous photog, officer need assistance..:bsmilie:
hahha.. i doubt that PO require extra assistance. The most the other PO near the area come rushing down to restrain him. If the Chief reporter kick or punch him. That's the end of his career for the reporter.![]()
There is some concern that the flood photos will give Singapore a bad image.
In this case, if handcuffing him was the best way to keep him restrained for his own safety despite warning given, and due to the difficulty in crowd control under a chaotic situation, then the 2nd part --> the action of handcuffing is not valid because the PO's intention was not to harm the journalist, or in any way jeopardise his life/safety, but trying to protect him, and protecting civilians safety is part of a police officer's job.
i dunno how handcuffing can help to make the reporter safer, what if he fell into flood water and drown because he was unable to swim or get himself up with the handcuff?
i dunno how handcuffing can help to make the reporter safer, what if he fell into flood water and drown because he was unable to swim or get himself up with the handcuff?
Like I said before, they might have cuffed him to prevent him from getting into harm's way and I cannot imagine the police would leave a person in cuffs alone without any supervision. Its common sense really.....
have you ever heard of any cases where a person was handcuffed for his own safety except for mentally unbalanced persons.. what a lame excuse... just a unthought through excuse given for a faux pas...
i'm sure there are some "emergency SOP" but not all the time doing this.Man goes robbing bank with gun.....
Police came, man surrenders.....
Police can't arrest man without a warrant.....
Man runs away.....
How stupid does that sound?
Why not? If it not for his/her own safety, then its for the safety of everyone else.....
aiya.. now the PO damn kiasi one, anything dangerous sure get cisco to do one, only those small small matter will come out and talk loud loud.
One more thing to add, if PO can handcuff anyone one the street when they think they like to handcuff, what is the court of law and warrant to arrest for????
police handcuff ppl, search or detaint private properties only when they get warrant from court. And they need to apply it with valid reason, cannot simply just arrest wor.
If singapore PO is so powerful, when i think can do away with the court liao, why nwaste tax payer $