An incident in which a personal trainer allegedly attacked police officers in a Taoyuan convenience store before being subdued and allegedly struck 12 times by an officer has sparked discussions about police brutality, and whether the officer involved should be reprimanded.
On Saturday last week, a muscular, shirtless man surnamed Chu (朱) entered a convenience store in Jhongli District (中壢) and allegedly began acting erratically, talking to himself and knocking over product displays. Following up on a call from a store clerk, two police officers arrived and asked the man to leave.
Chu became enraged and allegedly struck both officers in the face and neck, causing a mild concussion to one and bruises on the other. Videos of the altercation posted online showed Chu squatting, flexing his muscles and roaring, prompting some Chinese-language media to dub him the “Taiwanese Hulk.”
One video showed that while Chu was sitting outside the store after he was pepper sprayed, an officer hit him with a baton 12 times, causing Chu to curl up on the ground. The man appeared to be wailing, without fighting back, and blood could be seen on his face and chest when he was handcuffed by the other officer.
Taoyuan Police Department’s Jhongli Precinct said that as the officer, surnamed Wang (王), allegedly lost control of his emotions and used “excessive force,” he was given two demerits and would be charged with assault.
Wang’s actions triggered widespread discussion over whether he was enforcing the law and protecting himself or was using excessive force. Some questioned whether demerits and criminal charges would discourage police from doing their jobs.
A person who said they were a police officer from another Jhongli Precinct station on Wednesday wrote on Facebook that they would launch a “passive public security” campaign from Thursday next week to Sunday. During the campaign, officers would not investigate crimes, give traffic tickets or complete tasks assigned by the precinct to show their disappointment over the police department’s response to Wang.
Based on the Criminal Code, Chu used threats or violence against public officials performing their duties, and under the Police Power Exercise Act (警察職權行使法), officers are permitted to bring a person under control using handcuffs or other approved physical restraining devices, such as while facing violent acts or fighting that could result in injury or other risks that cannot be prevented without restraint.
If the officers had used their batons appropriately to subdue Chu during the assault, the law might protect Wang’s actions, but Wang allegedly beat Chu after he had been subdued, while the other officer stood by and watched. Those actions could be illegal “retaliation” and “assault” on a civilian, who was no longer endangering them or others, nor resisting restraint or detention.
It is understandable for people to empathize with frontline police officers and the risks they frequently encounter. However, they are law enforcers who are given powers they can exercise within the law, and should minimize infringements upon people’s rights. They should use these powers to safeguard citizens’ rights, and maintain public order and social security. They are not the enforcers of punishment.
While self-defense is vital for police, police departments should enhance human rights aspects of law enforcement education, so that officers act in accordance with the law, to protect themselves and others, which can also foster public trust and confidence in the police, gaining them the respect and support they need to perform their duties.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS