Know your rights: teen arrested for photographing mall takedown

[blueblood]

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.

There's a difference between removing your name tag and keeping your trap shut when your name tag is visible

[blueblood]

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

People in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks. If your going to be bitching about this kids rights being taken away which they clearly were not as per my explanation of the criminal code, don't be a hypocrite and try and limit my freedom of expression. If calling someone a dumbass is that offensive, you have some issues at need to be addressed.

That's not even pg-13.

C'mon man. If that's your way of dealing with an argument by playing the I'm offended card, instead of offering an argument back, bravo.

Freedom works both ways.

[cybercoma]

WWWTT threatens to report people that disagree with him all the time. He's trigger happy.

[login]

Section 494 stating committing a criminal offense, that includes summary as well as indictable. The article doesn't say if the kid was asked to leave or not. It's also mischief. If he was asked to leave and placed under arrest and resisted, he criminal code clearly states that any one can use appropriate force to prevent the continuation of an offense.

Do you guys not read the criminal code sections I post?

The kid did not comit an indictable offence by taking a picture of a security gaurd takedown of some chap. Rinse your head out.

He was compliant to the request to leave.

1 A person may not be convicted of an offence under section 4 in relation to premises if the person's action or inaction, as applicable to the offence, was withcolour of right.

'an honest belief in a state of facts which, if it existed, would be a legal justification or excuse.'

However, lets just get the facts straight, the kid wasn't arrested for tresspass.

In any event taking pictures of the RCMP if it was still on the property and instructions were to the effect of "don't take pictures while on mall property" as opposed to "don't take picture of us"

We don't have those facts.

The first instance was innocent because he complied with leaving the property. The second incident was tresspass if the instructions were blanket instructions --- that is " don't take any pictures while on mall property"

But I still think the gaurds were negligent in escorting the kid off the property, like one of them. Also the question of the time frame of the prohibition of entry etc.. it left things a little vague.

I think it is reasonable for the kid to think he had the right to take photos for purposes of public record. I think that he was in belief the security gaurds could ask him to leave, but that those gaurds did not have the right to deny him taking photos since everyone was clothed.

Did he commit tresspass.. perhaps, if security gaurd instructions were blanket instructions, which I am skeptical if the sitation was explained clearly and was given as a blanket prhobition as opposed to just applying to the events with security gaurds being --- don't take photos of us.

I am very questionable about why "a prohibition" on taking photos exists at the mall....

Edited November 18, 2012 by login

[WWWTT]

People in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks. If your going to be bitching about this kids rights being taken away which they clearly were not as per my explanation of the criminal code, don't be a hypocrite and try and limit my freedom of expression. If calling someone a dumbass is that offensive, you have some issues at need to be addressed.

Really???

Tell me all about your "Freedom of expression" that you have here on MLW.

I'm sure the admin. is interested in reading this to.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

WWWTT threatens to report people that disagree with him all the time. He's trigger happy.

Not at all true!

Why can't you just let it go man?

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

Not at all true!

Why can't you just let it go man?

WWWTT

You could have fooled me...

And I have openly told some posters here that they deserved to be reported,and done so many times!

Not only that,the report feature is an anonymous one for good reason.

WWWTT

I take offense to being called a "denier"

When you use this word to address me it is insulting and dehumanizing and I am kindly asking you to stop using such terminology when addressing me.

If you continue to do so then I will report you!

WWWTT

Hey buddy what gives you the right to start calling me names!

You think your above the forum rules here and you can indiscriminately call me names.

I'm going to report you every time you keep calling anyone here names buddy!

WWWTT

Hey buddy whats your problem?

His name is Jack Layton!

Got it buddy!

Name calling is against forum rules!!!

You think your a big tuff guy calling a dead man names buddy!

How many times have I got to report you?

WWWTT

Holy man reading this comment makes me wonder how your even still here buddy!

MLW has hit a new low.

I wish I could report this but the report doesn't work!

WWWTT

Stop talking down to me lady!

This is rude and against forum rules!

I'm going to report your behavior and I hope you suspended lady!

WWWTT

[Merlin]

This kid has to respect his elders. I wonder what if anything parents are teaching children these days.

[login]

Age doesn't equate respect. There are lots of old idiots out there. Respect is earned not defaultive.

We can start with a clean slate of course but points can rack up quickly to designate someone as contemptuous.

Edited November 18, 2012 by login

[WWWTT]

You could have fooled me...

That's because I directly answered your question.

Which was that I report anyone whom disagrees with me or threaten to.

I wonder how a report of that nature would sound like? "I am offended that this poster disagrees with me.Please ask them to stop disagreeing with me"?!?!?

Oh and thanks for taking us down memory lane.That must have taken some time to compile.

It also points to how much a vigilante I am which ties into this thread and the actions that the youth of the center was trying to do.

Than you

WWWTT

[Merlin]

Age doesn't equate respect. There are lots of old idiots out there. Respect is earned not defaultive.

We can start with a clean slate of course but points can rack up quickly to designate someone as contemptuous.

This is the attitude that is wrong with todays kids. In my day we respected those who were adults. Todays kids have no respect for the adults. This is a direct result of the failure of todays parents and two working parent homes. The mother goes to work and the children suffer as now we have strangers raising our children.

[Argus]

If your in private property and requested to leave and fail to do so constitutes as mischief. You are obstructing lawful enjoyment of the property. It's dirty but its how it is. If someone stood in your house and you asked them to leave and they didn't, that would be mischief as well.

All I'm saying is it seems to me that would be Trespassing, not Mischief

[Argus]

Section 494 stating committing a criminal offense, that includes summary as well as indictable. The article doesn't say if the kid was asked to leave or not. It's also mischief. If he was asked to leave and placed under arrest and resisted, he criminal code clearly states that any one can use appropriate force to prevent the continuation of an offense.

Do you guys not read the criminal code sections I post?

Sure. Did you not read the article? He committed no crime by ignoring a demand by security guards he stop taking pictures. He simply broke a mall rule. The only punishment for breaking a mall rule is being banned. Even if he refused to leave the security guards are not empowered to move him. They are only allowed to call police. They are certainly not empowered to take him to the ground and try to steal his camera.

PS, a long time ago, during college, I worked as a security guard for Pinkerton. I remember our little classes in the basement of the building at St. Laurent Shopping centre, and the guy giving them was very clear on what legal rights you had to touch people: basically almost none except in very specific circumstances.

[Argus]

Age doesn't equate respect. There are lots of old idiots out there. Respect is earned not defaultive.

We can start with a clean slate of course but points can rack up quickly to designate someone as contemptuous.

I think we start out treating everyone with respect as a default. At least we should. I certainly do. That doesn't mean we admire them or anything. And yes, real respect as an individual must be earned and sustained, however real respect is far easier to lose than gain.

[login]

This is the attitude that is wrong with todays kids. In my day we respected those who were adults. Todays kids have no respect for the adults. This is a direct result of the failure of todays parents and two working parent homes. The mother goes to work and the children suffer as now we have strangers raising our children.

Maybe it has something to do with the adults these days compared to the adults when you were a kid? Hmm..

There use to be 1 cent candies and 5 cent bags of chips once upon a time too.

It seems the price of respect has suffered under inflationary pressures.

I agree to a certain extent though, the destruction of the family unit has led to moral and social decay. I'm not saying working moms are the spawn of all social evil, but I should say that in a just utilitarian society, where no one instill a sense of order, too much liberty without intellectual support leads to a rotted society, and a rotted society cannot reasonably expect to instill a sense of values through anything but the school of hard knocks.

I concede though that a stranger can be a better parent than an unfit parent. It is not about who raises our kids but how well of a job they do. Of course with love of our children we want to be the guiding force in that, but that isn't universal, whether kibbutz or private school or other form of growth. There is no correct model, but it must be insured that it is a functional model.

Where I question is any prohibition of a parent to be with their child if they do not represent a danger to that child. While I may have my ideals of what is a good upbringing that does not necisarily equate the values of any other parent, so a universal curriculum is not very realizable, aside from the means a parent sets out for their child. The challenge between parent and state is a very complex one, but it would be hoped that we can see eye to eye whereby that just society is realizable through mutual communication and understanding.

Edited November 18, 2012 by login

[login]

I think we start out treating everyone with respect as a default. At least we should. I certainly do. That doesn't mean we admire them or anything. And yes, real respect as an individual must be earned and sustained, however real respect is far easier to lose than gain.

I agree, that is a good place to start. I agree 100% Argus.

Edited November 18, 2012 by login

[bleeding heart]

I agree to a certain extent though, the destruction of the family unit has led to moral and social decay.

As compared to when?

When did we have a "just" society that instilled excellent "values"?

[login]

As compared to when?

When did we have a "just" society that instilled excellent "values"?

In regard to middle class values I think that at the onset Canada had a higher moral ground than we do today.

Of course traditional values whether first or second wave morality is one where we have progressed on the side of social liberty, equality

and removal to some extent of class injustice. But the basis of the kin unit has progresively declined to state and economic controls since its inception of times immemorable. While the destruction of kin solidarity is not universal, I think among many middle and low class, and even perhaps some upper class families, the strength of kin units cannot be compared to 100 years ago not the least 500 or 1000 years ago. The social responsiblity as an aspect of kin relations is something that has nuetralized social values, and mutual responsibility. I don't think that at a point of the whole we as individuals truely feel a duty to the public, especially in instances where it is not a professional occupation, and that is part of the problem right there. For many it has to be their paid occupation to care.

I dare say I see the present Canadian society as deranged and morally baseless to a large extent, and retroactively feel very little due to progress the cancer along its expected trajectory. In that respect I act as an individual for my soceity as opposed to acting for the benift of the a whole supposed to a Canadian society. If that makes me criminal, atleast I'm moral.

Edited November 18, 2012 by login

[eyeball]

Teens need to respect their elders. When an adult speaks to a child the child needs to listen. What are parents teaching children these days?

I taught mine to; 1) respect themselves, 2) always question and doubt authority and 3) to never forget the Golden Rule - don't get caught.

[bleeding heart]

The social responsiblity as an aspect of kin relations is something that has nuetralized social values, and mutual responsibility. I don't think that at a point of the whole we as individuals truely feel a duty to the public, especially in instances where it is not a professional occupation, and that is part of the problem right there. For many it has to be their paid occupation to care.

I take your point about kinship solidarity, but don't see this as automatically translating to a decent application of moral social responsibility.

Do you have any specifics, that can't be easily offset by what most people would view as inferior social qualities?

don't get me wrong; I don't see things as plainly morally progressive and socially superior in every sphere. But the idea of the moral superiority of the olden days is suspect to say the least.

I dare say I see the present Canadian society as deranged and morally baseless to a large extent

If that is in fact true, I believe it has always been true.

[login]

I take your point about kinship solidarity, but don't see this as automatically translating to a decent application of moral social responsibility.

Do you have any specifics, that can't be easily offset by what most people would view as inferior social qualities?

don't get me wrong; I don't see things as plainly morally progressive and socially superior in every sphere. But the idea of the moral superiority of the olden days is suspect to say the least.

I'm not so much refering to the content of the morality, that is the nature of the morality, but the premise of the basis of the morality, and how the structural implications facilitate a specific cultural concept of morality, not per se that cultures actual morals.

I could however point out ethics within a specific social conotation of Canada's historical past, not to say that every or even a majority of the factors composing the whole would be deemed as superior in terms of content.

However in regard to the structural implications of the formation of morals of that soceity for those further in the past they would in large part provide more clarity and substance.

There is a particular chaos and indefiniteness to the modern Canadian society when speaking of the whole in terms of the basis of structural composition.

However there are many specific items that could be seen as inferior or superior when applying my own personal values, this needn't be representative of modern Canada's view of inferior or superior. On a legislative context one would hope the majority position was represented in law. If that is not the case, then clearly it is a conundrum.

Edited November 18, 2012 by login

[Argus]

don't get me wrong; I don't see things as plainly morally progressive and socially superior in every sphere. But the idea of the moral superiority of the olden days is suspect to say the least.

I think his point is that the family unit was better at instilling and reinforcing values, regardless of what those values might be. I think the majority of parents have a decent moral view today, and believe their children subscribe to it, but have no contact with them for much of the day and really little idea of what they've gotten up to, or the peer-group and societal influences which might be contradicting their own guidance. And cultural influences today are stronger than ever, and generally not coming from a foundation one would describe as moral. If it teaches anything, popular media today teaches young people to value beauty, popularity and consumerism above all things

[blueblood]

The kid did not comit an indictable offence by taking a picture of a security gaurd takedown of some chap. Rinse your head out.

He was compliant to the request to leave.

1 A person may not be convicted of an offence under section 4 in relation to premises if the person's action or inaction, as applicable to the offence, was withcolour of right.

'an honest belief in a state of facts which, if it existed, would be a legal justification or excuse.'

However, lets just get the facts straight, the kid wasn't arrested for tresspass.

In any event taking pictures of the RCMP if it was still on the property and instructions were to the effect of "don't take pictures while on mall property" as opposed to "don't take picture of us"

We don't have those facts.

The first instance was innocent because he complied with leaving the property. The second incident was tresspass if the instructions were blanket instructions --- that is " don't take any pictures while on mall property"

But I still think the gaurds were negligent in escorting the kid off the property, like one of them. Also the question of the time frame of the prohibition of entry etc.. it left things a little vague.

I think it is reasonable for the kid to think he had the right to take photos for purposes of public record. I think that he was in belief the security gaurds could ask him to leave, but that those gaurds did not have the right to deny him taking photos since everyone was clothed.

Did he commit tresspass.. perhaps, if security gaurd instructions were blanket instructions, which I am skeptical if the sitation was explained clearly and was given as a blanket prhobition as opposed to just applying to the events with security gaurds being --- don't take

photos of us.

I am very questionable about why "a prohibition" on taking photos exists at the mall....

That's the problem with a story like this, they omit a lot of important details in order to make it fit in an easily digestible message. Some people give the kid the benefit of the doubt, some people give the guards the benefit of the doubt. I'm going with the guards because they have more skin in the game if it goes to court.

I wouldn't doubt for a second the kid was asked to leave, and considering the stink he threw when being cuffed, I don't think he listened. It's a weak mischief/cause disturbance charge, but it's enough to arrest/detain for investigation. Just remember just because your under arrest doesn't mean you go automatically to jail, it can be for 2 minutes if need be.

S 494(2) states

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.

Marginal note:Delivery to peace officer

The security guards are authorized by the owner in lawful poss. Of property (mall owner) may arrest without a warrant a person he finds committing a criminal offense in or related to the mall. It's quite clear.

It isn't about the pictures, it's about the kid not following mall rules which even though it's a gut shot means the kid Interupting or obstructing lawful enjoyment of property. The kid done himself in by deciding to go off the handle and start swearing at everyone which is cut and dry cause a disturbance.

[blueblood]

WWWTT threatens to report people that disagree with him all the time. He's trigger happy.

Good grief, I disagree with just about everyone. That defeats the purpose of debate just reporting it. I look at freedom as a two way street, better be careful replying to him or it's off to the cooler. Oh the irony...

[bleeding heart]

Good grief, I disagree with just about everyone. That defeats the purpose of debate just reporting it. I look at freedom as a two way street,

Just so. My world is more interesting with the bluebloods with whom I can discuss and debate.