blueblood

In bc the law there states they have to display their name. If the name is displayed, then they're identified as a peace officer. Then there's the uniform etc. The law itself you posted a cloth bearing the name is to be displayed. It's obvious enough to read, and if the matter goes to trial, the officers name goes in the file. Asking for a name and badge # IMO is a waste as it's provided in trial if charges are laid.

Wrong! They don't have to tell you their name as it already appears all over court documents in proceedings. You have to give your name if you are operating a vehicle or they are in the middle of an investigation.

Unfortunately for employees in manufacturing like is the party is over. Manufacturing is taking place all over the world and at the same time American consumers want rock bottom prices and will buy those goods on borrowed money. How can manufacturing not suffer when you have conditions like that. People got stupid with debt and here we are.

There's a difference between being in legitimate trouble and needing transfer payments and abusing said transfer payments by creating excess programs which need those transfer payments. I don't hear of provinces in the Atlantic creating largesse govt programs, yet their economic situation warrants transfer payments. A province the size of Quebec, it's population, and proximity to American markets and world markets should not make it a have not province, yet there it is. That's the problem people have.

Where would it go? The kid got his stuff back, was arrested and searched legally, and was lucky he didn't get charged. I laid out ample sections of the criminal code that justified the actions of the security guards.

I don't know that and you don't know that. Not only that cybercoma explicitly stated the regulations of said mall. Was the kid asked to leave. That's another important question that needs answering.

How close was the kids to the security guards, do we know if he may have been getting in their way? That's an important part we don't know about. The kid decided to be stupid and start flipping out and got placed in bracelets. Boo hoo!

You can be released without charge. Happens a lot. He was arrested for an offense what he could be charged with. The authorities chose not to charge him probably because it's a mountain of paper for most likely a fine of less than 100 dollars.

Section 494 says otherwise Marginal note:Arrest without warrant by any person 494. (1) Any one may arrest without warrant (a) a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence; or ( a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes (i) has committed a criminal offence, and (ii) is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person. Marginal note:Arrest by owner, etc., of property (2) Any one who is (a) the owner or a person in lawful possession of property, or ( a person authorized by the owner or by a person in lawful possession of property, may arrest without warrant a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property. And here... 25. (1) 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, ( as a peace officer or public officer, © 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. And here... 27. Every one is justified in using as much force as is reasonably necessary (a) to prevent the commission of an offence (i) for which, if it were committed, the person who committed it might be arrested without warrant, and (ii) that would be likely to cause immediate and serious injury to the person or property of anyone; or ( to prevent anything being done that, on reasonable grounds, he believes would, if it were done, be an offence mentioned in paragraph (a). R.S., c. C-34, s. 27. Marginal note:Use of force on board an aircraft I mean c'mon man!! Marginal note:Idem

Refer to page one where i laid out he elements of the offense for cause a disturbance. Swearing is part of it. I agree it's a kick in the balls charge, but nonetheless it is one, and it's a straight summary, which means to be arrested for it he has to be found committing. Dumbass was swearing in a place in a manner in which it was reasonable for an ordinary person to be disturbed by dumbasses swearing. The arrest was lawful. A gut shot, but lawful. The criminal code is quite clear. Also dumbass was swearing in front of the cops.

That would be mischief, I already posted the section of the criminal code.

Search incidental to arrest. It's common law. I'm quite sure the kid would have gotten them back when he was released from custody.

It's not a myth, it's a trade off. Less available money means prices fall for everything. You may earn less, but your goods also cost less.

That's up to management. It's their house and their rules, it said in the article management doesn't want photos taken. It's one of those rules that's enforced at opportune moments, which is dirty pool. However management made the rule and chose to enforce it. If the kid was smart, he'd cooperate and charge the security guards with theft if they took it or false pretenses if they suckered him into giving them the camera. And mischief under 5000 if the camera was damaged.

I would prefer a vat. It's fair, everyone pays into it when they consume, and the rich people who you guys despise end up paying more because they are able to consume more. Close some loopholes, cut more spending and over time that should do it. I can see Obama enacting a vat in his last two years as a parting gift.

Dumb ass is also arrest able on s. 430 criminal code 430. (1) Every one commits mischief who wilfully (a) destroys or damages property; ( renders property dangerous, useless, inoperative or ineffective; © obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property; or (d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property. Dual procedure offense. Marginal note:Idem (4) Every one who commits mischief in relation to property, other than property described in subsection (3), (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or ( is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

If you read the CBC article it states that the kid was swearing loud enough to be arrested for cause a disturbance. If you take a look at the criminal code cause a disturbance is arrestable if the kid was found committing (summary offense). The kid was arrested to prevent the continuation of the offense. Maybe try reading the criminal code... The criminal code said he was doing something wrong 175. (1) Every one who (a) not being in a dwelling-house, causes a disturbance in or near a public place, (i) by fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting or obscene language, (ii) by being drunk, or (iii) by impeding or molesting other persons, ( openly exposes or exhibits an indecent exhibition in a public place, © loiters in a public place and in any way obstructs persons who are in that place, or (d) disturbs the peace and quiet of the occupants of a dwelling-house by discharging firearms or by other disorderly conduct in a public place or who, not being an occupant of a dwelling-house comprised in a particular building or structure, disturbs the peace and quiet of the occupants of a dwelling-house comprised in the building or structure by discharging firearms or by other disorderly conduct in any part of a building or structure to which, at the time of such conduct, the occupants of two or more dwelling-houses comprised in the building or structure have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

We have that pretty much, it was the original ensign on scribletts picture. However people wanted change...

And like inflation has a dark side and light side

No, they can blame the government for having too much power for sale. Wealth didn't deconcentrate at that time, the USA was the only game in town and started growing it's government into the bloated mess it is today. We will see what is going to happen when e economy goes back into recession...

So was George w bush and you guys weren't necessarily thrilled with that outcome.

They're both dumbasses. The only losers in this case are the taxpayers having to pay for dealing with this sideshow.

All right you write a check to the government wor half your income and come back to us stating how happy you are

Dumb ass was told he couldn't take photos and requested to leave private property, dumb ass didn't do so and was arrested for disturbing the peace because of the yelling and swearing. Dumb ass was searched incidental to arrest. The article stated that pictures were not permitted to be taken in that particular private venue. Dumb ass would have been better off keeping his trap shut and filing a report of theft by the security guards of his camera. Dumb ass had to lose his temper and go for a ride downtown. The owners of the private property may not have the right to seize his camera but they have every right to punt his stupid ass off of their property and have him arrested by the police if he does not go. Dumb ass doesn't even have a court date, and he's complaining? He's lucky he didn't have a resist arrest charge and a court date. He should be thanking the authorities.

Frum sums things up well. http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/12/opinion/frum-conservatives-despair/index.html?iref=allsearch Romney lost because trying to convince people to make do with less for long term prosperity is a harder sell than convincing people that we are going to pillage the bank accounts of people who contribute the most to society. Why Americans want to copy the failed policies of Chavez I won't ever know.