Originally posted by PsykoOps
you're shooting your own argument in the foot again.
Originally posted by kalisdad
(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.
Security guards have no authority to randomly pick on people who are not in violation of any laws or rules. I already posted the law. Despite your
attempt to twist the topic so the guards were on the right it has been made perfectly clear that you are wrong.
how are you not understanding that the kid was violating the rules the moment he took a photgraph in the mall?
when the kid went to run away, he stopped because the police were outside the doors. the kid decided to take a picture of them also
when the kid refused to turn over the photgraphs as directed by the lawfully apponted representatives of the property owner, he again, put himself
definitavely into the realm of tresspasser.
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.
However, if you are taking photographs in a mall, or some other privately-owned-but-open-to-the-public property, and their security guards
confront you, they can permit or deny you from doing any activity on the premises, just by telling you. Since they are acting on behalf of the owner,
they can control what you are allowed to do, where you are allowed to go on the property, or whether you are allowed there at all. 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. They can also ban you from the property, in which case, if you come back, your trespassing.
the kid broke the no photography rules - makes him a tresspasser
the kidwas instructed to delete/turn over the photographs and refused - makes him a tresspasser
the kid went to run - makes him a tresspasser
the kid took additional photographs of the police outside -makes him a tresspasser
the guards subdued the kid until the police took him into custody - their legal right as lawful representative of the property owner
I think its stupid that you cannot take pctures in the mall... however, if it was my property, and some punk kid was breaing the rules that I clearly
posted, I would be upset and expect the people I pay to enforce my rules to do just that. ENFORCE THEM
one more time... if the kid had just complied with the posted rules in the first pace, none of this would have happend. Ultimately, the kid is the
reason all of this happend in the first place. next time, read the rules and comply
the kid broke rules, did not comply with verbal instruction, attempted to run, and became verbally belligerent...
the guards, according to tresspass laws, were competely justified in subduing the kids as they did
why is it so hard to understand that this is not about what the general population might consider right or wrong?? ITS THE LAW!
do I agree with it? hell no! but that does not change a thing.