B.C. teen arrested for photographing mall takedown

I've been to that mall!

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by nightbringr

 

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

No i didnt, this is exactly what i said. Please, in the future read a full post before responding.

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.

emphasis added by your truly to highlight where, yes, i did say he was leaving.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
(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

But Markiewicz said the guards quickly turned on him, demanding he delete the photo, which he couldn’t do because he was shooting on a film camera.

Markiewicz said he turned to leave the mall and then snapped a second shot as RCMP arrived.

so, he was instructed to delete the photo, in this case meaning give up the roll of film as it wasn't a digital camera. he did not comply
he went to leave. ignoring the instructions to turn over/delete the photo. seems like he was trying to run to me
he was directed to stop taking pictures, but continued by taking photographs of the police arriving. further noncompliance.

to me, that seems like he failed to "stop the activity, as applicable, as soon as practicable after receiving the direction"

not once... not twice, but numerous times, his action put him clearly in the tresspasser category.

any way you slice it, he broke the rules, then broke the law

I don't like it any more than you do. Laws favor private corperations and the rich.
however, no matter how unfair everyone thinks the laws are, that does not invalidate them in the slightest(at least not until jury nullification)

but don't go claiming that the law is one way simply because that is how you think it should be.

from all the posts that people are making about laws, it seems like most people think the laws conform to your expectation of what is fair.

the reality is, it has been shown multiple times that not only does the privately owner mall have the legal right to restrict photography(themost common examples of this are malls and museums, most do not allow it)
and that once you break these rules and fail to comply with further instructions from the lawfully appointed representatives of the property owner, you are tresspassing. and when you act out aggressively with words and actions, security guards are within the law to detain you using whatever force they feel is needed.

90% or more of the posts in this thread are pure seculation by people that feel thy are entitled to take pictures where ever and whenever they want. that is not that case and its clearly not a law.

first amendment right only apply to the governemt restricting your ability to express yourself. not the policy of a private propety owner.

reply to post by ninjas4321


While I am not familiatr with Canadian Law a few questions...

Here in the states an area that is private but open to the public, like malls, is subject to the property owners requirements. If the mall of America says no photography and you enter and take photos, security can tell you to leave. If you refuse you can be detained and cited / arrest for trespassing.

is it the same in Canada?

IM in the u.s, were are supposedly protected by this, but many cities have enacted a new law or used an old one under illegal wiretapping. The only problem is, 90% of the cases involved are all in public space. ALL public servants are available to be scrutinized in a public space, so how the F it can be illegal wiretapping is beyond me.
Boston uses this all the time when caught red handed doing illegal or questionable things. Which suck because growing up I always thought Boston was a progressive town/city its amazing all the UN TRUTHS you learn as you get older. Boston cops are like old school cops(old school as in a hundred years ago), they are the mafia, and the protectors. Hell you can go right on youtube and see some of the piece of $%^& recorded by some friends. They will sit there and spew off all day pushing you down the road/street till you can't film any more spouting off all kinds of fake laws. (there's like 120 people with a trial waiting for this very thing in Boston) most have gotten off anyway, but lets see bail, time spent, frustration, embarrassment all for doing something that wasn't illegal anyways. If that doesn't scream intimidation I don't know what does?

The thing I always wonder, the state likes to use the argument, if you arent doing anything wrong , you don't have to worry about anything, will you. Well if we apply that same logic , why are cops intimidating witnesses, (against law)arresting people for photo/video(against the law). And commuting assault against the very same people(against the law). On the flip side, you know damn well if a cop was shot and no witnesses accept a man filming the cop getting shot, I BET THEN IT WOULDN'T BE ILLEGAL . Governments love all this scrutiny surveillance and tracking of its people, until its done to them, then the crying start about how its not fair.. f ing scum bags. It will only be a matter of time before we are flying hammer and sickle or swastikas.

now i understand fully a busi, has the right to ask you to leave, even if you arent doing anything, but when you are photographing and action taking place, you are not filming the "mall" so keep agreeing with that bs and one step closer to nazi germany.

reply to post by ninjas4321


Remember, some states, i dont think this was in America though, have laws where you MUST be one of the party involved, or you must be so many feet away (not recording their conversation) or on your own property filming.

So, if he wasn't on his own property or involved with the incident. He legally couldn't film without the permission of someone involved in the party.

Some states also require all participants of the party to give permission, not just one.

If i am not mistaken, being on public property already gives permission UNLESS one of the parties involved asks you to stop filming their conversation. (Wire tapping).

reply to post by nightbringr


Sorry must've meant to write "you conviniently ignore". That's the key part. The law says stop what you are doing or leave. It doesn't say stop what you are doing and leave. There is a difference. If I brake some rednecks rule of "no signing hymns" and I am ordered to leave I can sing to my hearts content while I'm leaving.

reply to post by kalisdad


Security guards have no authority to ask anyone to delete, confiscate or show a photo. You might as well be "trying to run" for having an ugly mug. You also conviniently leave out the "or leave" part.
Any way you try to twist it he was illegally detained and that is what caused the "disturbance". At no point he was tresspassing.

reply to post by nightbringr


Really, Can I see a picture showing it shows that you can't take a pic inside the mall... Also only reason why these losers don't want people to take pics is because it's our only "proof" to show how police and "rent a cops" can get away with things..Only reason why people have a good fight is cause of pictures, it's what saving our rights at the moment.. Take a second to think about it. We all know they always take the "officers" side, it's common sense. Why else do you think they "ban" pictures..

reply to post by kalisdad


He broke the rules - all they can do is ask him to leave and ask him to delete the pictures. They have no legal authority to put their hands on him unless he refuses to leave or perhaps provide identification in regards to taking photos without permission.

The posted rules don't trump his civil rights.

Originally posted by kalisdad
that once you break these rules and fail to comply with further instructions from the lawfully appointed representatives of the property owner, you are tresspassing.

What a load of bullcrap. Care to provide any links that associate trespass with anything other than entering or refusing to vacate. You can't just make up rules and then associate them with trespass laws.

reply to post by verylowfrequency


ok... one more time for people like you that have a hard time reading the same link I have posted numerous times...

Canadian Photography Laws » The Laws » Provincial Law » Ontario » Trespassing

Criminal Code, 25.(1): (“Protection of Persons Administering and Enforcing the Law”)
Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law
(a) as a private person,
(b) as a peace officer or public officer,
(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or
(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...

He admits he started swearing and was then handcuffed by police and taken outside the mall to an RCMP cruiser by the officers and mall security.

www.cbc.ca...

the kid admits he became blligerent and fought with the guards.
th guards were within their right to detain the kid until the cops arrived. if that means holding him down then they can legally do that.

DOES NOT MEAN I LIKE THE IDEA!!! its the LAW!

come on people! read the laws. don't assume that your idea of how the law should be is correct

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.

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.

Originally posted by kalisdad
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

Now you're just making crap up.

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.

Even if he were a tresspasser which he wasn't as explained X^times already on the thread the guards wouldn't have any authority to ask for the photos. Even police would need a warrant for them.

the kid broke the no photography rules - makes him a tresspasser

Nope, doesn't matter how many times you repeat this it's still a lie.

the kidwas instructed to delete/turn over the photographs and refused - makes him a tresspasser

Here's a fun challenge. Find any reference to photography in the tresspassing laws. Or you can admid that you're making stuff up.

the kid went to run - makes him a tresspasser

Kid went to leave. As is his right as a free citizen who is not detained on any grounds. This is exactly why he wasn't a tresspasser just in case you didn't figure it out already. If he had refused to leave and kept shooting he would've been a tresspasser. You yourself have quoted stuff that makes this very clear. Do you read what you quote?

why is it so hard to understand that this is not about what the general population might consider right or wrong?? ITS THE LAW!

I'm not here to discuss semantics or your ideas of the law. I'm here to discuss facts. Which we've already made clear. If you wish to discuss this based on what is not factual law then please tell me and I can quit with repeating myself.

Markiewicz said he turned to leave the mall and then snapped a second shot as RCMP arrived.

www.cbc.ca...

yeah, making things up that are clearly printed in the OP news source

reguardless of their authority to ask for the photos, the kids still disobeyed verbal instructions from the lawfully appointed representative of the property owner.

(ii) engages in an activity on premises when the activity is prohibited under this Act; or

the activities prohibited in this case are taking photographs in the mall.

heres a fun challenge... try running the next time the police ask you a question... see where that gets you.

you are clearly biased and are blinded by this fact.

I have been citing CANADIAN PHOTOGRAPHY LAWS!

Canadian Photography Laws » The Laws » Provincial Law » Ontario » Trespassing

where are you citing your flawed interpretation of the laws from?

the second the kid broke the posted rules of the private property owners, he was legally tresspassing.

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.

ambientlight.ca...

you clearly have a hard time distingiushing facts from YOUR idea of what the law should be.

law says, follow the posted rules while on private property, or you are considered to be tresspassing.

Well apparently the actual law and link to the official source doesn't go through to you?

Here's the link again since you apprently missed it in the previous page.

There's this word there "or". It quite clearly says stop what you are doing or leave. You yourself have posted numerous times that the kid was leaving. So you've actually admitted that he wasn't tresspassing but refuse to acknowledge it. Kid was leaving as was his right to do.
I hate repeating myself but I can do this all night.

Actually, being in a mall is a public space! You have no rights of privacy in a public space! They do not check you at the door for cameras because of this. Just because they post a sign saying no photography does not give them any legal right to stop you from taking a picture. It's just the mall acting like they have any powers! Why do you think they check for cameras at the doors to events?

Now inside the stores is a different story. Just like if you are inside your car, (you expect privacy there) Just like inside your own home. you have an expectation of privacy. (you need waivers for this) or you risk being sued for invasion of privacy.

When out in public you have rights as well. Your picture can be taken and used, but only in a documenting kind of way. They can't be the focus of the story. If I film someone standing beside my wife and post it on the net there is no harm or fowl. But if I film someone shooting up, or smoking and then post it (it could cause harm to that person in some way) then I would need a release form.

Same thing with copy-write or trademark laws. I can film a can of coke no problem. But if I have that can of coke as the focus of my story then I could be sued. Also, the company has to take me to court and sue me. This comes down to many factors. Is it beneficial to them to sue me? Do I have money for them to sue me for? basically, Is it worthwhile for them to sue? This is why on movie sets they will cover appliance names with white tape over the logos and use generic brands. If you see a trademark logo in a movie then they where either paid for the use, used as advertisement, or used illegally and could be sued.

As far as the guards asking for the pictures....Well that's not really gonna cut it. If I was asked, they would have to get a court order for it. If they just took it from me, I would sue them for violating my rights. The guy who shot this should have just left the mall and not tested his luck. Or he should have filmed it without being noticed. I really don't understand why more people don't invest in telephoto lenses and shoot everything from far away.

reply to post by kalisdad


You are absolutely right, however the most a mall security guard can do is ask you to leave the mall.
The mall near me has a lot of rules posted including no firearms (with or without a permit), but when someone is carrying open, or "printing" they only ask them to leave.

The mall security has no right to touch you, or your property, unless you are posing a danger.
They can only ask you to leave with the threat of trespassing.

reply to post by theclutch


Yes and no.
It is a public commons, but it's private property.
This means they can ask you to leave the property for any reason.
It does not matter if it's a mall, park, or movie theater. If the state, or city does not own it, then it's private property.