It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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!
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
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).
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
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by PsykoOps
Nope. They can ask you to leave or be arrested. They cannot ask you to stop taking photos.
Originally posted by PsykoOps
At least that's how it is in US, I'm assuming in Canada it's the same.
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.
. 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.
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.
(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.
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.
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.
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??
Originally posted by live2beknown
Also that is excess force, Taking pictures is Legal, there is no sign in the mall to say otherwise.