Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

B.C. teen arrested for photographing mall takedown

page: 3
23
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Echtelion
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!


I never said it wasn't assault by the security guards. I simply stated that the kid broke the rules in the first place.
we also know that the kid got belligerent with the security guards when confronted. he admits to it in the article.

you don't have all the facts, and are just taking the side of a kid who has proven to have no respect for other peoples property or the rules that he agrred to comply with upon entering the mall
edit on 31-10-2012 by kalisdad because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by kalisdad
 


Apparently when I wrote "here" I wasn't clear enough. There's this thing "location: Finland" in my avatar



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ninjas4321
 


Got to be honest, this a nothing event. Two pumped up mall security guards over-step the mark. Already high on adrenaline and testosterone they make a poor judgement call... that's it. They should probably apologise to the boy, but at the end of the day malls are private property and you don't actually have the same rights as you would have on a city street.

To me, the lawyer has gone to the papers, because he is hoping for an out-of-court settlement. He is unlikely to win the case in court.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by kalisdad
 


Apparently when I wrote "here" I wasn't clear enough. There's this thing "location: Finland" in my avatar


why do you think you can apply the laws of Finland to Canada?

the Canadian right to free expression/free speech is no different from the US version. it only applies to the government restricting it.

in a privately owned public space, the owners of the property can restrict phtography and are not violating any laws.

in fact, continued defiance of rules posted about restricted photography can result in harrassment charges being filed against the person breaking the rules.

Landowners are allowed to restrict the actions of the public as it is not a violation of the first amendment


When you are on private property, what you are allowed to do may be limited by the owner of the property, or by someone acting on the owner’s behalf, like their security guard. If the property owner puts up signs or tells you not to do something (eg: no trespassing, no photography, keep off grass, etc), then disobeying the signs or verbal instructions is trespassing. If you are asked by the owner to leave the property, you must leave immediately, otherwise you are trespassing.


If you trespass, the property owner, or security guard, can arrest you


(1) A police officer, or the occupier of premises, or a person authorized by the occupier may arrest without warrant any person he or she believes on reasonable and probable grounds to be on the premises in contravention of section 2. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 9 (1).

ambientlight.ca...

the more you guys make me look into this, the more information I am obtaining that is proving my point.
as authorized representative of the mall owners, the security guards are working within the law to arrest the kid for violating the owners rules and noncompience with their requests.
the guards subdued the kid and held him until the police arrived

not even assault in this case, as they were simply arresting the kid(as per their legal right) and he resisted
edit on 31-10-2012 by kalisdad because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Wow... dont take it personally dude. I never claimed that Finnish law is applied in Canada. I made the comment to show that there is a solution that works better. Chill


[Edit to add] Btw, just to be clear about the laws the property owner can order a person to leave. If they refuse then they can be arrested for tresspassing. They cannot order them to stop taking photos or ask them to delete or even ask to view the photos taken. At least that's how it is in US, I'm assuming in Canada it's the same.
edit on 31/10/2012 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Clearly what is needed are web connected cameras that store a copy of the pictures/video to the web. Here's an app by the ACLU thats a step in the right direction.

Police Tape



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 03:50 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.



Originally posted by PsykoOps
Apparently when I wrote "here" I wasn't clear enough. There's this thing "location: Finland" in my avatar



Originally posted by PsykoOps
Wow... dont take it personally dude. I never claimed that Finnish law is applied in Canada. I made the comment to show that there is a solution that works better. Chill


[Edit to add] Btw, just to be clear about the laws the property owner can order a person to leave. If they refuse then they can be arrested for tresspassing. They cannot order them to stop taking photos or ask them to delete or even ask to view the photos taken. At least that's how it is in US, I'm assuming in Canada it's the same


1) free speech appies to the government restricting it, privately owned public space do not qualify
2) what appies in Finland does not apply everywhere
3) disobeying orders to cease photography by lawful representatives of the property owner is grounds for tresspassing. they can in fact tell you to stop taking photographs. asking to delete them is something else entirely as the photos would be the property of the camera owner.
4) where do you get your information about US law not allowing private propery owners restricting photography? I alread posted numerous links saying exactly the opposite. most states uphold private property rules barring photograghy



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by MountainLaurel
reply to post by kalisdad
 

It's unfortunate that this loop hole can be used to justify a blatant attack on this young man's rights.

Ummm, what rights? Only thing violated is the privately owned malls rule of no photography on its grounds. Please do explain what you mean though, not sure i understand how his rights were violated.

Originally posted by MountainLaurel
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.

Again im baffled. Why do you assume they were doing something they werent supposed to. They were simply arresting a crook and most likely had their adrenaline pumping and over reacted. But no laws were broken and no rights violated.

I agree, it might have been a bit much, this young kid didnt need or ask for this treatment, but to make this out to be some sort of violation of basic human rights is a bit much.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by kalisdad
 


1) Yes?
2) Afaik it doesn't apply anywhere but here. As I said it was an example of a system that works better.
3)


disobeying orders to cease photography by lawful representatives of the property owner is grounds for tresspassing.


Exactly.



they can in fact tell you to stop taking photographs.


Nope. They can ask you to leave or be arrested. They cannot ask you to stop taking photos.

4) It's a professional intrest. I cant remember where I learned about the US system. You apparently dont distinguish between the legality of arresting / ordering someone to leave because of tresspassing and the act of taking a picture. There is a difference in law.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Nope. They can ask you to leave or be arrested. They cannot ask you to stop taking photos.

Love to see you quote the law or legal precident for this statement. Can you?

And this isnt the USA, its Canada. No idea why your quoting what you think is US law.
edit on 31-10-2012 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
At least that's how it is in US, I'm assuming in Canada it's the same.


If it's not then feel free to correct me. I haven't taken interest in Canadian law but it's similarities with US are quite big.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
You apparently dont distinguish between the legality of arresting / ordering someone to leave because of tresspassing and the act of taking a picture. There is a difference in law.


you don't seem to understand, that by breaking the rules posted upn entry, the kid was tresspassing.
not obeying orders to cease photography issued by lawful representatives of the property owner is tresspassing

the only person here not complying with the rules of the private property owner, is the kid
the security guards did not break any laws by subduig and arreting the kid until the police arrived.
when the police got there, they charged the kid with disturbance.


. If the property owner puts up signs or tells you not to do something (eg: no trespassing, no photography, keep off grass, etc), then disobeying the signs or verbal instructions is trespassing.


If they tell you that photography is not allowed, continuing to take photographs is trespassing. They may also simply ask you to leave, and by not doing so in an orderly fashion, you are trespassing.

ambientlight.ca...

appearently you are mistaken, this is Canadian tresspass law.
not complying with written rules, and disobeying verbal instruction is a violation and considered trespassing.

the act of taking a picture was in violation of the posted rules, and the verbal instructions of the security guards. the kid started swearing and causing a scene because he felt entitled to do whatever the hell he wanted. the kid was wrong, and the security guards arrested him until the police arrived.

as far as the guards 'assaulting' the kid...


If you trespass and run away, the police, property owner, or security guard may use as much force as is reasonably necessary to arrest you. Should you be arrested by someone other than the police, they must hand you over to the police as quickly as reasonably possible.


(d) by virtue of his office,
is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.

ambientlight.ca...

I am citing the actual laws... you are just using miconception of said laws
edit on 31-10-2012 by kalisdad because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Yes it is tresspassing. As I said. You seem not to understand that taking a picture is not against any law. You can be arrested for disturbance or tresspassing but you cannot be arrested for photography.
The guards had no right to detain him at all. They had a right to tell him to stop after he took a photograph and tell him to leave or be arrested. He was leaving. He could only be arrested for tresspassing if he had refused to leave. Hence he wasn't even arrested for tresspassing. He was arrested for causing a disturbance which is a direct result of being illegally detained.

[Edit to add] and just for record I just checked the canadian law so it's the same as US.
edit on 31/10/2012 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


what are you missng? try reading the exact wording of the actual laws

the private property owner posted rules that must be complied with. noncompliance is the grounds for tresspassing

it is the law. and that law favors the private property owner over a person that feels they are entitled to do what ever they want.

also how did you miss the part that specifically states that the security guards can use whatever force the deem in order to arrest and hold the person in violation until the police arrive?

try actually reading the links that show the law for that part of the world... maybe it would stop you from making completely wrong statements



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by kalisdad
 



(3) Subject to section 4.1, a person who has been directed, either orally or in writing, by an occupier of premises or an authorized person to

(a) leave the premises, or

(b) stop engaging in an activity on or in the premises,

commits an offence if the person

(c) does not leave the premises or stop the activity, as applicable, as soon as practicable after receiving the direction, or

(d) re-enters the premises or resumes the activity on or in the premises.


Embhasis mine. Source



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by kalisdad

When you are on private property, what you are allowed to do may be limited by the owner of the property, or by someone acting on the owner’s behalf, like their security guard. If the property owner puts up signs or tells you not to do something (eg: no trespassing, no photography, keep off grass, etc), then disobeying the signs or verbal instructions is trespassing. If you are asked by the owner to leave the property, you must leave immediately, otherwise you are trespassing.



Just to point out that you yourself posted this too. They can order you to leave. If you comply you are not tresspassing. The kid was leaving as he was tresspassing if he did not. He was then detained illegally.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
This is simply outrageous... This is Canada, not USA. Why is this crap happening here, what's happening to our rights?? I thought we were a free country??


Also that is excess force, Taking pictures is Legal, there is no sign in the mall to say otherwise. and he was Leaving, so..Get your facts straight. Taking pictures seem to be the only thing saving our freedom and rights, if they take that away. We are than useless to existence in this cruel world, all thanks to the good 'ol USA
edit on 31-10-2012 by live2beknown because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Just to point out that you yourself posted this too. They can order you to leave. If you comply you are not tresspassing. The kid was leaving as he was tresspassing if he did not. He was then detained illegally.

Wrong. Read the article again.

As the photographer himself plainly stated, he took a picture, was told not to, then when the policve arrived, he took another as he was leaving. So, he was told not to, yet did it again. What do you not understand about that?



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by live2beknown
This is simply outrageous... This is Canada, not USA. Why is this crap happening here, what's happening to our rights?? I thought we were a free country??

We are, and i take exception to someone misunderstanding an article and thinking we are losing our rights. I love Canada, and we are still one of the best places in the world to live.

This kid broke the law and paid the consequences. Not sure what rights you think were violated, the mall, which is a privately owned business, has a clear "no photography" law inside. The government CANNOT nor SHOULD NOT ever tell private business owners how to run their businesses as long as they respect and follow Canadian laws. This mall and these guards broke NO LAWS WHATSOEVER.

Originally posted by live2beknown
Also that is excess force, Taking pictures is Legal, there is no sign in the mall to say otherwise.

Wrong, its clearly stated on the doors entering the mall.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by nightbringr
 


You conviniently leave out the part of him leaving. Hence he wasn't arrested or charged with tresspassing.






top topics



 
23
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join