B.C. teen arrested for photographing mall takedown

[parm104]

Originally Posted by T4RAWR

Thats pretty rude man and didnt sound civil at all.

...but it's okay for him to call me "grossly incorrect?" My comment was in response directly to his comment and he was ill-informed. Maybe I'm using the wrong word, but ill-informed just means lack of knowledge or not knowing something on a topic...What's rude about that and why is him calling me grossly incorrect not rude?

[T4RAWR]

Originally Posted by parm104

...but it's okay for him to call me "grossly incorrect?" My comment was in response directly to his comment and he was ill-informed. Maybe I'm using the wrong word, but ill-informed just means lack of knowledge or not knowing something on a topic...What's rude about that and why is him calling me grossly incorrect not rude?

dont have to lower yourself to the same level man

also i dont see the comment as being directed at him.

you said so many ill informed PEOPLE on here.

generalizing everyone on the forum.

anyways dont want to derail OP topic

[parm104]

Originally Posted by T4RAWR

dont have to lower yourself to the same level man

also i dont see the comment as being directed at him.

you said so many ill informed PEOPLE on here.

generalizing everyone on the forum.

anyways dont want to derail OP topic

Yea I certainly didn't mean everyone here. I am not an all-mighty force that knows everything though I may portray that I think I am from the way I speak. It's just my demeanour. But I don't think being ill-informed is a bad thing. I am ill-informed on several things before learning the right way or truth about certain things. I just found it amazing that he was spitting out all this information from GOOGLE citing case law and the Charter and not realizing exactly what the Charter meant and who it applied to.

Anyways, like I said, hopefully this will be a good learning thread so people know what they can do if they ever get placed in a similar position.

[dlo]

Originally Posted by T4RAWR

previous experience?

read my previous post sir

[m!chael]

Have any of you guys actually studied law? Lol. No offence, but I'm sure none of us know the law well enough to provide a meaningful opinion.

[parm104]

Originally Posted by m!chael

Have any of you guys actually studied law? Lol. No offence, but I'm sure none of us know the law well enough to provide a meaningful opinion.

LOL exactly. Anyone can Google things and copy and paste them, but understanding the material and law is another thing.

[Ronith]

You are avoiding my question though. Lets stay on topic.

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....

I reread some of your earlier posts, parm104, and you are right. Something in his story doesn't add up. His timeline of the events seems suspicious.

[CRXED9]

[QUOTE=BlueG2;8065478]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.

Very true, however, there are 3 sides to every story.
1) Their side (version)
2) Your side (version)
3) The truth

[jaguar604]

Remember that s.8 protects an individuals rights to UNREASONABLE search and seizure. It can be argued that the police officers/security guards had a reasonable cause to search and seize the cameras since mall policy was broken. The cops/security guards could have probably acted more professionally during the situation, but they may have been acting lawfully.

This situation is the same in principle when cops were searching and seizing unopened alcohol from people at skytrain stations (private property) during major events downtown. (enforcing policies)

From reading the article I'm guessing the kid was never arrested or charged, just detained long enough to get the pictures/footage.

[bing]

Originally Posted by T4RAWR

While metrotown is considered to be private property, a trier of fact (judge or judge and jury) would most likely side with the fact that it is public space. Privacy and private property is loosely defined as a place where an individual would have a "reasonable" expectation of privacy. A place like your home or a bathroom are areas where you would expect a certain level of privacy and a judge and/or jury would agree. metrotown while private property, is open to the public unlike your home where individuals require your permission to enter. thus, taking pictures in metrotown would not be contrary to the fact that privacy is being violated because the "reasonable" expectation of privacy is not there.

Anyone can perform an "arrest". An arrest does not necessarily mean being detained by police and it does not require handcuffs. Simply being stopped by a person who has the "lawful" authority to do so is considered an arrest.

In the instance of security guards they are merely excercising the same legal rights that you as a Canadian enjoy everyday.

Criminal Code of Canada:

s. 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.
(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.
(3) Any one other than a peace officer who
arrests a person without warrant shall forthwith
deliver the person to a peace officer.

The teenager was not in my opinion committing an indictable offence by taking pictures of the security guards at metrotown. It is also of my opinion that an individual with a reasonable level of cognitive processing capabilities would realize that the teenager had not recently committed a criminal offence nor was he escaping and freshly pursued by law enforcement.

Subsections 2 and 3 of this section would most likely not apply or bear relevance.

editted to add:

off the top of my head they violated the following charter rights against the teenager:

security guards:
section 7: right to life, liberty and security of the person
section 9: freedom from arbitrary detention or imprisonment

RCMP:
section 8: freedom from unreasonable search and seizure

You either like to read or you are taking criminal procedure and evidence in school. However, I think there are a few things to clarify.

You are right that anyone can make an arrest and that detainment can also include psychological restraint.

I would think that S494(2) would apply to security guards acting on behalf of the property owner, who can therefore arrest people for committing criminal offenses in relation to that property. Following an arrest, S494(3) requires that they deliver that person immediately to an peace officer. Private security guards are ONLY governed by the Charter if they are part of the government, performing a specific government function, or considered to be state agents (Supreme Court of Canada in Buhay). The Charter is a document that only protects citizens from their government, and not citizens from each other. Also, these are also not absolute rights as they can be violated by the government if they can be proven to be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society by application of the Oakes test (section 1 limitations clause).

The police probably arrested him for causing a disturbance due to his swearing, which he admits he did in the article.

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,

(b) openly exposes or exhibits an indecent exhibition in a public place,

(c) 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 a right or by invitation, express or implied.

is guilty of an offense punishable on summary conviction (if penalty not listed under specific offense, max sentence of 6 months, $5000 fine, or both). FYI, the trier of fact would not include a jury because summary conviction offenses do not have an election. Elections are only available for indictable offenses (except S553 + S469 indictable offenses), which will grant an accused a choice to be tried by a prov. ct judge, superior ct judge, or a superior ct judge and jury. However, in this case, it is unlikely the prosecutor for that matter would approve any charges anyway since they consider 1) likelihood of conviction 2) public interest.

[T4RAWR]

Originally Posted by m!chael

Have any of you guys actually studied law? Lol. No offence, but I'm sure none of us know the law well enough to provide a meaningful opinion.

indirectly i've had to take law/legal courses for forensic investigation purposes.

courses in criminal/legal procedures, presentation of legal evidence, and introducing evidence at trial.

i havent trained as a lawyer though and what i present are merely my observations/opinions.

[BaoTurbo]

Didn't a professor once tell me the law is made to be grey, that's why there's lawyers to bend it and logically word it their advantage?

Idk I just heard it somewhere...maybe I was just dreaming....

Off topic lol. But yea, logically from my standpoint of view I seriously think the RCMP and Mall security overreacted. The representative also stated he had no intent or time to deal with matter in respectful way, meaning he wants it done and over with and then he can sit his fat ass back in his office. Along with his mall staff and the Police.

[T4RAWR]

Originally Posted by bing

You either like to read or you are taking criminal procedure and evidence in school. However, I think there are a few things to clarify.

I would think that S494(2) would apply to security guards acting on behalf of the property owner, who can therefore arrest people for committing criminal offenses in relation to that property. Following an arrest, S494(3) requires that they deliver that person immediately to an peace officer. Private security guards are ONLY governed by the Charter if they are part of the government, performing a specific government function, or considered to be state agents (Supreme Court of Canada in Buhay).

He was probably arrested for causing a disturbance due to his swearing, which he admits he did in the article.

you bring up good points. i suggested earlier that s. 494(2) would not necessarily apply in this instance as their is no criminal offence that is being committed in relation to property. i understand that this may be considered but for the most part i dont think it would apply for this situation.

Originally Posted by bing

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,

(b) openly exposes or exhibits an indecent exhibition in a public place,

(c) 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 a right or by invitation, express or implied.

is guilty of an offense punishable on summary conviction. There are no jury trials for summary conviction offenses because they will not have an election. Only indictable offenses (except S553 + S469 offenses) will grant an election to choose between prov. ct judge, superior ct judge, and superior ct judge and jury).

i can see where he would be charged under s. 175(1)(a)(i) and on summary offence. however, my opinion on the situation was that the search would not have been necessary if he was to be charged under s. 175(1)(a)(i) as there would be nothing of importance in that backpack to further the charge. there are plenty of witnesses to provide statements

[Majestic12]

Let's put it this way: I am a lawyer, and I wouldn't even begin to be able to give an opinion on what (if anything) this kid can do. There's too much that we don't know, and much of it will turn on the facts.

All this stuff about Charter violations blah blah sounds all grand and sexy, but in the end, this kid will probably just get paid off a token amount, or someone will get a slap on the wrist, and that'll be the end of it.

[T4RAWR]

Originally Posted by Majestic12

Let's put it this way: I am a lawyer, and I wouldn't even begin to be able to give an opinion on what (if anything) this kid can do. There's too much that we don't know, and much of it will turn on the facts.

All this stuff about Charter violations blah blah sounds all grand and sexy, but in the end, this kid will probably just get paid off a token amount, or someone will get a slap on the wrist, and that'll be the end of it.

it was all in good fun

btw can we get free legal advice since we're RS members?

[bing]

^except you were way off with the purpose and application of the Charter. Hopefully you haven't confused the heck out of everyone else on the board.

I'll agree with Majestic that we really don't have all the facts, although this was a fun exercise to force me to review my stuff for my final.

I'm taking criminal procedure and evidence right now and its very interesting material.

[twdm]

I'm going to put a sign in my house that says no photography. If someone takes a picture, I am legally allowed to do an anal cavity search.

I don't even know how anyone can defend the security guards for what is essentially assault and physical confinement. Breaking a mall rule does not allow you to do whatever you want especially as he has not committed a criminal offense. You can ask them to leave, and if they do not leave you can call the cops on them for trespassing, but you cannot detain and search a person without their consent.

[striderblade]

wow lol i was there that day when this happen. And the brown guy in the picture is yelling to everyone. Move away nothing to see here! so loud is like he want the whole mall to know what's going on. First you have a guy getting pinned down by 2 securities WTF do you mean nothing to see here? I wouldn't have notices this incident if he wasn't yelling. It was a minor take down and he was acting like is something huge. Even my GF told me he was kind of overreacting through the whole situation. That guy remind me of those security guard movie where they make everything so dramatic.

Feel sorry for the kid for getting shit on taking pictures. Unless the guard had something to hide then it shouldn't even matter to them who's taking the picture. So what happen if everyone there wipe out their phone and start taking picture and recording?

[jack3d]

maybe the security guards an ugly guy and didnt want any photos of him?

[El Bastardo]

Originally Posted by twdm

I'm going to put a sign in my house that says no photography. If someone takes a picture, I am legally allowed to do an anal cavity search.

You remind me of one of those #Occupy assholes. Poorly informed and quick to over-react.

[twdm]

Originally Posted by El Bastardo

You remind me of one of those #Occupy assholes. Poorly informed and quick to over-react.

When someone is using physical force to subdue someone with a camera, then there is a problem. He's not waving around an AK-47 for god sakes.

No matter what he was doing, as long as there is no harm to the public, force should not have been used. It says he was physically held and pushed to the ground, which I would consider as assault in this case (a lot can go wrong in the fall eg. Bertuzzi vs Moore, more recently an elderly woman who died after another resident pushed her down). I don't know what kind of laws have been passed to allow for this kind of action. Would you feel the same if a 60-year old elderly man got arrested for taking a picture of security guards? How about a 12 year old who decides to whip out his iphone to do the same thing? Are you going to arrest them all? Why not? They must be breaking the supposed law that you think he broke. If he actually committed a crime, then why is he not being charged?

People like you are what is allowing governments to abuse their power. You let them slowly trample on our basic rights until we end up like the states where governments are trying to make it illegal to photograph policemen. The war veterans would be rolling in their graves if they hear the crap that is spewed in this thread.

P.S. Legal or not, it is wrong. I hope some lawyer picks up this case and sues the crap out of metrotown

[parm104]

Originally Posted by twdm

When someone is using physical force to subdue someone with a camera, then there is a problem. He's not waving around an AK-47 for god sakes.

No matter what he was doing, as long as there is no harm to the public, force should not have been used. It says he was physically held and pushed to the ground, which I would consider as assault in this case (a lot can go wrong in the fall eg. Bertuzzi vs Moore, more recently an elderly woman who died after another resident pushed her down). I don't know what kind of laws have been passed to allow for this kind of action. Would you feel the same if a 60-year old elderly man got arrested for taking a picture of security guards? How about a 12 year old who decides to whip out his iphone to do the same thing? Are you going to arrest them all? Why not? They must be breaking the supposed law that you think he broke. If he actually committed a crime, then why is he not being charged?

People like you are what is allowing governments to abuse their power. You let them slowly trample on our basic rights until we end up like the states where governments are trying to make it illegal to photograph policemen. The war veterans would be rolling in their graves if they hear the crap that is spewed in this thread.

P.S. Legal or not, it is wrong. I hope some lawyer picks up this case and sues the crap out of metrotown

I think, correct me if I'm wrong (Mr. El'Bastardo),what Bastardo was saying is that you've chosen such an extreme response/measure to a story you know so LITTLE about. A story we ALL know so little about. If you hear about something, before going all up in arms about it, fact check, do some research and then come to an informed decision.

And based on what you've written, I don't think you understand even what's been told to you by the article or this thread. You said "would you feel the same if a 60-year old elderly man got arrested for taking a picture of security guards?" He never got arrested for taking a photograph lol.

You say "when someone is using physical force to subdue someone with a camera, then there is a problem. He's not waving around an AK-47 for god sakes." Do you know what kind of force was used and who used the force? These are important things to address before we make up our minds about this situation, wouldn't you say?

Always good to look at both sides of the story rather than jump the bandwagon on the human-interest side and the Civil Rights side. I can give you at least 2-3 reasons why it may be appropriate and necessary to ensure that the young man stops taking photos in the incident.

[sekin67835]

We need to assemble a RS legal team

[twdm]

Originally Posted by parm104

I think, correct me if I'm wrong (Mr. El'Bastardo),what Bastardo was saying is that you've chosen such an extreme response/measure to a story you know so LITTLE about. A story we ALL know so little about. If you hear about something, before going all up in arms about it, fact check, do some research and then come to an informed decision.

And based on what you've written, I don't think you understand even what's been told to you by the article or this thread. You said "would you feel the same if a 60-year old elderly man got arrested for taking a picture of security guards?" He never got arrested for taking a photograph lol.

You say "when someone is using physical force to subdue someone with a camera, then there is a problem. He's not waving around an AK-47 for god sakes." Do you know what kind of force was used and who used the force? These are important things to address before we make up our minds about this situation, wouldn't you say?

Always good to look at both sides of the story rather than jump the bandwagon on the human-interest side and the Civil Rights side. I can give you at least 2-3 reasons why it may be appropriate and necessary to ensure that the young man stops taking photos in the incident.

It's called putting the facts together. Here's a lesson on reading comprehension 101:
1. "He said the security guards held him, attempting to grab his camera, and he was pushed to the ground."
- Here alone, you could argue he was assaulted and the guards committed attempted robbery (don't quote me on this, this is just my interpretation of this excerpt)
322. (1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent
(a) to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it;
- They have no right to take or touch anything they belonged to him without his consent. They can ask you and you can refuse, and they can ask you to leave, but they have no right to do anything to you without consent

2. 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.
- Ok, maybe they have a case for causing public disturbance for swearing, but then if they're gonna cherry pick their charges, they would have to arrest half of the thug wannabe patrons in metrotown who swear with every 2nd word they say

3. He said the Mounties could not remove his backpack while he was handcuffed so they cut it off his back with a utility knife and searched it.
- So taking pictures and swearing are grounds for unauthorized warrantless searches? Are you kidding me? If you're not legally allowed to search a vehicle just because you smell weed, then what makes this legal?

4. “He didn't comply with the request of the security nor the RCMP, so they took appropriate action they deemed necessary to defuse the situation,” said Doug MacDougall, of Metrotown Properties. MacDougall said that Markiewicz was told that he couldn't take pictures inside the mall.
If anything the teenager said was incorrect, then why did the manager not refute any of the statements. Instead all he said was they did what was necessary to defuse the situation. This could have been easily resolved by them asking him to leave, and then if he refuses, he could be escorted out by security guards. Not detained, and pushed down on to the floor.

5. Lawyer Douglas King, of Pivot Legal in Vancouver, agrees, saying that private mall security guards and police have no right to try to seize someone’s camera or demand that photos be deleted — even on private property.
- Here we have an actual lawyer with an understanding of criminal law that claims illegal acts were committed

Give me your 2-3 reasons why photographing the security guards would be of harm to the public to the point where he needs to be physically restrained, pushed down, and searched without reason. I would like to see what you can come up with.

[T4RAWR]

Originally Posted by twdm

It's called putting the facts together. Here's a lesson on reading comprehension 101:
...

oh burn!