REVscene Automotive Forum
Page 4 of 4 123 4
Show 25 post(s) from this thread on one page

REVscene Automotive Forum (https://www.revscene.net/forums/)
-   Vancouver Off-Topic / Current Events (https://www.revscene.net/forums/vancouver-off-topic-current-events_50/)
-   -   B.C. teen arrested for photographing mall takedown (https://www.revscene.net/forums/675774-b-c-teen-arrested-photographing-mall-takedown.html)

parm104 10-28-2012 06:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by twdm (Post 8066784)
It's called putting the facts together. Here's a lesson on reading comprehension 101:

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.
Reasons why photographing security CAN be harmful:

1. There were plain-clothed security guards who will have their cover blown if their photographs are published. These people's jobs rely on being anonymous and undetectable by potential thieves.

2. The security guards have the right to demand him to stop taking photographs. If the young man continued to take pictures, after being directed to stop, he is in breach of the Trespass Act and can be charged.

If he's being arrested for either Tresspass or for creating a scene, then the police have the right to search him for weapons or other things that may harm them. You do know the difference between being arrested and being charged right?

The story is not so one sided, and his "Rights" as far as not being allowed to take pictures were not violated.

You should also know that the suspect that was taken down by the security guards has not yet been charged with anything. The suspect has a right to privacy as well.

It's possible that the police do not want to release the name of an accused until a charge has been approved by prosecutors?

You're quoting Pivot Legal Society for crying out loud. Of course they're going to say security guards, police officers etc. abuse their power. If Pivot didn't make those claims, they wouldn't have any jobs!

The young man says he was pushed and held and thrown to the ground, other than his story, do you see any physical proof that he was pushed to the ground and held down by security guards?

You seem very well versed with the law, you must be a lawyer? Where did you get your J.D. from? You keep mentioning "real lawyers" and "people who actually have studied the law" which is funny because REV members that know me and see this thread will be laughing at your comments and what you insinuating.

LOL reading comprehension lessons. Appreciate the gesture but the LSAT did enough of that for me, thanks! This isn't going anywhere so respond to my post if you'd like but you're circling around shit that is conjecture. I haven't made up my mind about this situation yet because I don't have enough information to determine what rights were violated and who was in the wrong here. I can tell you this, most of us go to the mall all the time and we've never had any problems with security, and it's probably because we use our common sense when we're out in public.

Lomac 10-28-2012 07:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by twdm (Post 8066784)
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.
While I'm going to stay out of the rest of this debate going on, I'm just gonna say one thing. While the security guards can't force him to delete a photo off his camera, if he decides to publish that picture, action can be taken against him because it was taken on private property and consent forms were never signed.

twdm 10-28-2012 10:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by parm104 (Post 8066841)
Reasons why photographing security CAN be harmful:

1. There were plain-clothed security guards who will have their cover blown if their photographs are published. These people's jobs rely on being anonymous and undetectable by potential thieves.

2. The security guards have the right to demand him to stop taking photographs. If the young man continued to take pictures, after being directed to stop, he is in breach of the Trespass Act and can be charged.

If he's being arrested for either Tresspass or for creating a scene, then the police have the right to search him for weapons or other things that may harm them. You do know the difference between being arrested and being charged right?
1. It is not illegal to expose plain clothed security guards. Your point is invalid. Thieves are not planning to stab plain-clothed security guards before they rob stores, so they are not in harms way. If they cared so much about their anonymity, then they would fire every security guard after they've been seen detaining an individual. For police officers, you may have a point, but this is not the case.

2. We're talking about the level of force used here. If the police has enough evidence that he was trespassing, then metrotown is free to pursue charges against the individual. Since no charges have been laid, and until otherwise proven, he is innocent of both charges.

3. Trespassing or creating a disturbance are not grounds for search and seizure. You have no proof, evidence, nor reasonable grounds to suspect this teenager with a camera has weapons or stolen goods. Let's say he had his own confidential health records in his backpack, would it be reasonable for those to be seen by strangers on the count of trespass or swearing? How can this not be a violation of his rights?

If you are the future of our legal system, then there's no hope for any of us.

:failed:

El Bastardo 10-29-2012 01:07 AM
For the record parm104 had it right. The fact that twdm was likening a public street to a mall and getting over zealous about doing a cavity search on someone performing a relatively non-intrusive act is either sarcasm that fell flat or a big steaming brick of hypocrisy. Either way, :derp:

I hate hearing from people who cry foul at every authority figure, real (police) or imagined (security guards). This guy's behavior, in one way or another, influenced the outcome of this scenario and he wasn't treated this way for simply taking a photograph and swearing.


Lets take a breath and wait for the facts, not a load of hearsay.

FerrariEnzo 10-29-2012 08:21 AM
What I was told before, Normally people arent allowed to take photographs while inside malls.. I was told on a few occasions, like the West Edmonton Mall and 1 mall in HKG...

this was years ago tho...

Mr.HappySilp 10-29-2012 08:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FerrariEnzo (Post 8067290)
What I was told before, Normally people arent allowed to take photographs while inside malls.. I was told on a few occasions, like the West Edmonton Mall and 1 mall in HKG...

this was years ago tho...
Not allow to take pics in a mall..... I seen that happen pretty often. If that's the case maybe they shoulnd't allow ppl with cameras or cell phones with cameras into the mall........

FerrariEnzo 10-29-2012 08:34 AM
i guess if theres a special event or something..

Lomac 10-29-2012 09:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.HappySilp (Post 8067294)
Not allow to take pics in a mall..... I seen that happen pretty often. If that's the case maybe they shoulnd't allow ppl with cameras or cell phones with cameras into the mall........
It comes down to privacy issues. If you're walking down a public street, a photographer or videographer is allowed to take a shot of you without a consent form being needed. However, as soon as you step onto private property (and, yes, a mall is still considered private property for this matter), the right to privacy preceeds your right to take photos.

Now, security guards aren't going to go after a bunch of teenage girls taking photos of themselves while they go shopping, but you can bet your ass that if you make yourself obvious that you're taking photos inside a mall, you'll be asked to put your camera away and/or leave the property. Regardless of if you're a guerilla/candid photographer or not, you're not allowed to publish photos of subjects taken on private property without consent.

twdm 10-29-2012 11:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Bastardo (Post 8067206)
For the record parm104 had it right. The fact that twdm was likening a public street to a mall and getting over zealous about doing a cavity search on someone performing a relatively non-intrusive act is either sarcasm that fell flat or a big steaming brick of hypocrisy. Either way, :derp:
Wtf are you smoking...

Quote:
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.
My house is a public street? I was giving a ridiculous analogy as to why their search was unreasonable to prove my point. Just like how I wouldn't tackle and search guests who take a second picture after I ask them to leave, I wouldn't expect the same to happen inside a mall. Both of which are private property. As said before, the proper procedure would be to escort the individual out and tell him he is banned for trespassing, and that he is not able to publish the pictures in his film. Not power trip and do what they did.

I am not arguing the the kid had any right to take pictures inside the mall. I am arguing he has a right to not be physically harmed or be subject to search and seizure over potential trepassing or creating a disturbance charges. No security guard saw him stealing anything, nor did they have any reason to believe he carried weapons. That is a breach of his rights. Heck, I would be swearing if security guards tried to steal my camera.

Again. Reading Comprehension 101.

El Bastardo 10-30-2012 02:58 AM




I'd like to see what part of the law makes this legal. The guy behind the camera sure doesn't seem too confident that the law is on his side. At one point he literally runs from the people who he was filming after they begin the phone the police.

FerrariEnzo 10-30-2012 08:08 AM
Man this guy is annoying...

If he recorded me, I would have took his camera and smashed it on the ground.. AFTER i recorded him on phone and called the police

bing 10-30-2012 01:50 PM
^Don't forget to remove/destroy the memory card too.

c3m 10-30-2012 02:20 PM
Watching the video
I noticed that most people are fine with being videoed when the camera isn't pointing directly at them. Like if it is a pass-by then everyone is fine but when the camera is just facing directly at you even in a public space then things gets crazy and the privacy talk starts to come

T4RAWR 10-30-2012 02:27 PM
Spoiler!


im surprise he didnt get punched out in a few of those situations LOL.

El Bastardo 10-30-2012 06:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by T4RAWR (Post 8068641)
im surprise he didnt get punched out in a few of those situations LOL.



http://www.strangebeaver.com/wp-cont...12/09/taze.flv

T4RAWR 10-30-2012 06:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Bastardo (Post 8068862)
that was awesome! :fullofwin:

twdm 10-30-2012 08:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Bastardo (Post 8068322)
Surveillance Camera Man - YouTube

Surveillance Camera Man 2 on Vimeo

Surveillance Camera Man 3 on Vimeo


I'd like to see what part of the law makes this legal. The guy behind the camera sure doesn't seem too confident that the law is on his side. At one point he literally runs from the people who he was filming after they begin the phone the police.
We're not disputing whether it is legal for him to continue taking pictures or not. In fact, your videos further prove my point . Have you noticed anyone tackling him and performing warrantless searches? No? They did what you're supposed to do. Ask him to leave and call the police if he persists. No one touched a single hair on him, no one grabbed his camera, and no one searched his bags.

hillmar 10-30-2012 08:59 PM
think this guy got away with much more then the photographer. :fullofwin:

Majestic12 10-31-2012 01:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by T4RAWR (Post 8065736)

btw can we get free legal advice since we're RS members? :troll:
I only practice in a few specific areas. Come to me if you get into a car accident and ICBC is being a bunch of bitches. :fullofwin:

StylinRed 10-31-2012 01:30 PM
security is allowed to tell him to stop filming/photographing; they're not allowed to detain him or search him or seize his camera simply because he's photographing/filming

if he doesn't stop when asked security can tell him to leave in which case he will have to leave immediately if he doesn't or if he refuses he can be detained for trespassing with as much force as necessary to subdue him

but since the language is broad and there are many variables one cannot accurately say who is in the right or wrong, certainly not with the information afforded to us

that will be up to a judge


here's the law

http://www.leg.bc.ca/37th5th/1st_read/m203-1.htm



didn't look through the whole thread but im surprised our resident photographers didn't chime in (or did they? :lol)

parm104 10-31-2012 02:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by StylinRed (Post 8069526)
security is allowed to tell him to stop filming/photographing; they're not allowed to detain him or search him or seize his camera simply because he's photographing/filming

if he doesn't stop when asked security can tell him to leave in which case he will have to leave immediately if he doesn't or if he refuses he can be detained for trespassing with as much force as necessary to subdue him

but since the language is broad and there are many variables one cannot accurately say who is in the right or wrong, certainly not with the information afforded to us

that will be up to a judge


here's the law

BILL M 203 -- 2004: TRESPASS TO PROPERTY ACT



didn't look through the whole thread but im surprised our resident photographers didn't chime in (or did they? :lol)
BINGO...Well put.

And like you said, with the information we have, we are not in a position to give a solid answer for outcome or what rights were actually violated, if any at all.

Photographers may not have seen this thread, but avid photographers definitely discuss this issue often. It's important because a responsible photographer WILL want to be able to freely take photographs without crossing the line of legality.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:27 PM.
Page 4 of 4 123 4
Show 25 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, 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