REVscene - Vancouver Automotive Forum


Welcome to the REVscene Automotive Forum forums.

Registration is Free!You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   REVscene Automotive Forum > Automotive Chat > Vancouver Off-Topic / Current Events

Vancouver Off-Topic / Current Events The off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-26-2012, 05:34 PM   #26
Survivor MOD
 
T4RAWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,086
Thanked 1,571 Times in 551 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by parm104 View Post
What does this have to do with the case presented by OP? I'm a little confused. Or are you just providing general information for RevSceners so they know their rights?
I figured since this is an instance where charter rights were breached, it would be useful to post for the general information of RS members to know their rights.
Advertisement
T4RAWR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 05:35 PM   #27
I contribute to threads in the offtopic forum
 
parm104's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,806
Thanked 2,621 Times in 684 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by T4RAWR View Post
I dont think that the taking of photographs is considered obstructing the guards from doing their job. There are no legal provisions for the obstructing of a security guard from performing their duties. There are however, legal provisions for the obstruction of a police officer in Canada.

Therefore i would suggest the argument that no, the individual was not obstructing justice by taking photographs of security guards detaining an individual.

Well no one has said that he was obstructing justice. We don't know what he did when the police got there...we really don't KNOW anything at all if you think about it. But from what we've been told by the media thus far is that he's altercation was with the security guards. The security guards can and often do enforce the no photography policy and ask you to leave the mall/store if that happens.

The laws around shopping malls is tricky because it's considered a private property that is opened up to the general public. It is expected that the public will come in and do things that they commonly do while shopping. Photography isn't one of them, unfortunately. The only exception I know is that if something from nature (i.e. a bird) was on the property NATURALLY, then you are permitted to take photos of that animal.


Quote:
Originally Posted by T4RAWR View Post
I figured since this is an instance where charter rights were breached, it would be useful to post for the general information of RS members to know their rights.
It's good to know your Charter Rights but it's also not a good idea to waive them around frivolously. I don't see any Charter Rights that have been violated in this situation.
__________________
Clicky Clicky For my Feedback
parm104 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 05:37 PM   #28
Survivor MOD
 
T4RAWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,086
Thanked 1,571 Times in 551 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by parm104 View Post
Well no one has said that he was obstructing justice. We don't know what he did when the police got there...we really don't KNOW anything at all if you think about it. But from what we've been told by the media thus far is that he's altercation was with the security guards. The security guards can and often do enforce the no photography policy and ask you to leave the mall/store if that happens.

The laws around shopping malls is tricky because it's considered a private property that is opened up to the general public. It is expected that the public will come in and do things that they commonly do while shopping. Photography isn't one of them, unfortunately. The only exception I know is that if something from nature (i.e. a bird) was on the property NATURALLY, then you are permitted to take photos of that animal.
My response was to this post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueG2 View Post
Thing is... we only know ONE side of the story. You are all too eager to jump sides. You should know better, especially if it is something on the news. News may be "facts", but there is always 2 sides to a story.

Who knows, the kid could have been obstructing the guards from doing their job. I really doubt an RCMP member would arrest the kid, or take over custody of him, if they didn't think they had legit grounds to have him in their custody.
where he suggested that the teenager could have been obstructing the guards. what i was trying to suggest with my post is that there is no legal provision in the criminal code for obstructing guards from doing their duties.
T4RAWR is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 10-26-2012, 05:42 PM   #29
I contribute to threads in the offtopic forum
 
parm104's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,806
Thanked 2,621 Times in 684 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by T4RAWR View Post
My response was to this post:



where he suggested that the teenager could have been obstructing the guards. what i was trying to suggest with my post is that there is no legal provision in the criminal code for obstructing guards from doing their duties.
Sure but we're throwing all these Criminal Code provisions and Charter of Rights and Freedoms Acts around acting like they play in here. Don't look at things so narrowly. This can be played in several different ways. If he was fighting, kicking, screaming etc. which he admits to doing, he was creating a disturbance. That's sanctioned by the Criminal Code.

Here is how this could've played out by someone who is a little more experienced and perhaps more mature than this amateur kid.

See's an opportunity to take a photograph of something he feels is important.
Takes said photograph but then is told by an authority of the premise to seize from taking the photograph and delete it.
Realizes he's having trouble here, whether or not you understand the idea that you are indeed violating mall policies.
..now you leave the mall and exit on out, hopefully with any altercation. I can't tell you what to do if an altercation arises after that but I can say that the steps I've stated above are reasonable methods of handling this situation.

Instead, the young man must've created a scene in an already high tensioned atmosphere. He didn't just take his belongings and leave the mall, instead he stayed there. I have a hard time believing that the security guards saw him taking photographs and they went after him IMMEDIATELY after. If the RCMP arrived there on scene just as he was "turning around and taking his last photograph" that means he wasn't being apprehended by the security guards yet because he had the ability to take another photograph, and he was there around the altercation long enough for someone to call the RCMP and for them to arrive on the scene........food for thought.
__________________
Clicky Clicky For my Feedback

Last edited by parm104; 10-26-2012 at 05:48 PM.
parm104 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 05:53 PM   #30
What hasn't Killed me, has made me more tolerant of RS!
 
jakers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Pomo
Posts: 169
Thanked 116 Times in 41 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by parm104 View Post
Sure but we're throwing all these Criminal Code provisions and Charter of Rights and Freedoms Acts around acting like they play in here. Don't look at things so narrowly. This can be played in several different ways. If he was fighting, kicking, screaming etc. which he admits to doing, he was creating a disturbance. That's sanctioned by the Criminal Code.

Here is how this could've played out by someone who is a little more experienced and perhaps more mature than this amateur kid.

See's an opportunity to take a photograph of something he feels is important.
Takes said photograph but then is told by an authority of the premise to seize from taking the photograph and delete it.
Realizes he's having trouble here, whether or not you understand the idea that you are indeed violating mall policies.
..now you leave the mall and exit on out, hopefully with any altercation. I can't tell you what to do if an altercation arises after that but I can say that the steps I've stated above are reasonable methods of handling this situation.

Instead, the young man must've created a scene in an already high tensioned atmosphere. He didn't just take his belongings and leave the mall, instead he stayed there. I have a hard time believing that the security guards saw him taking photographs and they went after him IMMEDIATELY after. If the RCMP arrived there on scene just as he was "turning around and taking his last photograph" that means he wasn't being apprehended by the security guards yet because he had the ability to take another photograph, and he was there around the altercation long enough for someone to call the RCMP and for them to arrive on the scene........food for thought.
I am sure he is playing the "Oh I'm just a kid and aspiring to be a photographer, THEY ARE OPPRESSING ME I HAVE RIGHTS AND STUFF." Really not much here now that I look at everything. The only thing is really his version of how they cut his bag off. I would like the hear from the security/police on this one though.
jakers is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 10-26-2012, 06:14 PM   #31
Banned By Establishment
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 303
Thanked 939 Times in 124 Posts
Sorry for the long post...

Criminal investigation must be done carefully and with regard to the law governing search and seizure. Section 8 of the Charter does not use the word “privacy” in any of its sections, we, as Canadians, value and uphold the concept of privacy, at times going to extreme lengths and expense to prevent others from invading our personal space and property. However, there is a balance that must be struck between protecting an individual's right and keeping our society safe safe. The large number of criminal cases challenging the legaality of a search or seizure indicates the range or interpretations that can be given to this section of the Charter. It is the role of the courts to determine if there has been an unreasonable search or seizure. They must also rule on any application made to have evidence excluded should it be established that to admit the evidence would bring the admission of justice into disrepute.

These applications are submitted under s. 24(2) of the charter:

“Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.”

In the case of R. v. Collins,[1987] 1 S.C.R. 265, Ruby Collins was charged with possesion of heroin for the prupose of drug trafficking. She and her husband had been under surveillence by two police officers. When Collin's husband left a pub with a friend, he was arrested, searched, and found to be in possession of heroin. The officers returned to the pub and saw Ruby sitting with another woman at a table. The officers approached the table. Fearing that Collins might try to swallow any drugs she was in possession of, one officer used a choke-hold procedure on her, which is a drug seizure technique designed to prevent the swallowing of any suspected drugs. Collins didn't have any drugs in her mouth; the heroin was in her hand, contained in a green baloon.

The trial focused on the validity of the search and seizure and the admissibility of the drug evidence. The officers did not have reasonable and probable grounds for detaining her(sounds familiar????)
The supreme court set out a test for a reasonable search: “A search will be reasonable if it is authourizable by law, if the law itself is reasonable and if the manner in which the search was carried out is reasonable.”

The court held that the search and seizure in this case was unreasonable. They struggled with whether the evidence should be excluded under the authority of s. 24 (2) of the Charter. Ultimately, the majority of the court decided that it would bring the admission of justice into disrepture if the drug evidence were allowed. In deciding whether to exclude the evidence, the court considered many factors, including the seriousness of the offence and the unfairness it brings to the trial. In other words, would admitting to the drug evidence adversely effect Collins' chances of recieving a fair trial and would it cast a negative light on the justice system?

In certain cases, a search can be executed without a warrant. The Criminal Code of Canada under s. 177.02 permits warrantless searches for offences ONLY including weapons. Therefore, taking away the camera from Markiewicz was totally unjustifiable and infringes his rights.

Last edited by Ronith; 10-26-2012 at 06:45 PM. Reason: MOAR typos
Ronith is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 10-26-2012, 06:34 PM   #32
Survivor MOD
 
T4RAWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,086
Thanked 1,571 Times in 551 Posts
"whether"

Spoiler!
T4RAWR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 06:42 PM   #33
Banned By Establishment
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 303
Thanked 939 Times in 124 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by T4RAWR View Post
"whether"

Spoiler!
Err, yeah lol... im tired and its almost 11... I'm sure there are more typos there (;
Ronith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 06:47 PM   #34
I contribute to threads in the offtopic forum
 
parm104's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,806
Thanked 2,621 Times in 684 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronith View Post
Sorry for the long post...
Therefore, taking away the camera from Markiewicz was totally unjustifiable and infringes his rights.
...when was his camera taken away?

Also, you should know that Section 8 of the Charter does not apply to security guards. In this case, the RCMP searched his backpack, but had the security guards done so, they would not have violated Section 8. And the search of his backpack was legal as well...Nothing that happened in this incident violated Charter rights.
__________________
Clicky Clicky For my Feedback

Last edited by parm104; 10-26-2012 at 06:53 PM.
parm104 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 06:47 PM   #35
dlo
Los Bastardo owned my ass at least once
 
dlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: vancouver
Posts: 6,080
Thanked 7,927 Times in 1,430 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by inv4zn View Post
^They've probably put them up since this incident.

Genuinely curious, how do they enforce a ban from metrotown?
they take you to their office, than they take a photo of you and give u a written form stating ur ban, etc etc and cops get involved too
__________________
Quote:
[08-12, 00:25] Iceman-19 the owner was someone i knew. trusted him. that blew up in my face like i was a 19 year old jap girl at a bukkake party.
dlo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 06:53 PM   #36
Survivor MOD
 
T4RAWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,086
Thanked 1,571 Times in 551 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by NBPTL6o4 View Post
they take you to their office, than they take a photo of you and give u a written form stating ur ban, etc etc and cops get involved too
previous experience?
T4RAWR is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
This post FAILED by:
Old 10-26-2012, 06:54 PM   #37
Survivor MOD
 
T4RAWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,086
Thanked 1,571 Times in 551 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by parm104 View Post
...when was his camera taken away?

Also, you should know that Section 8 of the Charter does not apply to security guards. In this case, the RCMP searched his backpack, but had the security guards done so, they would not have violated Section 8. And the search of his backpack was legal as well...Nothing that happened in this incident violated Charter rights.
Do you think that searching of the backpack was necessary for the application of law in a "causing a disturbance" case?
T4RAWR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 07:02 PM   #38
I contribute to threads in the offtopic forum
 
parm104's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,806
Thanked 2,621 Times in 684 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by T4RAWR View Post
Do you think that searching of the backpack was necessary for the application of law in a "causing a disturbance" case?
I can't comment on that, I wasn't there, I don't know how the events unfolded. I'm simply speaking from a legal point. Now we're discussing personal opinions which do not hold much validity in the eye of the law.

If the the disturbance was of a kind, where this young man seemed like he may have been a danger, I would definitely want his shit searched.
__________________
Clicky Clicky For my Feedback
parm104 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 07:05 PM   #39
Banned By Establishment
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 303
Thanked 939 Times in 124 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by parm104 View Post
I can't comment on that, I wasn't there, I don't know how the events unfolded. I'm simply speaking from a legal point. Now we're discussing personal opinions which do not hold much validity in the eye of the law.

If the the disturbance was of a kind, where this young man seemed like he may have been a danger, I would definitely want his shit searched.
A danger to whom? And how was he being a danger?
Ronith is offline   Reply With Quote
This post FAILED by:
Old 10-26-2012, 07:06 PM   #40
Official Texas Ambassador
 
El Bastardo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 10,179
Thanked 5,430 Times in 1,236 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by parm104 View Post
but had the security guards done so, they would not have violated Section 8.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gh0stRider View Post
He said the security guards held him, attempting to grab his camera, and he was pushed to the ground. He said he then tried to use his body to protect two cameras he carried in his bag.

Is an attempt a violation of Sec. 8?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MG1 View Post
She taught me right from wrong and always told me to stay positive and help others no matter how small the deed - that helping others gives us meaning to carry on. The sun is out today and it's a new day. Life is good. I just needed a slap in the face.
El Bastardo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 07:11 PM   #41
Banned By Establishment
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 303
Thanked 939 Times in 124 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by parm104 View Post

Also, you should know that Section 8 of the Charter does not apply to security guards. In this case, the RCMP searched his backpack, but had the security guards done so, they would not have violated Section 8. And the search of his backpack was legal as well...Nothing that happened in this incident violated Charter rights.
Huh?
Section 8 of the Charter: Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

You are grossly incorrect. A security guard has no greater authority to search someone than an ordinary citizen.

This means they CANNOT search or seize anything without the person's permission.


Furthermore, they cannot detain you legally if the guard suspects you commited a crime and keep you on the property.
Ronith is offline   Reply With Quote
This post FAILED by:
Old 10-26-2012, 07:19 PM   #42
I contribute to threads in the offtopic forum
 
parm104's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,806
Thanked 2,621 Times in 684 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Bastardo View Post
Is an attempt a violation of Sec. 8?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronith View Post
Huh?
Section 8 of the Charter: Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

You are grossly incorrect. A security guard has no greater authority to search someone than an ordinary citizen.

This means they CANNOT search or seize anything without the person's permission.
....seriously? A security guard is NOT a public authority. This applies ONLY to public authorities! It can become a tort claim for assault if the backpack is taken but it is NOT a Charter violation.

Keep in mind, the Charter of Rights is primarily a Government vs Citizen. It protects us from misuse power of the government.

I will try to draw this out for you because with all do respect, YOU sir, are "grossly incorrect."

Section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

What needs to be defined here? Everyone, secure, unreasonable and search and seizure. The first 3 aren't being argued, they're pretty straight forward so skip right to "search and seizure."

Search and Seizure: the taking of a thing from a person by a public authority without that person’s consent.


See how that works?
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Bastardo View Post
Is an attempt a violation of Sec. 8?
No, I don't believe an attempt is, but I could be wrong on that one, but I'm pretty certain it's not.
__________________
Clicky Clicky For my Feedback

Last edited by parm104; 10-26-2012 at 08:55 PM. Reason: Taking out calling some "ill-informed" b/c apparently it's rude.
parm104 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 07:25 PM   #43
Banned By Establishment
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 303
Thanked 939 Times in 124 Posts
parm104 -- Can you please cite what criminal offence Markiewicz did on or in relation to the property which the security gaurd was authorized to protect.
Ronith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 07:33 PM   #44
I contribute to threads in the offtopic forum
 
parm104's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,806
Thanked 2,621 Times in 684 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronith View Post
parm104 -- Can you please cite what criminal offence Markiewicz did on or in relation to the property which the security gaurd was authorized to protect.
We're going in circles now! I hit one point and instead of acknowledging that you move to the next one. This is, so far, a constructive and civil discussion and will probably be rather helpful to other members when they read it. But let's continue to do it that way. Don't spit out 10 different points and get me to respond to them in vain and not acknowledge them.

First you talked about Charter violation by the police. They're the ones who searched, not the security guards. They arrested him, so they were within their grounds to search his person for dangerous or illegal substances. It's the law.

Now you're jumping to the security guard's authorization to protect the premise. If you read the first posts in this thread, you will have already read that it is possible that he has violated the mall's strict policy on no photographs. This can be at the very least, a copyright violation. MOST stores have a no-photography policy. Photographs can be taken, but with permission from the management authority.
__________________
Clicky Clicky For my Feedback
parm104 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 07:34 PM   #45
Banned By Establishment
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 303
Thanked 939 Times in 124 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by falcon View Post
Any time you open your "private" property up to the general public, you loose the privilege of treating it like private properly and have to follow certain rules. I'll try to find the info I had read regarding this. I read it not long ago.
Here is is:

In Harrison v. Carswell (1975), [1976] 2 S.C.R. 200 Legislation recognizes malls as public spaces.
Ronith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 07:34 PM   #46
RS.net, where our google ads make absolutely no sense!
 
Anjew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: vancouver
Posts: 925
Thanked 237 Times in 102 Posts
The guards were probably just worried they were being video taped taking down another citizen which can open a can of worms. So they wanted to deal with the video tape right away and make up whatever reason later.
Anjew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 07:42 PM   #47
I contribute to threads in the offtopic forum
 
parm104's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,806
Thanked 2,621 Times in 684 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronith View Post
Here is is:

In Harrison v. Carswell (1975), [1976] 2 S.C.R. 200 Legislation recognizes malls as public spaces.
....a case that was decided before the establishment of our Charter...

Although it is true, mall spaces have been interpreted by the courts to be a public space where land owners of that space should expect public taking part in commonly performed activities....but citing that case does not set precedent and is not applicable right now. It's been going back and forth whether malls are private places, public places, semi-public, quasi public, etc.

I think I should mention that I am not advocating one side or another. As I mentioned, before I make my personal opinion, I need to see/hear the full story from both sides, which none of us have. I am advocate for sticking up for personal rights as I have made it clear in past threads in the Police Forum. However, if we are speaking strictly on the law, which, again, is the only thing we can comment on since we do not have the full story, then legally speaking...shit went down right.
__________________
Clicky Clicky For my Feedback
parm104 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 07:46 PM   #48
Banned By Establishment
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 303
Thanked 939 Times in 124 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by parm104 View Post
We're going in circles now! I hit one point and instead of acknowledging that you move to the next one. This is, so far, a constructive and civil discussion and will probably be rather helpful to other members when they read it. But let's continue to do it that way. Don't spit out 10 different points and get me to respond to them in vain and not acknowledge them.

First you talked about Charter violation by the police. They're the ones who searched, not the security guards. They arrested him, so they were within their grounds to search his person for dangerous or illegal substances. It's the law.

Now you're jumping to the security guard's authorization to protect the premise. If you read the first posts in this thread, you will have already read that it is possible that he has violated the mall's strict policy on no photographs. This can be at the very least, a copyright violation. MOST stores have a no-photography policy. Photographs can be taken, but with permission from the management authority.
Fair enough...

The security guard attempted to seize his camera, which the security guard had no authority to do because he did not witness a criminal offence. You are only allowed to seize property when you witness a criminal offence being committed. If the kid wouldn't had protected his property the security guard would have taken his property unlawfully.

When a security guard arrests someone it must be because the person broke a criminal offence. Taking a photo is not grounds to arrest someone and hold them until the police arrives. You can only put a person in detention if they broke a criminal offence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gh0stRider View Post
Markiewicz said he turned to leave the mall and then snapped a second shot as RCMP arrived.

He said the security guards held him, attempting to grab his camera, and he was pushed to the ground. He said he then tried to use his body to protect two cameras he carried in his bag.

A no-photography policy is NOT a criminal offence last I checked. Also, were there signs displayed clearly indicating "No Photography" ? This was not mentioned.

Last edited by Ronith; 10-26-2012 at 08:34 PM.
Ronith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 07:55 PM   #49
Survivor MOD
 
T4RAWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,086
Thanked 1,571 Times in 551 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by parm104 View Post
...
lol so many ill-informed people here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by parm104 View Post
...civil discussion ...
Thats pretty rude man and didnt sound civil at all.
T4RAWR is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
This post FAILED by:
Old 10-26-2012, 07:57 PM   #50
Survivor MOD
 
T4RAWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,086
Thanked 1,571 Times in 551 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronith View Post
Fair enough...

The security guard attempted to seize his camera, which the security guard had no authority to do because he did not witness a criminal offence. You are only allowed to seize property when you witness a criminal offence being committed. If the kid wouldn't had protected his property the security guard would have taken his property unlawfully.

When a security guard arrests someone it must be because the person broke a criminal offence. Taking a photo is not grounds to arrest someone and hold them until the police arrives. You can only put a person in detention if they broke a criminal offence. A no-photography policy is NOT a criminal offence last I checked. Also, were there signs displayed clearly indicating "No Photography" ? This was not mentioned.
was thinking about this earlier as well.

ignorance of the law is no defence in the law.

however, policy if it is to be enforced should be made known public. coquitlam center has it made clear that photography is not allowed on premise. how come metrotown didnt implement the same?
T4RAWR is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Revscene.net cannot be held accountable for the actions of its members nor does the opinions of the members represent that of Revscene.net