Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Teenager Arrested For Photographing Mall Takedown
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.'"
I don't much like the litigious nature that has invaded our society But... I hope he sues their arses off.
Boo fucking hoo. Stupid people encounter other stupid people. News at 11.
You shouldn't take pictures if you are unsure of the legality of doing so.
Hopefully, he has a 3rd year law student friend with an old school Dad who is head of a kick ass law firm, hires them, and sues these assholes out of jobs and 10 years of paychecks
Dicks.
The vantage point of the take down using real black and white film is pretty awesome.
The fact that he was arrested over it will only benefit him.
However, if the was in some completely backwards country he could have gotten shot over it. I was talking to a journalist who saw a guy head being blown up in front of him and he was convinced that the only reason he made it alive out of that situation was because he didn't have a camera on him.
First they take away your guns, then they promise you socialized medicine and other services, and the rest of your civil liberties soon disappear. Poor, poor Canucks.
You've got to love this free world we have, not living in fear form terror.
The government is here to keep us safe from... themselves?
Mall cops (and the real ones too) have nothing to hide, absolutely nothing. That's why they'll arrest you if you do. Because they have nothing to hide.
Oh, wait a second.....this was in Canada.
Nevermind.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
They should be sued for assault and for damage to his property. This should be paid for by the individuals, not out of RCMP funds - several thousand $ is a lot to individual members of the RCMP, but not to the RCMP as an organisation. Unless there is a penalty for their actions they will not change.
They should then be fired since it is plain that they are not fit to serve in the trusted role that RCMP is.
Doug MacDougall needs to have it explained that someone does not have to do everything that their staff demand, their staff have limits on what they can ask someone to do.
Don't even know how to rip the film out of a camera and expose it.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
After the security guards insisted that he must delete pictures from his film camera, they also forced him to Skype home on a rotary dial phone and beat him until he admitted in breaking and entering their bank accounts with his calculator.
Security guards, the paragons of intelligence and wisdom. They are also almost a full head above the local cops in understanding of the individual rights.
You can't handle the truth.
Not Canada, but:
By the express terms of the statute, a person has no right to resist arrest by flight or any other means, even if the arrest constitutes an unreasonable seizure under the constitution. N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(a) provides: "It is not a defense to a prosecution [for resisting arrest] that the law enforcement officer was acting unlawfully in making the arrest, provided he was acting under color of his official authority and provided the law enforcement officer announces his intention to arrest prior to the resistance." That provision codified this State's then-existing common law, which required that a person submit to an arrest, even if illegal.
You are not allowed to defend yourself.. That's the law.. I guess we're supposed to suck it up, as the saying goes..
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
How socialized medicine can be related to guns ownership or civil liberties is beyong my understanding.
I wonder what will happen when everyone will start walming around with google glasses in a few years...
They're hopped up on GNC vitamins or God knows what else and bored out of their skulls most of the time. Ultra-violence and ultra-stupidity is to be expected.
Eyes Open Self-Hypnosis for Victory: Summon the Warrior
When I see someone still using film. I mean, come ON, it's 2012 already! ;-)
Seriously, though, did anyone else think the rent-a-cops were bullying the guy for using last century's tech?
A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
that uploads instantly using the phone connection. Suing pigs would get so damn easy and delicious.
God bless our brave boys in blue.
Private security folk do not have any right to man-handle people who are not are non-threatening in Canada. With no apparent theft, or abuse or danger imminent, their sole legal recourse should have been to contact the RCMP.
The problem was the kid losing his cool. Now he'll probably get nowhere with what should have been a great lawsuit and a huge embarrassment to the mall.
Instead his "causing a disturbance" gave the police cause to arrest him. After that, it was all normal. When you arrest someone you make sure they're no longer armed, if that requires cutting off their backpack (because they cuffed you for causing a disturbance) then that's normal too. I know it's rude, but it's practical. Get over it.
I don't know if I could have done any better than this kid at 16. And I'm glad he stood up to them.
If you can keep your cool, when you've snapped a great takedown pick and a mall-cop demands something of you, politely decline, and start dialling 911 as you explain why they have no right to it. If they proceed with initiating force to take things from you describe what is happening to you phone as it's happening. In most places these calls are recorded. Let them bring all the force and you “be the guy” who wanted the police involved and a non-violent solution from the beginning.
If you can pull that off, when they explain themselves to the police and the judge, they're going to sound like the dickheads that they are.
Bullies, or as we call it "police state".
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.
what is a mall takedown?
I have had similar problems taking photos in BC. I don't know if security guards are particularly thuggish in Canada, but it's certainly a job which attracts more than it's fair share of dimwitted bullies. Luckily bullies are easily intimidated, and for this reason many photojournalists cultivate a tough sort of image. A teenage kid is going to have difficulty looking like a tough-guy, so in this case discretion is probably the better part of valour. Learn to shoot from the hip, with your eyes away from the target, and nobody will realise a picture was taken. Street photographers, who depend on getting a candid shot, work this way. One reason Leicas are so valued is their quiet shutter sound.
ITT: Slashdotters nerdrage over one side of a story. Other side nowhere to be found. And now, sports!
Make it an executable offence for law enforcement of any type to fail to uphold the public good.
I am John Hurt.
I think there must be missing information in that horribly typed summary. It skips what happens between when the security guards asked the kid to delete his pictures and the police arrived. Unless the police were "arriving" from the food court, there must be a ten-twenty minute gap of events we are missing. Did the security guards follow the kid around? Did they detain him? Did he just stand around snapping pictures? Unless the security guards forcibly restrained him (or he's an idiot), the kid shouldn't have been there when the police arrived. what happened between the "hey we're calling the police" and the police arriving?
At least in the US a mall is private property, and you have to have permission to take pictures.
So, in theory he had no legal right to do what he did, and would have been subject to arrest at the request of mall management.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
First of all, he won. The picture STAYED in his camera and its posted in the article.
It sounds like he put the camera IN HIS BAG. Then attempted to walk away. When police are called, by definition, they gotta put cuffs on somebody... They really should have taken EVERYBODY to the station. After the police opened the bag, it sounds like he had multiple cameras STOWED, so the security couldn't prove which one... And it backed up that the kid STOWED his camera when requested.
The main problem is that the police should have taken the security guards to jail for assaulting him without provocation. Of course THAT would never happen.
I don't know why I am reading this. Nothing is going to happen to change the system. Cops work on the premise that they get to do whatever they think is right. The number of cops who get penalized are very few. And even if they do it is the police department or the state who shell out the money not the cop. The court will not punish the cop as it will set a bad example of other cops performing their duty and general people will not protest because they want to stay out of trouble and just get on with their life.
Contact Metrotown and tell them that, if you're nearby you may boycott them, if you're "away", you've now heard of them and it's not good what you've heard.
.
The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.
.
And militia is defined as all able-bodied men of and over the age of 17 at that time, I believe.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3210135&cid=41786487
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)#Twentieth_century_and_current
How socialized medicine can be related to guns ownership or civil liberties is beyong my understanding.
Beyond your understanding? Maybe, maybe not, lets find out. Try pondering this.
...
Civil liberties (including gun ownership) can be
(a) taken away by force.
(b) surrendered voluntarily.
Consider politicians who advocate gun bans *and* offer socialized medicine. Now consider such politicians obtaining a majority. Does (a) apply to those who voted against such politicians? Does (b) apply to those who voted for such politicians?
If gun ownership is too emotional an issue for you then replace it with a different civil liberty. The lesson remains unchanged.
There's a flashmob forming up to protest this.
If you're going to be in Vancouver on November 3rd, and can make it down to the mall in the 2-4pm range feel free to join the protest flashmob that's shaping up.
It's an openly organized event, so even if you can't make it, please spread the word.
https://www.facebook.com/events/359447394148920/
There seems to be some confusion about the Law in this regards.
1) If it is a privately owned public property, like a mall or a store, everyone can come and go, (during business hours), as long as they have not been banned.
2) It's perfectly legal to take pictures whereever you want. If you don't want someone to take pictures, you have to tell them ahead of time. If you just put up signs, you have to give them a verbal warning if you want them to stop. If you don't have signs up, and they weren't directly informed on the way in, then you can take as many pictures as you want.
3) If someone refuses to stop taking pictures, at the most it's trespassing, and then and only then if they were in some way informed, (signs count, as long as they were given a verbal warning first).
4) If someone is trespassing, you have to allow them to leave freely on their own. If they refuse, then, and only then you can physically remove them.
5) Security Guards in BC can only arrest if they directly see you committing an indictable offense, (the equivolent of a Felony). Otherwise it's assault.
6) Security Guards cannot even search through you bags unless there are explicite notices saying your bags can be searched. I've never seen a mall do this.
7) They can only collect items as potential evidence, and if they damage the image, purposefully or not, it's destruction of private property.
Long story short, the security guards committed assault.
Looks to me as though the security guards have committed assault: http://yourlaws.ca/criminal-code-canada/265-assault
Let's see:
assault
battery
unlawful restraint
unlawful imprisonment
kidnap
criminal damage
unlawful search
unlawful seizure
That's enough to put the mall managers (by accessory), the rentacops and the actual cops, all away for LIFE.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Time to do a internet fight club on these nazi fuckers.
Lets organize a international VIDEO A COP DAY, and have 1000s of geeks with, RECORD A COP tshirts and just go recording them like its new craze.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
It's time for an internet based promotion to boycott this mall.
Because this mall does exist, there, it will limit the level of alternative retail businesses that can operate in the community. If they are going to ban people because of mall management's own stupidity, which is effectively harming such people, then really this mall needs to be shut down. That's hard to do. But a boycott could help return the harm, hopefully to an equal percentage.
People in the community need to call up the individual stores in the mall and make complaints about the mall management, and tell those stores that they will seek to shop elsewhere.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
The RCMP mounties that arrived are also stupid and need to be fired. There is NO justification whatsoever for destroying property in this case. They CAN unlock the handcuffs to remove the backpack. If they don't know that then that itself proves their stupidity. They should not have stupid people working for RCMP.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Nah, let's just get a few dozen of us to bring cameras on a weekend and we can take pictures of ourselves getting tackled by security. It'll take them all day to get all of us!
"With patience a ruler may be persuaded, and a soft tongue will break a bone."
> Myself, I would like to see the mall security cameras footage (if available) ..
Inexplicably, the cameras were not working on the day ...
AccountKiller
... That's what I absolutely love about my phone camera ... Go ahead and smash it; the photo's already auto-uploaded.
Of course, later, when I'm running for president and those *other* pix show up, it's gonna be mighty awkward.
....Not because of the take down.
I refer you to this paragraph (from: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?21876-Ignorant-Bliss-of-a-Mall-Photographer):
"According to her, the main problem is with all the businesses in the mall. Of course these days most are all corporate brand stores carefully controlling any media exposure. Any advertising photography is supposedly carefully shot so only the store making an ad is in any shots without logos of nearby stores. And she said there are issues of invasion of privacy of customers. I related the Christmas decorations were quite beautiful and that people would find photographing the mall wonderful but she went back to the business issues tangled up with legal issues. I related I'd taken a number of shots, gave her my business card, and said I would not take any more images. I could have related to her a few other reasons why I'd expect photography to be prohibited in stores or malls like security and store marketing issues. I'm sure she could have elaborated more too if she made time to do so."
I personally known someone who ran into this kind of trouble when trying to document the landscape overgrowing the street signs in a open-air mall.
(If you want to know more, search for 'Mall Photography' and ignore the links to photo studios. This same situation has happen before all over the place.)
He got an unfortunate education about citizen journalism.
Someone tangentially related to me got himself killed covering a story, he got too close to riots in Mexico some years ago.
Conceivably he might have been able to handle himself better or get away with it if he had a press card on him but the reality seems to be that this happens to journalists a lot. Being bewildered etc. I understand but not understanding why this happened is not safe for an aspiring journalist.
Especially considering the scary strengthened warlike attitudes of people in all positions of power in North America. It is really a social malaise that is destroying the civilization as we have known it.
That said he deserves apologies, reinstatement of rights to be at the mall, monetary and punitive recompensation, and the mall cops need to get fired.
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose. Any other form of freedom is an illusion. Including the illusion that you are free to photograph (i.e. observe) what you want. They will rip it from you. You are only free to remember that they did so.
Here's their Facebook page, leave an appropriate message:
http://www.facebook.com/metropolisatmet
I think people forget that you don't have the right to record anything you want and to publish it. If I were a police officer, I wouldn't want to be recorded by everyone with a camera. Just because the job takes place in public, doesn't make everything a public act.
And since this teen isn't a journalist, has no media credentials, and isn't the press, I really hope he doesn't have any right to be doing what he did.
There's a big difference between a random joe and a journalist in a civilized society.
Besides, if someone's getting arrested in front of you, it's already a tense situation for at least three persons. This idiot adding himself to the mix got what he deserved for doing so. Clearly he wasn't far away with a telephoto lens. Choosing to walk towards such a situation gets you involved in it.
I'm sure he'd have liked to get the perfect photograph by lying on the ground beneath the arrest, "not touching you, not touching you!"
Fuck the police.
The people who make the rules cant/dont follow them.
Everything I've read says other 1st world countries like Canada, the UK, Australia are just as bad or possibly even worse than the US.
"What's going on here, why am I being treated like this?"
It's because you live in a fascist country, buddy.
Papers please before you enter the mall.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-29-camera-laws_x.htm
Just to clarify the reality here, guys.
When did your law enforcement begin taking lessons from their US counterparts?
It was a f-ing chinese chink that looked up and said "omg he take picture you pay five dollah nao or we tackle you for five more dollah!"
Look to the South and see what a mess we have. Don't let your house become a joke too.
OpenWatch Recorder
ProTip: If the subject of recording can reach you before you can hit the "back" button three times and tap "Yes, upload now!" then you are standing too close.
1. Announce on Sunday that banks will only allow withdrawals up to £100 ($150) a day.
2. Create an investigative team.
3. Create an emergency law that gives bankers failing to help the investigative team a 10 year prison sentence,
4. Lift withdrawal limit on banks that are solvent. This should take less than 2 weeks.
5. Put the rest into bankruptcy. Bail out no-one.
6. Commission report on future of sustainable customer-oriented banking.
Job done.
Time to hang some of those "policemans".
Won't somebody please think of the terrorists?
When mall security has handcuffs, the terrorists win.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Above all, remember to carry some lawyers' business cards in your wallet so they will be visible when they demand you to show ID or anything. If a mall wannabe cop does so much as touch you, fall to the ground IMMEDIATELY and feign a heart attack or epileptic seizure. Attract attention. You're the new Rodney King, and they're the SS. Everybody must see and remember exactly this: "the security guard assaulted a sick person and I thought he had killed him, it was brutal and horrible oh my god oh my god". The premise owners do not like the bad publicity and they know the customers will probably avoid the place for quite some time - if they don't decide to go elsewhere - which results in a loss of profit. They will not back the security firm and they might well sue them themselves. If you don't want confrontation, carry fake press credentials, security business to not want to see a newspaper title reading "ASSAULTED BY FASCIST THUGS" and their name on it. And, of course, get some covert cameras. And fake blood.
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
To play devil's advocate, the article you linked actually says that if you're on PUBLIC property, you can take pictures of things you can see, including pictures of private property. He was on private property at the time. Also US laws do not apply to Canada.
You mean the ones that believe in reincarnation?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
What's that? :-P
Copyrights, contract enforcement and other such laws the libertards insist are fine and dandy, but never explain why.
They STILL infringe on the rights of people to do as they wish as much as all those other laws the idiots decry and demand to be removed. It's just they like those ones. So they must stay.
Never explaining why those ones and not replacing them with others (or none at all).
Copyrights: the author can freely decide to produce or not, depending on whether the market will act responsibly and if the market won't, they can decide not to produce copyrighted works any more.
Contracts? Well, if someone reneges on a contract, nobody will enter a contract with them. Or they can enforce the terms themselves with personal effort.
So these laws they love so much do not have to be there. The Free Market Fairy will sort those out too.
So why do libertards hate the free market individualism so much?
It's like the "No trespassing" signs, only the MoD and MoT can issue them with legal weight.
like your own government or military and you will be tortured for months. Ask Bradley Manning.
Am I the only one who hasn't a clue what a "takedown" is in TFS/TFT ? Is this something to do with the DMCA? Or American Football?
1) Security guards are pinning somebody down in a mall
2) Kid takes pictures
3) Mall 'cops' demand he delete photos from his *film* camera
4) Kid declines, tries to leave (while taking more pictures)
5) Guards assault the kid (unlawful, because all they're allowed to do is remove him for trespassing unless he's committed a crime, in which case they can hold him for police)
6) Kid is swearing and mouthing off (no shit!)
7) RCMP shows up, sees unruly teen being held by mall cops, and cuffs the kid.
8) Genius cop decides that to search the kid's backpack, he's going to cut the straps to get around the handcuffs
The real cops made some minor decisions that make things look worse, but given the circumstances I'm not sure we can really blame them. If the kid had kept his cool and done something smart - like politely request the guards be arrested for assaulting him when all he'd done is take a picture instead of cursing and being mouthy, this could have been a much funnier story.
Neither the kid nor the real cops handled the situation perfectly, but the real villains here are the minimum wage mall cops who should all be fired. If I were that kid, I'd be putting up their photos (and he still has those!) on a nice web site with the caption, "I work at Metrotown shopping mall in Burnaby, B.C., and I assault mall patrons for taking photographs, with the full support of the mall owners."... I bet things would change pretty damn quickly once that shitstorm caught on with the local news.
You are talking about sousveillance, rather than surveillance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance
Or a CCTV system "bug" suddenly causes the camera to zoom away from a beating and then after a minute or so, slowly, cautiously zoom back into the scene after it is sure the beating is over. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmXTFr5hoOo
I hope the aspiring journalist will sue them all and that some of those thugs lose their jobs and get their own share of authoritarian treatment (i.e. jail time). Needless to say, noone who is right in their mind should shop in a mall run by such a jerk.
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
They should all be charged and fired.
Should have used a camera that uploaded to the web at the same time or as soon as he was done. Would have been no reason to argue with them - they can have it - it's already posted, dumbasses! Being cops, they'd probably have no idea it was too late already - and by the time the court order came through (presuming it did) to access it, again - already being viewed all over and spread.
It's in beta in Toronto, and submits photos, videos and messages as tips to a non-profit that is trusted by the cops, but still provides reasonable privacy. See http://www.222tips.com/about
Of course, while using it, it's wise to be screaming "someone call the police" at the top of your voice and waving your other arm enthusiastically, so that when the real police arrive, they'll either see you acting like a "good citizen", or other people will tell them "he shouted for the police and the mall cops beat him up".
--dave
davecb@spamcop.net
Having lived in Communist Romania, the police did wtf they wanted. If you somuch as tell a joke to the wrong man, you went to a prison (or prison camp) where you would either be beaten to death, or killed by starvation.
Maybe setup a flashmob - each person carrying many cameras.
And if you have a net worth above $50K, then you're richer than half of America.
Thanks for depressing the $hit out of me.
What is a "mall takeown"? Sorry, just a silly American here :-).....And we are starting to see this type of Gestapo abuse here in the "Land of the free"
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable...The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference--they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." George Washington.
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson.
"Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." James Madison
This exact comment was already posted. I guess it takes some repetition to beat the truth through people's thick skulls.
Two points of disagreement: 29 is talking about the organized militia and 46 is talking about the unorganized militia, every able-bodied free man of (and over) the age of 17. Federalist 29 was written by Alexander Hamilton, and Federalist 46 was written by James Madison. 46 pushes the fact that the power is inherent in, and comes from, the people, and that the federal government will ultimately not be able to overpower the will of the people under whose authority it is given the right to govern. 29 pushes the idea that the militia, even when controlled by the feds, is not a danger to the people, as the states individually will appoint officers, etc. It talks about how the unorganized militia, even though he refers to just militia, can be under the direction of the federal powers.
So there's the difference between organized vs. unorganized militia, and the different intent of the two authors. 29 is about how the feds can control the "national guard" state militias: note that 29 also talks about:
commanding its services in times of insurrection... [and]
.
Those two phrases definitely do not mean "foreign invaders."
Brad Friedman recently noted that the Romney family is at least partial owner (may actually have full ownership given the opaque nature of its ownership) of a voting machine company which may play a crucial role in a number of swing states this presidential election.
The immediate corporate media response was "conspiracy theory, conspiracy theory"!
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was recently questioned about the well-publicized presidential drone kill list, to which she responded, "conspiracy theory, conspiracy theory."
Now, any so-called media talker, or "journalist" (forgive me for trashing that honorific) who can't answer the question, who owns the three major voting machine companies and what portion of the vote will they affect --- is too idiotic for adult discussion, but then their patently robotic reply to everything factual is always the same, "conspiracy theory, conspiracy theory."
Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! news show is probably the closest thing to a valid, daily real news content show in existence in America; she reports on important topical events ignored by the corporate media --- yet sadly even her show goes only so far, addresses reality to only a low level, but no farther.
A recent talk by Noam Chomsky, the embodiment of the quasi-radical, perfectly illustrates this. Chomsky, who enjoyed a very long tenured position at MIT, never would bit the hand that kept him well fed; he would keep all discussion at the political level, never venturing towards the real powers-that-be, always the perfect disinformation specialist!
In 2011, Chomsky gave a series of talks around the country, which might be called his "Wall Street apologist" tour. Well into his mealy-mouthed speech, Chomsky would state that the Wall Street fellows were really good people, the problem was "the system." (This is such obvious dishonest nonsense --- who lobbied and financed the decriminalization of financial fraud, after all?)
This has always been the crux of Chomsky's talks --- it just happened, nobody was really responsible, etc., the perfect Wall Street lackey.
Chomsky has long been a supporter of the Warren Commission's contrived fantasy on the JFK assassination --- just as Chomsky immediately supported the Cheney-Bush 9/11 conspiracy theory, and Chomsky finally made mention of the destructive effects of the offshoring of American jobs in 2011! (2011 ? ? ?)
Chomsky also just loves to slip in revisionistic nonsense about the Kennedy administration --- he just loves his clever revisionism.
Years ago, in the 1980s in Washington, D.C., I attended the typical cheapo, after hours gathering of a bunch of poor, volunteer political activists at the end of a campaign, and one fellow passed around a photo he had taken, just by chance, of Henry Kissinger and two other men at a diner immediately outside a CIA facility in central Virginia.
He was shocked to learn that one of the other two fellows was Noam Chomsky, with the third being Robert Gates; they were attending an intelligence briefing seminar.
Not that long ago, Democracy Now's Amy Goodman interviewed Steve Coll on his latest book on ExxonMobil, yet remarkably never inquired as to the ownership of that oil behemoth. (Nor did any other media personage bother to inquire either.)
Steve Coll is the president of the New America Foundation, a quasi-non-partisan foundation financed in part by the Pew Charitable Trusts (oil money) and Peter G. Peterson (private equity leveraged buyout guy and protégé of oil/banking giant, David Rockefeller).
Peterson has parked his latest, pro-austerity astroturf outfit, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget ("Fix the debt" is their mantra, which means the 99% must pay off their debts) within the New America Foundation, of course.
Personally, I have nothing against Paul Krug
It seems that police are like mindless robots who simply repeat their programming time and time again. They don't analyze EACH individual different situation.
This is why I have Qik. If you see something, stream it directly from your phone to their servers, and let *them* delete anything they want off your phone. Not to plug, though. If anyone knows of an open source solution, I would love to have one.
>the article you linked actually says that if you're on PUBLIC property, you can take pictures of things you can see
It does say that. That's not all it says, is it?
>Also US laws do not apply to Canada.
Thank you for that brilliant addition. However it happens to be entirely irrelevant to the point I was making in the general discussion, or, really, the actual prevailing law and practices in Canada.
Or to cite, for the non-close (as in "not in the ballpark") reader:
"You can take photos any place that's open to the public, whether or not it's private property. A mall, for example, is open to the public. So are most office buildings (at least the lobbies). You don't need permission; if you have permission to enter, you have permission to shoot. "
Adelaide: A South Australian teacher was (similarly) surprised to be confronted by Police & lead off for interview in the Police office at the same railway station - (including a demand that all photo's taken be deleted), ie, after noticing & attempting to photograph, to capture the disparity in the scene: a row of very tall, overweight transit supervisors near the turnstiles of the central Railway Station, as several very short, thin & modestly dressed Asians put their tickets into turnstiles in order to exit the commuter train station.
"The fact that only tall, overweight, Caucasian transit supervisors could be found to do this routine task (rather than a more representative mix of sizes, shapes, & races) needed to be photographed," explained the Teacher, but this wasn't good enough for the SA Police Officer.
At least 4 transit officers insisted on being in the same room, while the Teacher was questioned by Police, some of whom interjected - loudly - demands that the Teacher delete their photos.
Although there were -no- signs even suggesting as much, Police informed the Teacher that the Railway Station was a "proscribed area" - meaning that it was unlawful for Members of the Public to take pictures there.
Calls for a private interview - ie without the presence of the 4 or more transit supervisors - were ignored by the Police Officer (a male - wearing no name badge - from the UK).
"It felt like a bullying mob event, in the crowded room, throughout the interview," the Teacher confided to a friend, after being released. Of course, a condition for his release was the deletion of his photos of the comic ticket-checking scene.
(It is doubtful that, say, Japanese tourists would receive the same treatment as a local.)
Two points of disagreement: 29 is talking about the organized militia and 46 is talking about the unorganized militia
And the 2nd amendment refers to a well-regulated militia.
commanding its services in times of insurrection... [and] ...of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.
Those two phrases definitely do not mean "foreign invaders."
I've already quoted a part that includes the militias role in protecting from invasion.
The two fragments you quote refer to ordinary roles of a traditional army. Supporting the domestic government. They certainly don't refer to the militia being there to fight the domestic government.
I've just been going through the actual provincial and federal law relating to this situation.
The boy's mistake was swearing. That is "causing a disturbance" (Canada Criminal Code s175) and the security guards (being authorised by the owner of the property) can make a citizen's arrest.
The RCMP didn't press charges so it went no further. The boy shouldn't have resisted that arrest - he should have let it happen then argued about it afterwards. Merely thinking the arrest is false is not grounds for resisting it.
The mall security made the mistake of thinking they could require the photo to be deleted. Instead, they could ask him to leave (they did) and ask him to be arrested for trespass if he continued.
Possibly it was mall security's plan to argue with him enough to make him lose his cool.
What is a Mall Takedown? Sounds like a demolition of an old mall.
What's the Canadian equivalent of the ACLU?
Because we really need one.
there is the world we want to live in. Where cops/security aren't giant dicks. Then their is reality. Mall cops have no guns. Its a fair fight. Back when I was a kid we would have thrown a chair or other loose object at these dudes and ran like hell out of there. Nothing but dust by the time the real cops show up. Rule #1. Don't be there when the cops show up.
The kid is lucky he didn't get tazed to death by RCMP for "resisting", like Robert Dziekaski did in 2007.
Bow before me, for I am root.
Posting as AC. Cops in Canada are notoriously on the take. Canada is a very corrupt country, it's just that you never define corruption internally as such. I'm from Toronto. Malls are "private property" in Canada. You can be treated as a trespasser. You can be questioned, searched, detained and told to never come back. It's technically illegal, but malls do it to kids all the time. Policing is very suspicion oriented here I feel, as opposed to staying on top of situations, and I think it is because there is very little engagement with people, except when you are judging and forcing them. Police in Canada no longer engage with citizens except to get out of their cars and bash heads. There is no concept of police work that is not inside a car, or occasionally, riding in packs on bicycles. No police officer will walk on the street. I have not seen it in 20 years, except when they are either a) being paid as part of local corruption to stand at a construction project, or b) being paid to police large public events en masse. Police were brought in for the G20 summit and basically went and bashed heads at police-designated public gathering places in Toronto, while they were staying expenses paid at downtown hotels for a week. No one can stop this because it is intrinsic to the municipal and provincial political systems. All such police hiring is done through companies controlled by political party people, who get contracts from their government friends. The base salary of a cop is just a springboard to paid overtime, where you are "off-duty", but are in your uniform. Try getting a project through the city of Toronto without adding "off-duty" police to the budget. Cost of doing business. This is the essence of corruption, but it is never discussed. There is a lack of responsibility; the people know the cops aren't interested in their well-being, and that the cops are massively paid and on the take. Cops have no connection to neighbourhoods at all. They are only in bad, drug-ridden city projects all the time, via domestic dispute calls, or they are sitting in their patrol cars. Toronto's subsidized, city-owned housing concentrates prostitution, drug-dealing and theft in certain neighbourhoods, and concentrates police resources there too. It is its own economy of subsidy and penalty. Sadly, it depresses and keeps down many good areas of the city. The police-learned management tendencies to judgement, brutality and suspicion expand to mall cops and this story is but one example.
Or just stream it straight to a recording server.