Know your rights: teen arrested for photographing mall takedown

[The_Squid]

Too close to the security guards? Flipping out? You're blowing smoke....

[blueblood]

Too close to the security guards? Flipping out? You're blowing smoke....

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.

[Merlin]

It seems to me that teenagers need to respect their elders and not talk back. I wonder where the parents are in all of this. It all starts at home. We really need to pay attention to how we raise our children, it's scary.

[The_Squid]

An interesting side note.... The kid was using a film camera. Obviously this is a hobby and not just a random snapshot from a cellphone.

I hope a lawyer takes this on.... Maybe he can get enough coin to go digital! Haha

[blueblood]

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.

[Moonlight Graham]

Sounds good in theory but I think when it comes to souveillance and the investigative journalism of any sort of official authorities, would be reporters should probably assume the worst - that the authorities will always attempt to squelch transparency. Small concealable POV cameras are the way to go. The more people who start wearing them the better. It's always dismaying to see the sycophancy that rears it's ugly head whenever someone has the unmitigated gall to question authority or otherwise aim a spot-light at it.

You can record the cops in public any time you want. They can't do anything about it. They can tell you, or "order you", to shut it off, but you don't have to. Also, if you ask for their name and badge # they are required by law to give it to you. You're also not required to tell them your name if they ask, or to show them ID, unless you're operating a vehicle.

[Moonlight Graham]

his reasons don't matter. By law you cannot take photos on private property without the owner's permission.

Are you sure about this? Doesn't the owner have to have a rule stating this? The owner can have just about any rule they want on private property, as long as it applied to everyone equally and no discrimination involved.

[Moonlight Graham]

Are you saying that when you enter private property you lose your constitutional rights???

There's no constitutional right to take pictures. When you're on private property they make up just about any rule they want as long as it doesn't discriminate. ie: must wear shoes, no skateboard, no purple hats, no shorts only pants, no jumping etc.

Edited November 17, 2012 by Moonlight Graham

[dre]

You're not allowed to take photos on private property without the owner's consent.

Sure but if you DO take some pictures that STILL does not give the rent-a-pigs the right to take your pictures or your camera.

[login]

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

(b.) 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

(b. 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,

(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.

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

(b. 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

Where is the indictable offence?

The person was taking photos hardly grounds to assault someone, it wasn't even paparatzi harassment. You are confusing the fact TPA isn't an indictable offence, it is barely a summary offence, and usually only carries a fine. You clearly don't understand what an indictable offence is. Generally only police can arrest for summary offences, because they are not endangering to the public.

What occured was clealy an abuse, and the gaurds should have their security licenses revoked for assaulting someone without charge. Especially since police were already on route, and the kid wasn't endangering. This is equivocable to tasering or shooting someone who isn't causing a problem. The fact the kid was compliant with leaving the building only further demonstrates. The issue was clearly that photos were being taken, not that he was tresspassing. There was no indictable offence by the kid, so an arrest using force was clearly unacceptable since the kid wasn't non compliant.

When I was pursueing charges for tresspass on someone the police wouldn't even charge because, it was just a mistake, they didn't have the intent to tresspass - even though they clearly intended to park in my driveway without my consent. I think the same applies here. I couldn't even touch the person to take them into custody because the person wasn't using any force and was not fleeing. Although I asked if I could touch their shoulder I didn't receive a response. Since any non permissive physical contact is assault, and individuals do not have immunities, you can't lay a finger on someone else. That is the bottom line. You can't physically arrest someone unless there is no other recourse. i.e. they are in flight, and even then you are only suppose to pursue unless use of force is justified. The individual does have the right to meet force with force, and assault for self defence. But using no more force than is required. In the instance where an indicatable offence changes the rules change a bit because the individual can then use deadly force especially in the instance where flight occurs.

Note cops often ignore assaults though. I've been assaulted by touching twice in my life, and cops don't take it seriously. But tackling someone to concrete or ashphalt is definately assualt. I have been assaulted more times than twice but it doesn't make it acceptable. This is just a class bias so often facilitated in Canada, where the act isn't what matters it is who commits the act, and that is just part of the corruption of the justice system in Canada. It doesn't make it right though. There is a lot of systematic corruption out there, not only in Canada but other parts of the world too, like the US.

Although the world would be much easier if individuals could resort to violence where civil law is violated, this is not the case. While individuals could request a court order to have non permitted photos of themselves destroyed, if they serve as an invasion of privacy, that is definately civil, and individuals do not have the right to personally seize the recording equipment and destroy the film. That is criminal. If I could attack people for civil violations against myself I'd be an MMA fighter full time.

Canada doesn't have the same sorts of laws as France in regard to public filming and photography.

Note in Canada taking a photo is a potential tort.. civil violation, not a criminal offence

Privacy Act, 1.:

Violation of privacy actionable

(1. It is a tort, actionable without proof of damage, for a person, wilfully and without a claim of right, to violate the privacy of another.

(2. The nature and degree of privacy to which a person is entitled in a situation or in relation to a matter is that which is reasonable in the circumstances, giving due regard to the lawful interests of others.

(3. In determining whether the act or conduct of a person is a violation of another’s privacy, regard must be given to the nature, incidence and occasion of the act or conduct and to any domestic or other relationship between the parties.

(4. Without limiting subsections (1) to (3), privacy may be violated by eavesdropping or surveillance, whether or not accomplished by trespass.

Taking photos of someone without their permission a lot though could be considered harassment, which is a criminal offence. Especially if they have communicated they don't want their photo taken.

Harassment can be an indicatable offence, so in that event use of force may be justified to stop the behaviour.

In this instance though it wasn't harassment because photos of the individual with the complaint stoped, (subject moved from the take down to the arrival of the RCMP.)

However the privacy issue may be mitigated due to

Privacy Act, 2. (3.:

A publication of a matter is not a violation of privacy if (a. the matter published was of public interest or was fair comment on a matter of public interest, or (b. the publication was privileged in accordance with the rules of law relating to defamation

Criminal Harassment

264. (1)

Criminal harassment - No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing

that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other is harassed,

engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person

reasonable, in all circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to

them.

(2.

Prohibited conduct - The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of

repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them;

(a. repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or

anyone known to them;

(b. repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or

anyone known to them;

(c. besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or

anyone known to them, resides, works, c arries on a business or happens to be;

or

(d. engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of

their family.

(3.

Punishment - Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of

(a. an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten

years; or

(b. an offence punishable on summary conviction

I think the kid was well within his rights, even though a privacy breach was potential, that would have been a tort not a criminal offence.

Torts don't allow for assault, regardless of how greatly people who are subject to torts may wish to respond by use of force instead of use of court. Perhaps its something Parliament could look into to ammend, see how it goes for a few months. I recommend the medicare issue be addressed first though.

His behaviour fell well short of criminal harassment.

Edited November 17, 2012 by login

[WWWTT]

Yea right.

Why are you being bitter?

You said that when I enter someones house I lose my constitutional rights,and that simply is wrong.

Why in God's name would anyone want to enter someone elses private home to simply exercise their rights is beyond me and even implying that someone would is freekin halarious!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Also dumbass was swearing in front of the cops.

Hey blueblood can you please stop refering to this individual as "dumbass"

I find this to be offensive and I will report you every time you do this!

Thank you

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

It seems to me that teenagers need to respect their elders and not talk back. I wonder where the parents are in all of this. It all starts at home. We really need to pay attention to how we raise our children, it's scary.

If this was my kid I would be helping him fill out the law suit against the mall and the RCMP!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

There's no constitutional right to take pictures. When you're on private property they make up just about any rule they want as long as it doesn't discriminate. ie: must wear shoes, no skateboard, no purple hats, no shorts only pants, no jumping etc.

Wrong again!

Holy man how many people here are just taking guesses at what is written in the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms???

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms

b. freedom of thought,belief,opinion and expression,including freedom of the press and other media of communication.

It is clearly written in black and white!

What is the freekin problem with understanding this???

Once again I will reiterate that no individual can waive away any ones rights!

Nothing personal MG,but there seems to be many people here that are just making stuff up as they go along,and it is in poor taste.Especially when we are talking about fundamental rights!

WWWTT

Edited November 17, 2012 by WWWTT

[blueblood]

You can record the cops in public any time you want. They can't do anything about it. They can tell you, or "order you", to shut it off, but you don't have to. Also, if you ask for their name and badge # they are required by law to give it to you. You're also not required to tell them your name if they ask, or to show them ID, unless you're operating a vehicle.

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.

[cybercoma]

Are you sure about this? Doesn't the owner have to have a rule stating this? The owner can have just about any rule they want on private property, as long as it applied to everyone equally and no discrimination involved.

If they don't want you photographing on their property, they can ask you to stop. If you don't comply, you're breaking the law. A lot of malls have rules of conduct posted at their entrances, so it would be interesting to see if no photography was posted. Even if it wasn't, as soon as the person was asked to stop, he needed to stop.

[cybercoma]

Sure but if you DO take some pictures that STILL does not give the rent-a-pigs the right to take your pictures or your camera.

Of course, that part of the article is insane. The cops/security really f'ed up here.

[cybercoma]

Wrong again!

Holy man how many people here are just taking guesses at what is written in the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms???

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms

b. freedom of thought,belief,opinion and expression,including freedom of the press and other media of communication.

It is clearly written in black and white!

What is the freekin problem with understanding this???

Once again I will reiterate that no individual can waive away any ones rights!

Nothing personal MG,but there seems to be many people here that are just making stuff up as they go along,and it is in poor taste.Especially when we are talking about fundamental rights!

WWWTT

The Constitution doesn't apply to private parties. It applies to how the government treats people. Private parties have no obligation to protect your freedom of expression, unless it's in a provincial human rights code.

Edited November 17, 2012 by cybercoma

[GostHacked]

Yes becuase I know being phot'd in a car is not criminal.

Your car is considered personal private property and you have all the same rights as you were in your home.

We are filmed all the time in public and told to accept it. Try filming the cops or turning the cameras back on the authorities and you are met with severe resistance. It's a double standard.

Also this case could easily be cleared up with footage of the CCTV within the mall. Possibly the mall rentacops were being heavy handed and don't want the public to know about their wrong doings against the other person that this guy was fimling If you witness a crime, it's in everyone's best interest to have the incident documented on video.

And I asked 'Where is this done legally'....none of those would be legal

Slippery slope argument.

It's legal when the government makes it legal. In the USA you had those warrant-less wiretapping laws. Since the law was changed, it made it all legal. That is how these f*ckers get away with that. They make the rules. Remember how pissed Toews was when some of his information was made public? And that is what was already known and publicly known about Toews. And he wants to listen in to us under the guise of stopping child abusers? Please, that is called blanket security and will never address the real issue.

Just do a search on youtube for 'filming cops in public and prepare to be disgusted'. Next time you encounter police/security you won't hesitate to start the camera rolling.

[Argus]

If they don't want you photographing on their property, they can ask you to stop. If you don't comply, you're breaking the law.

No, you're not. You're breaking a mall rule.

[Argus]

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

Mischief? I don't see how standing still in one spot and refusing to leave constitutes mischief.

[Argus]

Section 494 says otherwise

Marginal note:Arrest without warrant by any person

All of that refers to arresting people who have committed indictable offenses. Refusing to stop taking pictures is not an indictable offense. Breaking a mall rule is not a crime. Nor was he asked to leave, which, if he refused, would constitute trespass. He was grabbed and brought to the floor for refusing to stop taking pictures. Ie, he was assaulted.

[Argus]

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.

None of them were relevant. His case was, just to start, he was assaulted by the security guards. Whether the police thought they might have justification for an arrest is debatable, depending on what the security guards told them. If they told them anything that justified an arrest it was not in the article.

[Argus]

There's no constitutional right to take pictures. When you're on private property they make up just about any rule they want as long as it doesn't discriminate. ie: must wear shoes, no skateboard, no purple hats, no shorts only pants, no jumping etc.

True enough, but if someone walks in with a purple hat the security guards can't assault them. All they can do is ask them to leave. There is no indication this was done here.

[Argus]

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.

Seems to me that one of the aspects of the G20 which got a lot of attention was a number of police removing their ID badges. They were all fined/suspended for that.