Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Canadian Teenager Arrested For Photographing Mall Takedown

Posted by Soulskill on from the i'm-sure-it-was-a-polite-takedown dept.

blackfrancis75 writes "An aspiring teenage journalist in B.C., Canada who witnessed a mall takedown and decided to photograph it (using a real-film camera), was told to 'delete' the photo by security guards. He (quite legally) refused to do so, and when local police arrived they assisted mall security in pushing him to the ground, handcuffing him, cutting off his backpack with a utility knife and searching it. '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. "They're just yelling and screaming, and just telling me to stop resisting," Markiewicz said.'"

17 of 770 comments (clear)

  1. lawsuit time? by bloodhawk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't much like the litigious nature that has invaded our society But... I hope he sues their arses off.

    1. Re:lawsuit time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Myself, I would like to see the mall security cameras footage (if available), or independent witnesses. There's the security personel's / RCMP story, the victim's story, and the truth.

    2. Re:lawsuit time? by myowntrueself · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think it's fair to want people to resolve differences like reasonable adults.

      Differences like a mall security wanting some kid to delete his photos, and the kid refusing/being unable to do so? That should have been resolved in a reasonable manner, but it wasn't.

      If someone tells you to delete the photos, you ask them "have I committed a crime by taking these photos?" If they say "yes" then you tell them "So you are asking me to destroy evidence of a crime?" if they say "yes" to that then you tell them "so you are asking me to commit another crime." All done in a level, reasonable tone of voice.

      If they say "no, you have not committed a crime by taking these photos." then you say "Then I am free to go. Thank you for your time." and walk away.

      *reasonable manner*

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    3. Re:lawsuit time? by erroneus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What I don't get is that here in this land of North America, we've got it pretty good. Why are so many trying to kill the goose which has been laying all these golden eggs? This prosperous society, far removed from places which are simply less fortunate and certainly less civilized, seems to be collapsing down from its enviable position.

      I guess they never got the memo talking about balance in society and knowing when you have enough wealth and power. Having too much wealth and power creates and unstable situation which invariably results in the masses seeking to restore stability.

      We're okay with insanely rich people... just so long as the majority of us aren't suffering because of it. Turns out, majorities are suffering... and becoming motivated.

    4. Re:lawsuit time? by naroom · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Libertarians believe that bankers will behave when they're accountable to their customers...

      This relies heavily on the customers making fully informed choices. But companies will not reveal any information to the customer they don't have to. Here's some places that could really hurt you:
      - Amusement park rides made by the lowest bidder that kill children years down the line.
      - Food sourced from China and imported.
      - Internet service providers "adjusting" your connection speed so that you can easily reach websites they're getting kickbacks from (net neutrality stuff).

      Also, if a company is ever caught in the act, it could simply change its name or disguise itself to hide from the bad press. People forget.

      And lastly, there is no incentive for companies to create infrastructure - why lay down fiber optics when we're making tons of money from wires? Heck, private interests will try to prevent progress where possible - just look at the Prop 6 "free bridge" fiasco.

    5. Re:lawsuit time? by artor3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Washed them away?? You're conflating the businesses with the human beings that run them.

      If we let the banks go bankrupt, we'd currently be in the Great Depression II, while the bankers would be living like kings off their ill-gotten gains.

      We had to bail the banks out for the good of everyone. Where we went wrong was not punishing the scumbags who created the problem, and not breaking up the too-big-to-fail banks. In other words, our problem wasn't too much government intervention, but too little.

    6. Re:lawsuit time? by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Libertarians believe that bankers will behave when they're accountable to their customers

      They're still accountable to their customers. We can choose to walk away with our money any time we want. Has customer accountability influenced their decisions at all? Well, we've got Goldman Sachs over there, selling Mortgage Backed Securities that are designed to fail to their customers, and then shorting those very same securities. And yet Goldman still has customers...

      Libertarians believe that companies who "doctor" their drugs will fail by popular opinion.

      After killing people, like the fungal meningitis outbreak. Note that compounding pharmacies are outside of FDA's authority. This allowed them to circumvent regulations that probably would have stopped this outbreak from spreading across half the nation. Yes, circumventing regulations resulted in lower prices, but I think more expensive drugs is worth the lower risk of death.

      Sure, this particular pharmacy is going to fail "by popular opinion". But without regulations, it's only a matter of time until the next pharmacy fails...and the next one...and the next one...and with each one comes another group of people who needlessly died.

      And if the two biggest companies in a field colluded, in a Libertarian society, they wouldn't be able to collude for long. Number three would wipe its' arse with their remains, in very short order.

      Sounds like wishful thinking. How exactly is a smaller company going to take down two bigger companies that are colluding? The two bigger companies can start selling their product at below cost to drive the smaller company out of business, using their cash reserves to out-live the smaller competitor.

      There are two problems with the libertarian philosophy. First, it assumes perfect knowledge of all markets, which just isn't happening ever. Without perfect knowledge, consumers lose significant power. Second, it has no solutions to the issue of corporations becoming more powerful than consumers.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    7. Re:lawsuit time? by asdf7890 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Only real assholes use them instead of cuffs.

      So, the sort of people this article about?

    8. Re:lawsuit time? by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The reasons you think that way:
      1. Wealth distribution is a curve, not a line. That means the difference between the 50th percentile and the 10th percentile isn't as large as the difference between the 10th percentile and the 5th percentile which isn't close to as large as the difference between the 5% and the 1%. For example, the richest person in the world, Bill Gates, has something like $60 billion. There are approximately 400 billionaires in the US. There are about 5 million millionaire households. If you're something like the 60 millionth wealthiest American, you probably are holding something like $250K. And if you have a net worth above $50K, then you're richer than half of America.

      2. Most people with significant cash don't really see the lives of people much poorer than them. For example, a college roommate of mine thought he was from a typical American family with both parents making 6-figure incomes, or an income that was roughly 6 times that of an average American. The key thing to realize is that a life you would recognize as similar to your own, with a fairly spacious and comfortable house, good car, a 4-year degree or higher, working about 8-10 hours Mon-Fri at a desk in an office (or at home), and money socked away for the kids' college education and/or your retirement, is about as far away a dream to a working-class person as getting above $100 million is to you: It's not entirely out of reach, but it's highly unlikely.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  2. Re:I'm sorry but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...you should never assume that capturing photons flying through public spaces is illegal. Ever.

  3. Re:I'm sorry but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    you shouldn't assault a kid when you are unsure of the legality of taking pictures

  4. Re:I'm sorry but.. by Swarley · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When legality is defined by whatever a mall security guard says then nobody can ever be sure about what is or is not legal. That's why we have laws codified by government and available for everybody to read. Security guards don't get to make it up as they go.

  5. Re:I'm sorry but.. by _8553454222834292266 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You, the security guards, and the police are the only idiots unsure of the legality of taking a picture. The rest of us aren't retarded.

  6. "Stop Resisting" is the new LEO mantra. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have seen them do it in many clips on the internet by now: they assault an innocent victim, all the while chanting "Stop resisting!"

    Apparently the idea is to make it look like the person is resisting arrest, justifying their use of force.

    It's complete bullshit of course. Which is precisely why we need those cameras.

  7. Re:I'm sorry but.. by Guru80 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's private property but you still can't be assaulted over taking a picture. You can tell someone to leave and not come back, refuse to serve someone, ect but nowhere does the law allow you to be physically retrained and your person property cut off from you for taking a photo. No free society should ever tolerate such completely and utter b.s.

  8. Re:I'm sorry but.. by Scarletdown · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Slashdot users amaze me. They're experts not just on U.S. law but Canadian law as well!

    It's a thing called common sense. Try using it sometime and you will see how liberating it can be. This common sense stuff allows for discussions on any number of topics without having to be fully schooled in the subject and a practitioner in that field. It also allows you to go about your day to day life without having to appeal to some higher authority for permission to engage in most anything you feel like doing that is harmless to all.

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
  9. Re:RCMP staff should be sued and then fired by BadgerRush · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What the RCMP officers did VERY wrong was to blindly take sides in a dispute, helping an aggressor against his victim. They arrived to the scene where suspect A was assaulting, holding down and trying to destroy property of suspect B who was resisting the aggression and trying to protect his property. Then they proceeded to cuff suspect B (the victim), damage and confiscate his property, and arrest him; all while leaving suspect A (the aggressor) free.