No idea. But this is Orchard Road after all.
Maybe many PO were on the scene but these have higher IQ and they know how terrible it looks to all the rich foreign tourists if someone is hand cuffed for taking photos or videos.
Handcuff for taking flood photos?
- Thread starter roadrunner_552
- Start date
No idea. But this is Orchard Road after all.
Maybe many PO were on the scene but these have higher IQ and they know how terrible it looks to all the rich foreign tourists if someone is hand cuffed for taking photos or videos.
+evenstar
Senior Member
there's pretty much nothing i can do if the area the journalist is shooting from is safe.Hmm.. why not you be a PO and after which let us know if you were in that kind of position what were you do?
colourfulfaces
Senior Member
of cos not haha. got this video from youtube. I agree that the guy was wrong but should the bus be slowing down in such condition? He is driving as though the road is clear.. In such flooding condition, you can't even see the kerb at the side and the brake might not be working properly.
Anyway this is our view from the video. The actual situation, the driver will know best so let us not look at only 1 side of the story.
Last edited:
According to what I know, if a PO is at the scene and He does that, the first approach is to warn him to get off the road and not make a scene. If after some warning which is usually at least 3 times, he will be arrested under penal code # 268. Public nuisance
268. A person is guilty of a public nuisance, who does any act, or is guilty of an illegal omission, which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public, or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right.
Explanation.A common nuisance is not excused on the ground that it causes some convenience or advantage.
Obstructing public servant in discharge of his public functions
186. Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 months, or with fine which may extend to $2,500, or with both.
Disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant
188. Whoever, knowing that by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to $1,000, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health, or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or an affray, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 6 months, or with fine which may extend to $3,000, or with both.
[51/2007]
Explanation.It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm.
Most of us here take photos but not all of us can really put ourselves in the shoes of how a press photographer works. Same for a police officer of course.
Let's say a shopper wants to make a last purchase before the shutter gates of a shopping centre closes when the security guard approaches him and asks him to leave or he could be trapped in the building. The shopper replies that it is just one last purchase and proceeds to make payment. Then the security restrains him and hauls him out of the shopping centre.
So who is at fault?
I try to be fair. If you ask me, it is about two personalities who are "passionate" about what they do at that moment when they suddenly have this "conflict of interests". Is the shopper's purchase really that critical? Does the security guard have to resort to force?
Similarly, Mr Goh may not necessary need to take that shot (yet he chose to) or there could be a better way for the police officer to "escort" him "safely" out of there (yet he used his handcuffs). But their paths crossed and I would prefer to suggest that NONE of them wanted it to turn out this way.
And let us not stereotype photojournalists, the police force, bus drivers, tourists or what have you. Just as there are saints as there are blacksheeps in Clubsnap, I don't think anyone of us wants another person to think bad of all Clubsnappers just because of some isolated incidents. And also to think ourselves as holier than the rest because we all know we aren't.
Let's say a shopper wants to make a last purchase before the shutter gates of a shopping centre closes when the security guard approaches him and asks him to leave or he could be trapped in the building. The shopper replies that it is just one last purchase and proceeds to make payment. Then the security restrains him and hauls him out of the shopping centre.
So who is at fault?
I try to be fair. If you ask me, it is about two personalities who are "passionate" about what they do at that moment when they suddenly have this "conflict of interests". Is the shopper's purchase really that critical? Does the security guard have to resort to force?
Similarly, Mr Goh may not necessary need to take that shot (yet he chose to) or there could be a better way for the police officer to "escort" him "safely" out of there (yet he used his handcuffs). But their paths crossed and I would prefer to suggest that NONE of them wanted it to turn out this way.
And let us not stereotype photojournalists, the police force, bus drivers, tourists or what have you. Just as there are saints as there are blacksheeps in Clubsnap, I don't think anyone of us wants another person to think bad of all Clubsnappers just because of some isolated incidents. And also to think ourselves as holier than the rest because we all know we aren't.
No offence, skylover. All these Penal Codes are very informative in hindsight but I was just wondering how many of us can tell from our 286, 186, 188 or 224 when faced with that kind of predicament.
zoossh
Senior Member
not really a good example. doesn't make sense if the cashier is still opened. the cashier needs to be long closed before the building shuts. and in this case, the security guard did say "he could be trapped in the building" and the shopping centre did have an actual closing hour that can be referenced.
i think the crux is whether the policeman did state his reason that the photographer have to leave, and if the reason is valid.
Last edited:
Haha... you don't really have to dissect my "analogy" down to that kind of details =_="' I was just trying to build up momentum to what I really wanted to comment after that... Apologies for my bad storytelling.
I do know wolves dun really blow houses down and chickens dun really lay golden eggs. So lighten up ok?
yeobt
New Member
sorry to say, am not trying to put you down, but all you had mentioned above, whatever
'peanut' code and blah blah, none was even mentioned in the explanation by the SPF
on our national papers on sunday. all they say was 'for his own safety'.
so, your speculation is totally invalid and out of the point.
anyway, i have witnessed a even more terrible thing happens with blood all over a victim
shirt and was ferried away by an ambulance due to an assault. few police cars and many
policemen were there to attend to the case. the drunken assailant even challenges the
victim in hokkien for 1 to 1 in front of many onlookers and the PO. guess what, i was
surprised to see that 'rolex king' was not even use on the assailant. can you imaging
a person who had just hammer a guy n send him to hospital with blood all over his body
and is not arrested? the assailant was allowed to walk free right in front of our eyes.
i was puzzle. i walked to the officer and asked why is it that he was not arrested? you
know what the officer says? we will investigate. but before any conclusion, there isn't any
case against him, is a civil case for now. :bigeyes:
and for this matter, the photographer got a pair of 'rolex king' for photography? i'm really
speachless.....:nono:
No worries csy. I think most of us do not know the laws every well but if you do not know the law very well, it does no harm to ask the [in a nice manner]PO in charge which section did you breech. If the PO is unable to do so and if you really want to do what you want to do, I suppose you could call the hotline or complain about it. But unless you know you law very well, then go ahead and challenge the PO authority but in a nice matter or else you are getting yourself in trouble as I believe ones you are angry, as human, it usually gets out of hand
I don't know all the laws every well, I do know the most common type that we will usually face. So to me, its sometime good to have some knowledge of the law [those common to you] than you do not know anything and then get into trouble unknowingly.
I guess the PO may/may not have explain properly to the photographer the consequences of his action and why he is not allowed to be there etc.
That's what I thought. Its seriously hard to judge who is right or wrong if we simply just base on the news article itself.
- anyway, i have witnessed a even more terrible thing happens with blood all over a victim
shirt and was ferried away by an ambulance due to an assault. few police cars and many
policemen were there to attend to the case. the drunken assailant even challenges the
victim in hokkien for 1 to 1 in front of many onlookers and the PO. guess what, i was
surprised to see that 'rolex king' was not even use on the assailant. can you imaging
a person who had just hammer a guy n send him to hospital with blood all over his body
and is not arrested? the assailant was allowed to walk free right in front of our eyes.
i was puzzle. i walked to the officer and asked why is it that he was not arrested? you
know what the officer says? we will investigate. but before any conclusion, there isn't any
case against him, is a civil case for now. -
Was the fight still on when the police arrived? If not, yes, the victim must lodged a magistrate complaint or proceed with civil sue. The law does not give police the right to arrest someone for Voluntary Causing Hurt.
However if he is drunk and making a scene, he could be arrested for disorderly behaviour or arrest both man (assailant cos he won and victim cos he was bleeding? Its subjective) for affray.Different scenarios call for different application of the law. What you see might not necessary be what really hap...could be the supposed victim actually assaulted the other party. We never know.
Anyway back to this case, I really hope SPF could step up and give a proper explaination while the paper should also exercise restraint in its reporting. It really could just be a storm in a teacup.
shirt and was ferried away by an ambulance due to an assault. few police cars and many
policemen were there to attend to the case. the drunken assailant even challenges the
victim in hokkien for 1 to 1 in front of many onlookers and the PO. guess what, i was
surprised to see that 'rolex king' was not even use on the assailant. can you imaging
a person who had just hammer a guy n send him to hospital with blood all over his body
and is not arrested? the assailant was allowed to walk free right in front of our eyes.
i was puzzle. i walked to the officer and asked why is it that he was not arrested? you
know what the officer says? we will investigate. but before any conclusion, there isn't any
case against him, is a civil case for now. -
Was the fight still on when the police arrived? If not, yes, the victim must lodged a magistrate complaint or proceed with civil sue. The law does not give police the right to arrest someone for Voluntary Causing Hurt.
However if he is drunk and making a scene, he could be arrested for disorderly behaviour or arrest both man (assailant cos he won and victim cos he was bleeding? Its subjective) for affray.Different scenarios call for different application of the law. What you see might not necessary be what really hap...could be the supposed victim actually assaulted the other party. We never know.
Anyway back to this case, I really hope SPF could step up and give a proper explaination while the paper should also exercise restraint in its reporting. It really could just be a storm in a teacup.
Last edited:
A walking ASP = walking warrant ^^
dannyfoxy
Senior Member
u so angry for what? u like the police walk into your house everyday? u like the police handcuff you for taking photo? u like police stopping u and ask for ID everywhere you go? we are here to protect our rights. u are here to granting PO all the rights??:think:
what r you trying to do??
http://gizmodo.com/5570064/show-your-photographers-bill-of-rights-with-these-silkscreened-lenscloths
• There is no restriction on people taking photographs in public places or any building other than in very exceptional circumstances
• There is no prohibition on photographing frontline uniform staff
• The act of taking a photograph in itself is not usually sufficeint to carry out a stop
• Unless there is a very good reason, people taking photographs should not be stopped
• Officers do not have the power to delete digital images, destroy film or to prevent photography in a public place under either power (sections 43 and 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000)
Last edited:
I dun know how matured or informed in separating the facts from the fiction you watched in TVs and US Movies. May I suggest u go read up on criminal procedure code and penal code. Google Singapore Statuettes.Maybe u want to stop commenting and start reading the rest of the posts in this thread. There are a lot of good info based on our law i.e. Singapore. It is one way to grow and make others take you more seriously.
I am not familiar with the Terrorism act, but u sure there is a section 43 and 44? Which act? CAP 324A or 325?
Maybe I am wrong but before u cut and paste from other forums, u better checked and make sure its there first. Though I might be wrong too and did not go through both Caps in detail.
I am not familiar with the Terrorism act, but u sure there is a section 43 and 44? Which act? CAP 324A or 325?
Maybe I am wrong but before u cut and paste from other forums, u better checked and make sure its there first. Though I might be wrong too and did not go through both Caps in detail.
You seem to mix up laws from other country and Singapore. Other country laws are not applicable in Singapore.
He took it off from a site which the laws does not apply in SG.The law that he state was UK law.
"The UK Amateur Photographer magazine is giving away these silkscreened lenscloth in its upcoming issue to remind the police what photographers, professional and amateur, are allowed to do:"
Last edited:
If the use of handcuffs in this case was justified,then perhaps most of us would have ended up being arrested liao:angry: Imagine walking and taking some photos n suddenly a P.O appear,warned u and then hand cuff u?
Last year, I was photographing a guest from the States outside the Esplanade bay area with the backdrop of Marina Bays Sands behind and was stopped by a P.O asking for my I.D!!!! I told him It's a public area and hundreds of tourists snap photos from there everyday. He later called back his Supervisor n told me to carry on with what I was doing. WTF!!?? Sad to say,the person I was photographing must have got a very negative impression of our country .
I was there when the Hermes store was flooded a few weeks ago n most passer-by's were happily snapping away so can u imagine the police hand cuffing everyone??
I think as long as there were not any police cordon ,the public can stand where they want to unless they are putting themselves or others at risk or intruding into some private premises w/o permission or something.
Sometime ago I happened upon an accident site n whipped out my DSLR n snapped some shots n was stopped by the police even though I was far away from the area and it was cordoned off yet. The annoying thing is that many were snapping away around me but with their handphone cams but I was 'targetted' coz of my bigger camera!!:angry:
Last year, I was photographing a guest from the States outside the Esplanade bay area with the backdrop of Marina Bays Sands behind and was stopped by a P.O asking for my I.D!!!! I told him It's a public area and hundreds of tourists snap photos from there everyday. He later called back his Supervisor n told me to carry on with what I was doing. WTF!!?? Sad to say,the person I was photographing must have got a very negative impression of our country .
I was there when the Hermes store was flooded a few weeks ago n most passer-by's were happily snapping away so can u imagine the police hand cuffing everyone??
I think as long as there were not any police cordon ,the public can stand where they want to unless they are putting themselves or others at risk or intruding into some private premises w/o permission or something.
Sometime ago I happened upon an accident site n whipped out my DSLR n snapped some shots n was stopped by the police even though I was far away from the area and it was cordoned off yet. The annoying thing is that many were snapping away around me but with their handphone cams but I was 'targetted' coz of my bigger camera!!:angry:
dannyfoxy
Senior Member
SG law is copied direct from UK law and modified along time to meet the changed of sg, sg used to be UK colony, MM lee study law in UK(cambridge). When MM lee fight for independent of SG, sg got no law, all UK law apply to sg if no changes was made.
i think this law should apply since no one request to make the change. it is not something major.
PO are suppose to act according to SG laws. If SG do not have the laws stated black and white. They are not suppose to do anything
True. But the laws was amended to cater to SG environment. So whatever UK law stated currently is not applicable in SG. We still follow our own SG law not UK law ma.
