B.C. teen arrested for photographing mall takedown

page: 2
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   
All the ideas here of public versus private do not apply as this is a mall, the public are invited on and retain their rights. The idea they don't is criminal. The constitution follow you everywhere. Most are leased, often from Natives. Also, before the realtor sells you land, who gave it to them to begin with. Who owns all the land they're selling and leasing? WE DO.

But even more important, is this.

When cases like this occur, people, who constantly need to be organized into regional and local watchdog groups, need to ensure they are the top dog.

That means, if a police officer targets a citizen, THEIR BOSS, with a camera. Then huge numbers in the region answer the alert put out by their own group and they all carry their cameras, they all group up together, they walk into court telling the judge, THEY ARE ALL GUILTY OF THIS BECAUSE IT IS NEEDED AND IMPERATIVE THAT CORRUPT LEADERSHIP AND POLICE BE STOPPED AND WE ARE THE POWER.

Its time to get organized, for the majority citizen to stand up strong in groups.
edit on 31-10-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by AccessDenied
 


I agree that the people in the authority position might have went over board, but its still not a valid excuse.
the kid broke the rules. when he was confronted, he became belligerent(he admits this in the OP article). and he was arrested for causing a disturbance

again, I think its BS that it went down the way it did, but everyone is jumping to conclussions about how wronged the kid was, when in reality, the whole situation started because he failed to follow the posted rules.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


of course private property laws apply to the mall...
it is not the mall owners responsibility to make sure that the public knows the rules. its the publics responsibility to know them. its a written agreement upon entering the building. just like the laws governing the people. ignorance is not an excuse. you are still expected to follow the rules where ever you go.

your arguement about WE owning the land is also invalid. if that was the case, I could go onto any farmland I wanted to, and I could start picking the fruit and vegetables with no recourse from the farm owner.

by your agruement, i could come onto your property and just set up camp and live there. if its OUR land, then its my land, and you have no rights to kick me off



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by kalisdad
by your agruement, i could come onto your property and just set up camp and live there. if its OUR land, then its my land, and you have no rights to kick me off


Try it. You'd be surprised how many rights you have as a "squatter".



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Journalists and others should all start recording their footage live to a cloud so that no matter what thousands of people have already seen what he was trying to document before the cops or security steal their cameras.

Just a thought. Not sure how feasible it is since I'm technology illiterate.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by HandyDandy Try it. You'd be surprised how many rights you have as a "squatter".



just one more symptom of the entitlement society we live in today...

if it was your private property, I am sure you would want the law to protect your land, but when it comes to a kid breaking the rules at the mall, its 'oh nos, bad security guards, bad cops'

can't have it both ways.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by kalisdad
 


Seems to me to be an unjust "rule" to begin with, and it doesn't seem the motive to arrest this kid and take his camera had anything to do with breaking the malls "rules" on camera use. It's unfortunate that this loop hole can be used to justify a blatant attack on this young man's rights.

If your doing something you don't want filmed, you probably shouldn't being doing it, especially if you are in a position of power over other peoples lives.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Most if not all malls in the Vancouver area don't allow photography without permission and Metrotown is no exception. I've taken a few but I only use my point and shoot. On any given day one can find many people in the mall, kids mostly, taking shots on their mobile phones without problems but if their seen by security guards or cameras they will be told to stop. The mall has a wonderful facade on the Kingsway side an I called the mall to ask permission to shoot it in the wee hours with a DSLR and tripod. I was told by the media manager that it would be fine. Without written consent, I asked what I should do if confronted by security and was told simply to tell the guards that the media manager had given me the go ahead and to mention her by name. I haven't gotten around to taking the image yet and after reading this I think I'll try for a physical letter with a sig. When I lived in Toronto I used to shoot in Eaton Center all the time with an SLR and tripod without issue ever and have been told by a photographer (Daily Dose of Imagery blog) that to this day he shoots within the mall with no issues.
A couple of years back I shot a couple of cops eating fast food in a park area. I asked if they would mind if I took a pic of them eating their lunch. They weren't overjoyed by the concept but told me upfront that there was nothing they could do about it and commenced gobbling their burgers while I fired off a few frames. The long and short of it is in knowing when you should ask permission to ensure your safety and as a courtesy to others. I'm getting sneaky in my old age though, I now use a 10mm wide angle which allows me to get people in my shot without them ever knowing






posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by MountainLaurel
reply to post by kalisdad
 


Seems to me to be an unjust "rule" to begin with, and it doesn't seem the motive to arrest this kid and take his camera had anything to do with breaking the malls "rules" on camera use. It's unfortunate that this loop hole can be used to justify a blatant attack on this young man's rights.

If your doing something you don't want filmed, you probably shouldn't being doing it, especially if you are in a position of power over other peoples lives.


This. There is no problem with people taking pictures on their cell phones of everyday activity. The only reason he was targeted was that he caught the security guards being bad.

I'm looking for details on the definition of Photojournalism, but I suspect the legal definition that I find will breeze past the private property law. Gathering documentary evidence of a crime being committed is commendable. Dude had a camera handy, why not take a picture of security guards going above their pay grade? Let's face it. Witness testimony is garbage. People are unreliable. But you can't say "No, I didn't do that." to a picture or video of you doing that.

I expect that he does not need to be a documented member of the press to have the photographs he took accepted as "photojournalism".

ETA: Whoa. Easy.

Privacy Act, 2. (3): (from B.C.)
A publication of a matter is not a violation of privacy if (a) the matter published was of public interest or was fair comment on a matter of public interest, or (b) the publication was privileged in accordance with the rules of law relating to defamation.
edit on 31/10/2012 by CrikeyMagnet because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by kalisdad One of the rules was that there be no photography without prior consent of the management.


some rules are made to be broken, and should be. this is one.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by CrikeyMagnet
This. There is no problem with people taking pictures on their cell phones of everyday activity. The only reason he was targeted was that he caught the security guards being bad.

I'm looking for details on the definition of Photojournalism, but I suspect the legal definition that I find will breeze past the private property law. Gathering documentary evidence of a crime being committed is commendable. Dude had a camera handy, why not take a picture of security guards going above their pay grade? Let's face it. Witness testimony is garbage. People are unreliable. But you can't say "No, I didn't do that." to a picture or video of you doing that.

I expect that he does not need to be a documented member of the press to have the photographs he took accepted as "photojournalism".


you assume that he was photographing something bad. the article just says the guards were arresting someone.
the fact is, he broke the rules by taking photographs without prior consent. that is the only piece of information that we know for certian. as far as the article goes, the boy was the only person doing something they shouldn't have been doing. we don't know the circumstances of the other arrest made that day.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by RoScoLaz
some rules are made to be broken, and should be. this is one.


who determines which rules should and shouldn't be broken? what if we disagree on some of the exception?

when will this madness end?



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
so, according to the general opinion of the posters, I come to this conclussion.

you are having a yard sale, inviting the public onto your property.
during the event, one of attenders manages to get a peek into your 1st floor bathroom where your daughter is about to shower. he quickly takes a snapshot of her half naked before you notice what he is doing.

do they just get to walk away with no recourse by you? do you not want your property protected from this kind of violation? did you not invite the public onto your poperty thereby nullifying all your rights to privacy?
this is what some of you are advocating. just because the mall is inviting the public onto their property, does not mean that they give up the rights to impose rules of their choosing.

the mall clearly posts the rules against public photography. you are obligated to follow these rules as it is technically a written agreement that you are bound to upon entering.
regardless of their open invitation to the public,they can revolk that privilage at any time. its their private property, and reserve the right to tell you to leave at their discression,
in this case the boy was banned from the mall for 6 months.
edit on 31-10-2012 by kalisdad because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Right to privacy is not the same thing at all. That's just hyperboling the whole issue.
We have the whole issue figured out in here. All places accessible to the public are public areas. Free speech applies.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by kalisdad
 


Hyperbole and old number 17



www.abovetopsecret.com...

Of course the mall cops don't want to be photo/videoed when abusing patrons to the mall it had nothing to do with privacy issues and you know it.
edit on 31-10-2012 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Right to privacy is not the same thing at all. That's just hyperboling the whole issue.
We have the whole issue figured out in here. All places accessible to the public are public areas. Free speech applies.


wrong.


A privately owned public space is a public space that is open to the public, but owned by a private entity, typically a commercial property developer.

en.wikipedia.org...


Because malls are private property, and our constitutional rights are triggered only when the government (and not a private citizen) tries to limit our freedoms.


The New York Court of Appeals expressly refused to apply New York's constitutional protections to free speech in shopping malls

www.slate.com...


Do individuals have First Amendment rights on others’ private property?

Generally no. The Bill of Rights provides protection for individual liberty from actions by government officials. This is called the state-action doctrine. Private property is not government-owned. Restrictions on individuals’ free-speech rights on private property do not involve state action.

www.firstamendmentcenter.org...

while some states disagree, most assert that while on private property, the owners can make rules that violate the first amendment.

Don't like it? shop somewhere else!



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Private security guards aren't supposed to be allowed to use physical violence like that, especially not over taking photographs. At least in my province, this is illegal.

The best logical response would have been to threat these goons just as any other thugs! You attack me? Try to steal my camera? Here's a shot of pepper spray, or a good old broken nose off your face!



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by olaru12
 


what evidence do we have that the security guards where doing anything wrong?
None

what evidence do we have that the kid was doing something wrong?


Markiewicz ,16, said he was in the mall in September and took a picture of what he thought was a newsworthy event

www.cbc.ca...


I would like to film in the mall, how do I go about doing this?

News crews can gain access and approval to be on site by calling 604.438.4700. At no time can a camera crew film inside any stores or restaurants without prior consent from the store or restaurant manager. Requests by students/special projects will be evaluated on an individual basis. Please submit a written request: info@metropolisatmetrotown.com

www.metropolisatmetrotown.com...

we know the kid broke the rules that he agreed to follow upon entering the mall
we know the kid got belligerent when confrnted by mall security trying to enforce the rules, he admits to it in the article



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by kalisdad

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Right to privacy is not the same thing at all. That's just hyperboling the whole issue.
We have the whole issue figured out in here. All places accessible to the public are public areas. Free speech applies.


wrong.


A privately owned public space is a public space that is open to the public, but owned by a private entity, typically a commercial property developer.

en.wikipedia.org...


Because malls are private property, and our constitutional rights are triggered only when the government (and not a private citizen) tries to limit our freedoms.


The New York Court of Appeals expressly refused to apply New York's constitutional protections to free speech in shopping malls

www.slate.com...


Do individuals have First Amendment rights on others’ private property?

Generally no. The Bill of Rights provides protection for individual liberty from actions by government officials. This is called the state-action doctrine. Private property is not government-owned. Restrictions on individuals’ free-speech rights on private property do not involve state action.

www.firstamendmentcenter.org...

while some states disagree, most assert that while on private property, the owners can make rules that violate the first amendment.

Don't like it? shop somewhere else!


So I could just beat up my wife and abuse my children, because I'm doing this on a private property owned by ME?

Wrong.

Any organization or business, private or not, is located on the territory of a State, and is to abide by the Law just like anywhere else on that territory. Because basically, property over a space is conceded by the State, so you can use it accordingly with its Laws and Constitution.

What these goons did is an ASSAULT. And private property does not grant them the immunity for using violence on people.

Go back to your corporate fantasyland of tyranny, somewhere in China. I don't want that FASCIST mentality in my country!
edit on 31/10/12 by Echtelion because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Echtelion
Private security guards aren't supposed to be allowed to use physical violence like that, especially not over taking photographs. At least in my province, this is illegal.

The best logical response would have been to threat these goons just as any other thugs! You attack me? Try to steal my camera? Here's a shot of pepper spray, or a good old broken nose off your face!


do we know if the kid tried attacking the security when they went for his camera?
did the guards feel threatened to the point where they felt their only recourse was to subdue the kid until the police arrived?

we don't know...

everyone just jumps on the bad cop bandwagon without knowing all the facts

plain and simple, the violaton of mall rules commited by the kid is the catalyst for this entire fiasco to go down.
if he had read and complied with the written rules posted for entering the mall, none of this would have happend



new topics
top topics
 
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join