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.
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.
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?
...you should never assume that capturing photons flying through public spaces is illegal. Ever.
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
you shouldn't assault a kid when you are unsure of the legality of taking pictures
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.
You shouldn't take pictures if you are unsure of the legality of doing so.
A mall is a pretty public space. So yeah, I think we can be fairly certain of the legality of his photography.
This space unintentionally left blank.
So, how sure are you of the legality of the things you do? Laws these days are made so that anything anyone does can be made to be illegal. I'm pretty sure that you do more than 3 illegal things each and every day without knowing it, let alone be sure of the legality of it. So you just stop doing anything?
I know you're just kidding. Anything that is in the public view is open to be photographed. How do you think the fucking paparazzi get away with sticking their cameras in the face of celebrities? This is just another example of why there should be a law requiring security and police forces to make a real living wage. This is the kind of shit you get when you pay 8 dollars an hour for your security guards. If they actually payed a decent wage they could hire people with more than half a brain.
If you can see it, it should be legal to photography it.
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!”
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.
A mall is private property.
It is private property that is open to the public unless you have been specifically banned from there. And for it to be illegal to take pictures inside a mall or any publically accessible but privately owned facility, there need to be signs posted at the entrances clearly stating such a prohibition.
This space unintentionally left blank.
And even if there were such signs, they can only legally ask them to leave to premises.
You're right. They can tell him not to take photos, and they can tell him to leave the premises, but that's it. They have no right to detain him or to search his person or his belongings because he took a photo.
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.
A site on Canadian law regarding photography:
"If the property owner puts up signs or tells you not to do something (eg: no trespassing, no photography, keep off grass, etc), then disobeying the signs or verbal instructions is trespassing."
http://ambientlight.ca/laws/the-laws/provincial-law/ontario/trespass-to-property-act/
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
They'll be beaten like the Canadian in Paris.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17/steve-mann-attacked-paris-mcdonalds-digital-eye-glass-photos_n_1680263.html
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Wonder no more: they'll get beaten up just the same. See here: http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/16/augmented-reality-explorer-steve-mann-assaulted-at-parisian-mcdonalds/
One of the problems with todays society is that how political law enforcement has become. There are already enough laws on the books to cover most anything you do, the problem is that law enforcement itsel has to prove beyond a doubt to a high degree that this crime was committed. So what's happening is that law enforcement is becoming lazy and wanting more laws that can be liberally applied so they dont have to do so much work, and the policial machine is happy to provide these laws so they say they can "get tough on crime". Than of course we wonder why we spend so much on jails and police forces, where i live, the local county spends 74% of its general fund on police, courts, and jail....
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.
Corporations are not our government.
Where have you been? Government is the proxy of corporate authority.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Try Qik
http://qik.com/
It does exactly that.
Unlike the other respondents, I think crap like this will necessarily stop. You can assault one teenager with a camera. You can't assault 50 bystanders who are wearing a device that is basically taking and uploading pictures all the time. We'll start seeing mall "cops" fired for abusing patrons. We'll start seeing police fired (but not prosecuted, I fear) for abusing the public.
To be clear, I don't think all security are bad, not by a long shot. I think some are, and provably so. The problem now is that they're generally the ones with the cameras, and sometimes those dash cams or security cameras are mysteriously not working when they do something wrong.
A lot feel like surveillance is bad, but like speech and guns, surveillance is a tool that can be used for good or evil.
Wrong province. BC's law is broadly similar though.
http://ambientlight.ca/laws/the-laws/provincial-law/british-columbia/trespass-act/
They can tell him to stop photographing and/or leave the property. If he doesn't do so "as soon as practicable after receiving the direction", then it's trespassing and they can call the police and have him arrested. They ARE NOT allowed to seize his property nor order him to delete any pictures already taken.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
It many countries around the world, Canada included you're legally allowed to take pictures even on private land until you're asked to stop. More so no one can force you to delete them.
Are you basically suggesting that no one should ever be allowed to take a picture without someone asking them to do it?
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.
If any of that actually happens, those glasses will be outlawed. Or at the very least ridiculed to the extreme in the media 'til nobody thinks it's cool.
Surveillance is only ok if used against you. Not by you.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
what is a mall takedown?
And then they get a decent doughnut shop, and it`s all downhill from there.
Make it an executable offence for law enforcement of any type to fail to uphold the public good.
I am John Hurt.
Slashdot users amaze me. They're experts not just on U.S. law but Canadian law as well!
When did you fall asleep, Rip? It must have been during a period in which the rule of law held sway. You'd better be a fast learner, or you'll be tasting concrete too.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Your opinion about what is public space is irrelevant. Legally a private property can be public space as it is the case here. The owner can still put conditions to your presence there, but the only thing he can do if you don't comply is ask you to leave and, if you refuse, call the police, which will then arrest you. They cannot confiscate your property or the pictures you took and much less assault you.
The guard does not make the policy; management does. If the guard does not enforce the management policy they will be fired for cause. The guards were probably just doing as they were told and any blame should be put on the policy makers. Would you risk your job or follow policy? This is not an "I was just following orders" as used in the Munich trials; no one was killed.
Does the policy need to be changed? Probably but thet is not the guard's call.
One could argues that it is illegal to see cp in the first place.
So the libertarian utopia might well turn out to be a nightmarish dystopia.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Eye Fi wireless ad card, a phone in tethering mode, and done.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Security guards don't get to make it up as they go.
Um; you appear to be wrong, since they did just that and the "authorities" are reportedly backing their actions.
A law is a law only if it's enforced. Otherwise, it's just social propaganda to convince you that the supposed laws are meaningful.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Nah, I don't think so. Putting a camera in everyone's hands all the time is a threat to people who want to abuse their power now. You don't see cameras in phones being banned. You see some people trying to assert that people can't use them, but they're being smacked down. Cases where the police do something wrong, get caught on film doing it, and try to confiscate the cameras make major news.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes finally has an answer. It's all of us. When someone tries to take this right away from you, you'd better stand up and fight for it.
Except that the page you link to makes no clarification of whether this applies in public accomodation and not purely private contexts. In public accomodation, the individual derives a right to be in the space due to its public nature, which is greater that on property under purely private use.
He obviously took a picture of the security doing something they knew they would get in trouble (ie lawyers) later.
This is where law enforcement didn't do their job to be UNBIASED. Walk the kid outside and see what's on that camera!
Mall cops... pfft...
This is like a perfect recipe for a news story:
(1) Low wage / Low IQ employees in a position of perceived authority
(2) Young person with no perceived authority
(3) Loose understanding of the laws and common sense
(4*) Sexually embarrassing a teen (*only recommended for hardcore McDonalds recipes)
We all remember the "Pièce de résistance" during the McDonalds illegal strip search of a teenager... clearly the aftermath of that wasn't shocking enough to make a difference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strip_search_prank_call_scam
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFXeXK3szOk&feature=related
Like other laws, that law is utterly toothless if the police don't feel like laying charges. I live in BC, and I had someone push their way into my house after ringing the doorbell. They refused to leave until the police arrived. Despite evidence from the 911 recording, and police finding the person on my property, charges were never laid despite my insistence. RCMP in Canada are a joke.
Public? I think you don't know how malls work. They're private spaces with private security guards. There's one close by that bans picture taking, movies, sitting on benches for more than 15 minutes, and even assembling of more than 3 folks at a time. Fortunately it's a chick mall with pretty much nothing for a guy to do but hold her purse (there is a movie theater but no gear shops).
[John]
Shit better not happen!
One could argues that it is illegal to see [child porn] in the first place.
You might want to be careful with that. We've already had stories of people being charged with "child porn" by undressing a child, e.g. to change its diaper. It's very easy for child-porn laws to be used against anyone who has a child, at least if they want to keep that child reasonably clean and healthy.
There has been a bit of humor in the past based on such examples of laws that outlaw much more than what the legislators thought they were trying to forbid.
(You may treat this as an invitation to submit your favorite example of such overly-broad laws. ;-)
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
You shouldn't take pictures if you are unsure of the legality of doing so.
If one can lawfully see the acts taking place, then one should be able to lawfully take a photograph. Or, is the logic such that "most people don't have a photographic memory, therefore it is not illegal to see as long as you'll have no permanent record of the events taking place"?
ITT: Slashdot nerd attempts to discredit other Slashdot nerd through baseless ad hominem. Shocker!
Well, if the whole argument started with an ad hominem fallacy it is just fair that we keep it in its rails. ;)
An undressed 17 years old in a non-sexual pose tends to count as child pornography. So does photographing your 1 years old.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
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.
Well, "Slashdotter" is a common identifier for someone who frequents Slashdot and is not an insult, so that can't be what you mean. Also, I don't qualify "nerdrage" as an ad hominem, considering that it's a verb and anyone is capable of nerdraging. Now, if I would have said "Dumbass Slashdotters froth at the mouth like rabid dogs", you'd have been on to something there.
Hopefully, he has a 3rd year law student friend
I misread that as "3rd grade." Excuse me while I write a sitcom pilot!
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
No. A mall is a public space, and you dont need any permission to take pictures in a public space. Being privately owned, they may be able to ask you to leave for any reason, and eventually if you refuse that can wind up with a trespassing complaint, nothing more.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
In US a mall is private property as it is in Canada and in most places in the world. It is also a public space as any space private or public open to the public. And no, you don't need permission to take pictures by default, but conditions can be put in place by the owner to allow your presence there. Those conditions need to be informed and if you fail to comply the can ask you to leave. If you refuse they can then call the police and the police will remove you from there. even if things reach this point neither the mall employees or the police can confiscate your already taken pictures or damage your property as happened here, and the mall security can only assault you if you present a clear danger to them or the people in the building.
Like other laws, that law is utterly toothless if the police don't feel like laying charges. I live in BC, and I had someone push their way into my house after ringing the doorbell. They refused to leave until the police arrived. Despite evidence from the 911 recording, and police finding the person on my property, charges were never laid despite my insistence. RCMP in Canada are a joke.
Hey, they always get THEIR man, but that doesn't mean they always get YOURS!
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
android phone, google plus set to upload pictures automatically as you take them. same can be done with dropbox.
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.
Yeah; what this really shows is that our "smart phone" technology is still too limited. The way they should work is that as soon as the photo is taken, it's sent wirelessly to an archive. Perhaps to the owner's home or work computer; perhaps to some "cloud" server. Then the victim can smilingly comply with the cops' order, and delete the photos.
The case I'm expecting to read about soon is when this happens, the photos have been quickly uploaded to the victim's facebook account, and all of his/her friends are watching them. Maybe the phone's microphone will be on, too, so the verbal interaction with the cops will also go directly online.
If this hasn't happened already, it's an indictment of the "walled garden" nature of the cell phone systems. It's easily within the capability of our current phones and the cell-phone system. If it's not happening, it's because the phone companies have blocked the software that enables such scenarios.
(And yes, I did work with a group that implemented just such an "app" a couple of years back. The company that leased us the smart phone -- which shall be unnamed here so you'll suspect it's the company that supplied your phone -- blocked supplying the app to their customers. What's especially upsetting is that our app was designed as a tool for medical emergency people, not for law-enforcement purposes, and they really didn't want us supplying apps that gave medical people quick image transfer between an emergency site and their hospital. But it applies in this mall-cop story, too. ;-)
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
.
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
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.
Autocomplete, I hate you.
An undressed 17 years old in a non-sexual pose tends to count as child pornography. So does photographing your 1 years old.
Even a dressed 17 year old in a non-sexual pose could count as child pornography, in the UK. In fact even a dressed 40 year old in a non-sexual pose could count, if they were dressed in school uniform.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
This is not an "I was just following orders" as used in the Munich trials; no one was killed.
Stop. Someone needn't be killed in order for that excuse to be bullshit. If you do something immoral, "I was just following orders" won't cut it.
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.
When legality is defined by whatever a mall security guard says then nobody can ever be sure about what is or is not legal.
I can't speak to local statutes, but an owner of private property (e.g., a mall) can have restrictions on what constitutes acceptable behavior on that property. If you violate them, they can ask you to leave; if you don't, they can have the police arrest you for trespass.
If you come into my house and do something I deem inappropriate, I have the right to ask you to leave. If you don't, I can call the police to force you to leave my property. The same thing is true of owners of malls.
Mall security guards are generally assumed to have the authority of the owner to enforce and interpret the owner's policies.
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.
Actually, they can "make it up" to some extent, as long as they have the support of the owner. There is no requirement that their actions even be consistent, as long as they do not violate other laws (physical assault, discrimination against a particular race or something, etc.).
In this case, the security guards clearly had the right to request someone to leave after taking a photo, if they deemed it within the scope of what the owner of the property would consider inappropriate activity (and a mall owner might in fact not want photos or videos of his security personnel showing up on the internet).
That said, they did not have the right to confiscate his property. If there was a posted warning that people who entered the property could not take photographs, they might be able to get the police to take legal action on their behalf, or perhaps sue the person in court to force compliance with the mall policy -- e.g., if the person posted video of the mall on the internet, the mall might be able to sue for damages if it clearly had a policy disallowing photography. It doesn't sound like there was any posted warning in this case, at least from the incomplete account in TFA.
It sounds like it all went wrong when the police arrived, and they forced an arrest and confiscation of property, rather than simply forcing the person leave the premises, as was probably the appropriate legal remedy for the security guards here.
The security guards may have been in error for overstepping their own bounds in their request, but in doing so they did not commit any crime (again, I'm relying on the account in TFA). But the real issue here is the police who assaulted a private citizen (and, it sounds like, authorized the mall security to assist in assaulting him) and confiscated property apparently without cause.
Looks to me as though the security guards have committed assault: http://yourlaws.ca/criminal-code-canada/265-assault
Is there still a cellphone out there that doesn't come with a camera? And is there still someone out there without a cellphone?
If people wanted to do that, they already could.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
A mall is a privately owned public place. If you invite the public into your privately owned property it is a public place and there is a limit to the crap you can throw at them.
The article you quote has nothing to do with the definition of public space and basically confirms what I said. I suggest you read the articles you cite before doing so.
They may also simply ask you to leave, and by not doing so in an orderly fashion, you are trespassing.
If you refuse to leave, the owner can call the police and have you arrested...
They can't assault you, confiscate your property or even touch you (unless they have reason to suspect they or other people are in risk of physical harm because of you) until the police arrives. The police can arrest you, but can't confiscate your property and even go through it without a good motive. Furthermore any pictures you have already taken are yours and can't be confiscated by either the owner of the space or the officers.
What a strange world we live in when flash mobs are arranged a week in advance...
They probably didn't think they had enough of a case (for criminal trespass) or that the person wasn't worth charging (no history etc). That doesn't mean you can't push civil charges yourself. The police report alone would probably be enough for civil charges to stick (just need to prove it's more likely than not he trespassed). However the result would be some trivial amount of damages to deter the culprit from doing it again.
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
You're under the impression that the laws are based on common sense? Are you from another planet?
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.
From TS2: "I'm Buzz Lightyear, I'm always sure!"
you would know all this if you had read TFA
You must be new here.
And judging by your UID - yes, yes you are.
Welcome to Slashdot. Don't RTFA.
no, cops work on the premise that if they don't do what their bosses tell them to do they're out on their ear. I've known cops quit rather than do as they are told being breaking the Law even though their bosses have tried to tell them that what they're telling them to do is actually "legal". Only in their eyes.
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 guard does not make the policy; management does. If the guard does not enforce the management policy they will be fired for cause. The guards were probably just doing as they were told and any blame should be put on the policy makers. Would you risk your job or follow policy? This is not an "I was just following orders" as used in the Munich trials; no one was killed.
Does the policy need to be changed? Probably but thet is not the guard's call.
The guard does not make the policy; management does. If the guard does not enforce the management policy they will be fired for cause. The guards were probably just doing as they were told and any blame should be put on the policy makers. Would you risk your job or follow policy? This is not an "I was just following orders" as used in the Munich trials; no one was killed.
Does the policy need to be changed? Probably but thet is not the guard's call.
Fine. So (if the guard laid a hand on the kid, as the picture would suggest) the guard's defense can be "management told me to assault him and take away his camera". Then you call the manager to the stand and ask them if they gave that order. And the manager will say "of course I told them to do it, if anyone is guilty of assault it is me." Or perhaps, bosses being what they are, they'll say "oh, no, no, we never told the guard to do that" and leave the guard to hang out and dry. Which would be an object lesson to other security guards, and perhaps workers in general.
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
Because if any schmuck who gets sick or injured can just get treated without indenturing himself, the AC can't feel socially superior to them. How's he supposed to feel good about himself without peons to shit on from above?
Slashdot at large is not responsible when you make a fool of yourself, and as common stupid people are both here and everywhere else there are always exceptions.
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
The guard does not make the policy; management does. If the guard does not enforce the management policy they will be fired for cause.
More often than not, the people responsible for enforcing [policy] are undertrained and do not fully understand how they are supposed to be enforcing [policy].
And sometimes, not even the management understands how a policy should be implemented within the bounds of the law.
This is not an "I was just following orders" as used in the Munich trials; no one was killed.
Is it okay to assault people as long as no one is killed?
Is it okay to infringe upon their civil liberties, as long as no one is killed?
WTF kind of specious argument is that?
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
... 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.
Despite evidence from the 911 recording, and police finding the person on my property, charges were never laid despite my insistence. RCMP in Canada are a joke.
In British Columbia, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police don't lay charges, the Crown does.
So of the charges weren't laid, blame the crown, not the Mounties.
Wow, that sucks. The law in the US varies by state, but I'm not aware of any state where you can be cited for trespassing merely for disobeying a sign or a verbal order. Here, if you disobey the sign or order you will be asked to leave. If you refuse to leave, *then* you are trespassing, but not until then.
In Utah, the state whose law I know best, there's another caveat as well: If you are in a place that was open to the public at the time and were not interfering with the owner's lawful use of his property (i.e. his business) then you are not trespassing even if you refuse to leave. In practice that's the sort of out that you have to exercise in court, because if you refuse to leave the cops will cite you, but you can choose to stand on your rights and fight it in court.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
....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.)
We believe we have enough evidence for a slam-dunk, including a written confession. I went to legal aid, and victim's services, and they both said it was impossible. Since you seem to have a superior knowledge of law in BC, please explain to me how pursuing civil charges would help things.
In BC, which is where this incident occurred, the minimum wage is $10.25.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The individual in our case was female. Had I laid a finger on her, I knew there was probably a 50/50 chance I would have ended up in handcuffs regardless, so I decided not to go there. So instead I opted to shout at her to leave for 15 minutes while on the phone with 911 to record things, until the police arrived. The RCMP officer is still to thick to press charges even though this is a case of stalking that has gone back at least 10 years. He won't even return my calls anymore because there's too many more important cases to deal with. Sheesh...
Exactly! So why the hell am I not allowed to take my monkey to the mall?!
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
It's pretty easy to blame the Mounties when they don't take it seriously enough to take it to the Crown. It's not like I can phone the Crown Counsel myself and have a word with them. Believe me I've tried.
Says who? Why? Because you WANT it to be true? If you go to a friend's house, if they're a private person, what are you going to say when they say stop photographing my home?
I had a sucky sig.
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.
Ignoring a privately-posted sign is not a criminal offense unless it's a "no trespassing" sign. It is the equivalent of a request to leave the property. Ignoring a request to leave is trespassing. The only other recourse for a property owner is a civil suit. Non-criminal behavior is non-criminal.
So while you're correct that he wouldn't have a legal right in the USA to photograph anyone or anything, a right is not necessary to do so and the act would not be a crime unless the act was specifically dealt with in a given State's laws. I'm aware of no such place currently which specifically criminalizes photography on private property without prior consent of the owner. Such an extraordinary assertion would require the specific citation of law to be believable, in any event. This does not apply to public property, which routinely have laws covering them denying all activity not specifically allowed/protected and making violation a crime.
A mall is a privately owned public place. If you invite the public into your privately owned property it is a public place and there is a limit to the crap you can throw at them.
But when - as in almost every case - the owner of the private property puts up a sign indicating that photography isn't allows on the premises, that's pretty damn straightforward.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
He obviously took a picture of the security doing something they knew they would get in trouble (ie lawyers) later.
How is this obvious? What do you know that nobody else does?
Walk the kid outside and see what's on that camera!
So, the police would be the ones paying to have his film developed? First they have to know where there's still a one-hour lab within 10km or so - increasingly rare.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
If you've got the time and money, you might be able to file a private prosecution without the help of the Crown.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prosecution
Honestly, in this whole back and forth we see here is exactly the same frightening assumption that is the root cause of this kind of abuse of authority.
Police are not military. Police are civilians. Civilians who are supposed to be well versed in unbiased execution of the law. Police that forget they too are civilians are the root cause of a lot of the mentality that leads to these situations. Whether it be the problem officers themselves, those who stand up for them in the name of us versus the civilians, or those who ignore the abuses because "civilians just don't understand".
Why don't you come over to my house and try to take a picture or exhibit some "other" behavior that I deem unacceptable in my home. See if you feel the same way when me and three other big guys throw you to the ground and forcibly take your property by cutting it off you back,
I am surprised at how idiots think assault is "okay" when a corporation's representatives does it on their property just cause they decide they don't like your attitude.
Fuck the police.
He said limit not complete lack.
Yes, I am from earth. Laws out here are more often based on common sense than not. Which planet are you from?
I don't know about Canada, but in the US you do have that right. It has explicitly been uphold by, I think, every state now including the state of Massachusetts which was a bit late for the party. Police are not just random citizens. They are given huge power, the power to kill. With that power comes hightened scrutiny of their actions. In the modern world, smartphones are the greatest and perhaps only weapon against police brutality and murder.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
You are allowed to take it to the mall, they are allowed to ask you to leave. They are also allowed to ban you for life for being a monkey's uncle, and have you arrested if you come back, with or without monkey.
Learn to love Alaska
They are privately owned, but are public places. They invited the public in, and thus lose some of the "protections" of private property.
Learn to love Alaska
You assume "public place" and "private property" are mutually exclusive. They are not.
Learn to love Alaska
If the event is in public you absolutely DO have the right to record it an publicize it.
It's called freedom of speech, and it is the First Amendment in the US Constitution.
It's been upheld in court many times.
Most recently Glik v Cunniffe (26 August 2011) the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that there is a First Amendment right to record police activity in public.
Strawman?
It certainly looks to me that you are supportive of the property owners "serious about the 'no photography' policy" whose employees assaulted the "hipster retro film camera" toting trespasser. And their actions sure sound like simple assault and property theft to me. I just pointed out it is no different when a home owner or a mall owner jump you and take your stuff.
Did I misunderstand? Are you now saying instead that it's wrong for a photographer to be assaulted in a mall? Is vigilante justice wrong for everyone or just the peons who can't afford rent-a-cops?
Most of those laws, free speech included, and especially "in-public" and "in-plain-sight" come from an age way before modern technology. "in plain sight" has always included what an officer can see. It also includes what they can see from the street through an open door. It also includes a closed window without blinds. And today, with cameras that can see through walls, it includes everything in your home through a $300 thermal camera.
By the way, that's also been held up in court multiple times.
Stop looking at the law. Start thinking about it. Realize that it had more than an intent, it had a purpose. Many modern scenarios blow away that purpose.
When it comes to freedom of speech, that was to avoid prosecution for what you say. It has nothing to do with the right to manipulate foolish people.
When it comes to freedom of the press, again, that was to ensure that things don't happen without ANY witnesses. Not so anyone can be a witness, and certainly not so everyone can witness.
You're just screwing yourself over. But hey, yours is a country that still thinks the british are coming.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-29-camera-laws_x.htm
Just to clarify the reality here, guys.
Sort of. But if you violate their rules they can ask you to leave and you are obligated to do so. But they still can't compel you to delete anything.
In most parts of the world legality trumps any contract. Assaulting people is both illegal and immoral. And yes, I would risk my job if my conscience conflicted with policy. Employers come and go but I am stuck with the consequences of my deeds for the rest of my life. I prefer to look into the mirror with pride.
1. It was in a public space. He was legally allowed to take that picture.
2. Media credentials do not have anything to do with legality. The state need not recognize you as a journalistic institution for you to have freedom of the press.
3. I applaud him photographing the takedown. Clearly we have different opinions there.
AccountKiller
Maybe you didn't read the story, but the teen was attempting to leave when the guard assaulted him.
AccountKiller
Nurnberg.
Mundus Vult Decipi
This is not an "I was just following orders" as used in the Munich trials...
Huh? Are you by chance referring to the Nuremburg Trials?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Honestly, in this whole back and forth we see here is exactly the same frightening assumption that is the root cause of this kind of abuse of authority.
Police are not military. Police are civilians....
Are you sure that you're not the one making unwarranted assumptions?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Maybe? Apparently you are new here.
I'll clarify the following as well, not only did the rent-a-cops detain and assualt the kid when he tried to leave even if the mall had posted signs that said no photo's under Canadian law the only thing they could do was ask him to leave which is what they assaulted him for trying to do. Also it was the real cops which cut the backpack off, handcuffed and arrested him for "disturbing the peace" which is apparently what you get charged with in Canada when you try to leave private property after refusing an illegal request.
Cops carry around conventional photography labs? The camera was FILM based, if you are too young to remember them they used chemical reactions to capture latent images and require an extensive chemical processing in a light free environment before the image can be viewed.
Yeah; what this really shows is that our "smart phone" technology is still too limited. The way they should work is that as soon as the photo is taken, it's sent wirelessly to an archive.
Um? The Google+ app for Android has had this capability for some time now. In fact, it's enabled by default, and I had to disable it to keep every photo I take with my phone from being uploaded to Google's servers.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Sigh ... breaking a private rule on private property is not "breaking the law". How does somebody even get this confused?
Analogy: Say you have a party at your house. Say you have a private rule in your house that you don't want anybody feeding your cat from the table. One of your invited guests decides to feed your cat. Are you saying that guest has "no legal right" to feed your cat, and that you are now allowed to arrest them, physically assault them, and seize any property on their person? That would be extremely stupid and would be a catastrophically violent society to live in. The only thing you have a "legal right" to do if someone violates your arbitrary private rules on private property (e.g. 'no cameras' rule in a private mall) is ask them to leave. Not assault them, not take their property. If you commit assault against them they have a right to defend themselves, even on private property (if you tried to assault your house guest for feeding your cat he would also have a legal right to defend himself from your illegal aggressive attack). Once you ask someone to leave, then only if they refuse to leave, are they committing a crime (and a different one entirely that has nothing to do with the no cameras rule - namely, trespass on private property). If the article is true, then this wasn't trespass though, because the teen was trying to leave of his own free will, and was stopped from doing so by the guards.
In the US you don't need permission to take pictures, malls are public space
Even if this wasn't the case, nurb432 would still be wrong. He would be wrong either way.
As soon as they walk the kid outside they no longer have jurisdiction.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
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.
Since when does common sense have anything to do with the law?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Cool, but really the point is that we shouldn't have to use technological means just to protect our inherent rights. I'd like to take photos without being hassled rather than be hassled and then sue.
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.
But when - as in almost every case - the owner of the private property puts up a sign indicating that photography isn't allows on the premises, that's pretty damn straightforward.
Still doesn't grant the right to assault the photographer.
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Won't somebody please think of the terrorists?
When mall security has handcuffs, the terrorists win.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I think you may need to look up the laws around assault. When security personnel detain someone due to them failing to comply with a lawful order it is not assault. Just because someone puts their hand on someone else does not make it assault. If someone fails to copmply and resists they will be physically detained. That is not assault.
By law public space is any space open to the public regardless of it is public or private property (as a bar, restaurant or a mall for example).
I guess you didn't read the whole article. The article defines it as "private-but-open-to-the-public property" and not "public space". Again you have no reference for your contention.
The security guards were wrong about confiscating the pictures. The police officers can, and in most cases must, search a suspect when arresting them. The security guards placed a complaint of causing a disturbance and resisting detention and the police arrested the suspect based on that.
Here is part of section 494 of the Criminal Code of Canada, dealing with citizen’s arrest;
Arrest by owner, etc., of property
(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.
It would seem that the security guards are performing a citizen's arrest as a "person authorized" by the owner of the property. So yes during an arrest they can touch you and search you.
The picture in the article was the incident that was photographed not the photographer being held down. It the guard's policy manual states tom confiscate or destroy all photographs taken in the mall the policy is wrong. A security guard is not a lawyer and must rely on what he is told to do by management.
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.
I never said it was OK but security guards are not lawyers and are not well versed in the law. They have to rely on the policy manual that should have been vetted by a lawyer. If the policy manual is wrong and the guards follow it there is a problem. The problem is with the manual and not the guard following the manual.
Oops, at least I got the right country.
You shouldn't take pictures if you are unsure of the legality of doing so.
I don't think he was unsure.
From the article, "MacDougall said that Markiewicz was told that he couldn't take pictures inside the mall."
If that's true, then he was on private property, and told not to take pictures, and he did anyway. Even though it was a public space, as a private property, the mall can set restrictions against this if they like (and many post policies like this at the entrances.)
You mean the ones that believe in reincarnation?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I think the post you're replying to has a point. If I've got a "no smoking" sign on my house, and you come over to visit my "everyone's invited barbecue" then you light up a cigarette, the best I can do is ask you to leave. Not manhandle you to the ground, destroy your property, and take away your smokes. Replace the above with "no pictures" -- You show up with a camera, I can ask you to leave, because I don't like cameras, not because it's instantly illegal to take pictures on my property. You might make the rules in your private place, but you don't make the laws.
The police were there at the mall however, so the police alone had the authority to ask the fellow to leave, and respond appropriately. If I called the cops to escort you from my premise, you wouldn't expect me to jump in when they tried to subdue you, right?
It's bullshit that they acted the way they did in response to being photographed. The folks that stand up for the law when the law is unjust are truly fools. Laws are not right just because they're laws; Some are wrong, and need to be changed. The appropriate channels for change don't always work, so what choice have we but to ignore the laws that are oppressive? Rosa Parks broke the law by sitting at the back of a buss; Should she have just obeyed the law and tried to protest later instead? Sometimes you have to break a few bogus laws to get them changed.
What should be surprising to you isn't that people don't like facts about laws that are bogus, what's surprising should be that you're standing up for unjust and oppressive practices. What if it was your kid?
$_ =~ s/sitting/not sitting/ # need more caffeine.
What's that? :-P
For better or worse, ignorance of the law is not considered an excuse. In case it is an action that would generally be considered immoral it's unlikely to help you one bit in court. Of course the person writing the manual might get to court in addition, for asking people to commit a crime.
It's called freedom of speech, and it is the First Amendment in the US Constitution.
Which don't apply in sovereign countries like say, Canada.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
its private property. Peroid.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Im right. deal with it.
Come into my business with your camrea out and see what happens to your camrea, your face and your freedom.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
When you walk into to many malls you will see a sign 'no photography' once you violate that you are trespassing. ( among other rules, such as foul language, etc )
I agree it densest apply to public property, but a mall isn't that.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
violating the posted TOS in the mall means you are then trespassing. And you should be pounded into the ground for being a twit.
People need to really start taking responsibility for not following the rules and not whining that its 'unfair' afterward. No wonder this world is in such bad shape.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Name one family in the western world that, during the 60s, 70s, or 80s, wouldn't have snapped a photo of their baby playing with the bubbles in the bath? Silly question - of course - the exceptions being "those without cameras".
I know at least in the 90s in the UK people got reported to the police for processing film with such photos on.
The weak minded need boogeymen, and need labels to attach to things. Without those, they are incapable of rational thought. Alas, with them, they are incapable of rational thought.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
What? Do you have any idea how ludicrous that sounds? Cops' actions in public places are BY DEFINITION public acts, just like the sailor kissing the girl in Times Square on V-J day. I'm sure the cops would LIKE to make everything they do privileged against being seen, heard, discussed, or criticized, but that doesn't mean there is any basis in either common sense or social justice for allowing them the power to attempt to make it so. I say "attempt" advisedly, since it's obvious that they could never conceivably be sure to even detect hidden or long-range mikes, telephoto lenses from windows across the street, etc.
The response to the takedown of the 16-year-old wannabee journalist should have been two people filming it. The response to any attempted takedown of those two people should have been four people filming that. I'm sure you can guess where my argument leads. Were I to witness such a situation I definitely think I would want to record it, and to encourage others too. They can't prevent everyone, there's strength in numbers.
I like the idea of saying "if you think you're doing your job well, then you won't mind me recording it to document what a great job you're doing". Sharing a common language with the mall staff would probably be a necessary starting point before I go ahead with that though.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
What happens in the corner case where everyone and their potatophone is snapping away? Do they have to be asked individually, or does a "nobody take any more photos" request carry any weight?
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
ok. IT IS NOT UNLAWFUL TO TAKE PICTURES EXCEPT:
- on a military facility.
That's it. It is LAWFUL to take stills, video and audio everywhere else. Where it is prohibited beyond that is down to HOUSE RULES on PRIVATE PROPERTY to which the public have access (ie a shopping mall), and which should be PROMINENTLY INDICATED AT THE ENTRANCE.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
sorry, it is still private property and the property owner or his guardian can still prevent you by decree or by force from traversing its halls, and there is fuck all you can do about it.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
I said not by force, not or by force, my submit finger's too fast today.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
whatever a mall cop says is the law he should be able to back up with the same words on headed paper, and he should be able to quote it from memory. Otherwise, he's committing FRAUD.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
if someone comes to my home and does something I deem inappropriate, I'll give them three seconds to leave. Then I treat them as a trespasser (ie, I don't wait for the police, I will put them on the floor right then and there - and *then* call the police).
Remember: when seconds count, the police are "only minutes away".
Also remember: the police are not there to protect you. That is not their job. That is not their responsibility. That is your responsibility. Their public responsibility is to make sure that State Revenue Collectors (ie YOU) are not deprived of tools of trade (your PROPERTY) with which you may continue to collect revenue for the State (consume, and pay 20% VAT on everything you buy).
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
in which case obvious signs should be in place at the entrance quoting chapter and verse of local Statute.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
actually it's based in Common Law, an English invention. Common Law=Common Sense. It's unlawful to rob, rape or kill someone. Common sense, you don't need ten million lines of Statute to tell you that, it's fairly simple. Trespass is pretty much the same thing, only it requires Statute to differentiate between outright walking across someone's lawn trespass (Common Law), and being previously invited through nature of land use to being unwelcome because you violated behavioural protocols trespass. Like, taking photographs inside someone's shopping mall when there are signs on the entrance prohibiting such activity or cutting across someone's bedroom with a loaded shotgun (which actually falls under armed trespass - which carries a ten year sentence over here).
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
if you don't agree with the house rules, you are free to use the sidewalk outside and WALK AROUND.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
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.
Negative. It is NOT illegal to take pictures "inside a mall or any publically accessible but privately owned facility".
However they're clearly posted, doing so may violate the property owner's rules, in which case they are well within their rights to remove you from the property, ban you from returning, and/or asking the police to charge you with trespass to property.
Find me a cop who would waste his time doing that for snapping a photo in a mall. Please. I'd like to meet a cop with so little else to do he'd waste time on that without a really good reason.
You are talking about sousveillance, rather than surveillance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance
they can ask you to leave; if you don't, they can have the police arrest you for trespass.
How can it be trespass if they are preventing you from leaving?
The kid was arrested for "causing a disturbance", not trespass. A meaningless catch-all to justify his detention after the fact, since his detention was the disturbance.
It sounds like it all went wrong when the police arrived,
Judging by TFA, it all went wrong when the security guards grabbed him and tried to get his cameras.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
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)
The Google+ app for Android has had this capability for some time now.
Hey, I didn't know about that. I'll have to try it and see how well it works. Thanks for the tipoff.
(Now if we could get quality photos from a phone camera. But that's mostly a hardware problem. They're probably good enough for some purposes. I started to type "decent photos", and realized that that's not what a lot of people are looking for, so I changed "decent" to "quality". ;-)
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
I can't speak for Canada, but here in the United States of Morbid Obesity most malls seem to have a Sheriff's Office substation with one or two officers on duty.
They should all be charged and fired.
... and then when the shouting makes the protesters thirsty, they will all go to Orange Julius and buy a smoothie...
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.
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.
Sir, I believe that's called the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
What kind of cop you think you get for 10.25 an hour? I know what you get where I live for that and it's someone who can't get a job that requires any thought processes. Damn they pay almost that much for the guy at the McDonald's drive through window.
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
Nowhere in your article public space is defined, as I said, and you have failed to find anything to corroborated your distorted association between public space and public property.
Additionally, although the police officers can arrest you they can't search you without a good reason. They had no reason to search him. There was no suspicion that anything in his possession was illegal. Even if taking pictures is reason enough for being spelled of the place, the pictures are still legal and are his property. That is why they were forced to give him back his pictures. Even more, they had no excuse at all to damage his property, as they did by cutting his backpack.
Maybe setup a flashmob - each person carrying many cameras.
Yeah right, every cellphone has a camera now, every pair of tween girls takes pictures of her and her BFF, with their heads stuck to gether and grinning like a couple chestersire cats; kick them out and all you'd here is echos in the halls of the mall.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I don't agree with that, just because I forgot to close a curtain, doesn't mean you should be able to photograph me or my wife naked in our home; nor would I want the up-skirt laws changed.I also find the majority of the activities of the paparazzi moraly repugnant, but I don't know how we would limit that without over-reaching.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
irving47 had a similar view yesterday. I think both of your objections are valid. In irving47's case, it's clear tresspassing and in your case it looks a lot like harassment. We need to find a middle ground where events like the one in tfa don't happen but people's privacy isn't compromised.
Dashboard cammeras are fairly common in Russia from what I'm told and you see things like Lightning hits the SUV
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
"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.
Alas, money is also a factor here. If the kid were able to hire an effective law firm, take the case to a higher court and make sure that the mall knew they were in an expensive and no-win position, they'd settle for actual damages, legal expenses, and a moderate penalty pretty quickly.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Just because the job takes place in public, doesn't make everything a public act.
Err... At least in most of the US, you've got this exactly wrong. Something that happens in a public place is necessarily a public act -- note that "public place" includes private property where the public is allowed to enter freely. There is no expectation of privacy for acts that take place in plain sight in public, although using things like listening devices to record a private conversation taking place in a public place is a no-no. There was a landmark case a few years ago involving the recording of paramedics; video footage was OK because they were working in public areas where anyone could see, but putting a microphone on the EMTs violated the patient's expectation of privacy because while bystanders could normally *see* the paramedics at work, they couldn't normally hear the conversation with the patients.
There's a big difference between a random joe and a journalist in a civilized society.
Again not true. Journalists aren't licensed or given special investigatory powers. They have no more or less legal power to investigate than any other private citizen. Journalists are issued credentials by private parties, which is a private license -- like an invitation to a party. It allows the journalist to attend restricted events, to use special areas set aside for media etc. Others who have business at an event can record and publish their impressions too, even if they have been denied credentials (as sometimes happens when the event organizer expects negative coverage).
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!"
And what if the mall cops dragged the guy they were arresting to the local TV station and beaten the crap out of him in front of the cameras broadcasting the 6 PM news? Can't see the relevancy of that scenario? Of course you can't, because it has nothing to do with what actually happened. Just like your scenario.
The arguments you give are either unsupported (he has no right to take photos -- citations please?), wrong (reporters have special investigatory powers -- what law says that?), weak (photographing the security guards causes the security guards distressed -- is that a general rule then? You aren't allowed to do things that cause others distress?) or totally irrelevant (if he'd lain down on the ground beneath the arrest he'd have been interfering -- except he didn't do that).
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
What are you talking about? We're addressing the "not knowing what's legal" part of the post. The people who own the property have the right to prohibit behavior (like photography). I haven't spoken to the issue of how a particular person handled someone else, I'm talking about his implication that the property owners and the guards employed there are "unsure of the legality of taking pictures." Where did that come from. There isn't a shopping mall on the planet that is unsure of their own policy about people photographing inside their businesses.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
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. "
"It also includes what they can see from the street through an open door. It also includes a closed window without blinds. And today, with cameras that can see through walls, it includes everything in your home through a $300 thermal camera.
By the way, that's also been held up in court multiple times."
Not any more, the supreme court ruled otherwise 11+ years ago:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=99-8508
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
So what law do you think creates an open-ended right for the owner of the property to create their own bye-laws which can then themselves be enforced through the ordinary criminal law process?
FGD 135
Nowhere in your article public space is defined,
That is exactly the point as "public space" is not a legal term. If you can show a law defining it I would love to see it. Show me a law that states anything about "public space". All the laws I have seen deal with public and private "property" and not "space". In this cased the property is private.
When someone is arrested as part of any arrest the suspect is searched. It is not about having something illegal but possibly having a weapon of some sort. When an arrest occurs it is standard procedure to assume the suspect is armed until proven otherwise and the only way to do that is to search.
Even more, they had no excuse at all to damage his property, as they did by cutting his backpack.
I take it you have never searched someone who is not cooperating and wearing a backpack. It is impossible to do a thorough search in that situation.
He didn't do even that. He refused to erase the pictures (which was within his rights) and was leaving as requested and snapped a picture of the COPs in his way out (which is still within his rights), when they pinned him down.
The police overstepped their authority and searched his belongings looking for the camera, which they unlawfully confiscated and were forced to give him back later. They also damaged his property by unecessarily cutting his backpack. Two police officers and two security guards could easily remove his backpack if they hadn't handcuffed him before trying to take it . He didn't resist.
Last but not least if you still want to discuss laws, go discuss it with a lawyer (I am sure you think you know more about law than him):
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.
Next time try reading TFA before arguing about it.
I'm from a planet where people actually know how to read and follow court cases, in which decisions are often based on precedents that go back centuries, obscure technical concepts, and complicated theoretical arguments. Ever see The Paper Chase?
Let's try a simple example: I once saw an episode of "The People's Court" in which a landlord seized the personal property of a tenant who hadn't paid the rent. Sayts the judge: "You can do that! You're not an innkeeper!" So tell me, why does one have to be a bartender in order to seize property?
Here's a tricky one: in 1942, the Supremes ruled in Wickard v. Filburn that a farmer growing wheat for his own use was not protected by the Interstate Commerce Clause for prosecution for exceeding his wheat quota, even though he had no plans to move it across state lines. It was widely assumed that the Supremes would uphold the mandatory insurance provision of Obamacare under that precedent. But they decided it didn't apply. Can you explain why? Using ony common sense concepts, no fancy words like estoppl or frolic (yes, that's legal term).
There's a good reason the law isn't ust codified "common sense": people don't agree on what it is. Some people think it's common sense that gay peope be allowed to marry, others doubt the common sense of of letting gay people even live.
Common Law=Common Sense
LOL. Right, because "common sense" is the same fotr everybody.
BTW, people often get arrested for taking pictures in pubic places where there are no such signs as the ones you describe. And there have been repeated court rulings that shopping malls do not have unrestricted control over the activities of their patrons.
If you're ever arrested, do yourself a favor and talk to an actual lawyer. Do not try to tell the judge: "That's can't illegal, it's against common sense."
yes, that's why they call it "common sense". o.0
BTW, if someone's getting arrested for taking pictures in public places where there are no such signs as I describe, then they're doing so in a jackbooted police state, where the police are appointed judge jury and executioner and transgressers are shot in the middle of the street, in broad daylight, in front of their families. I don't know of any places like that.
Oh, and: my house, my fucking rules. You don't like, go round.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
There is a clear distinction of many laws regarding public and private spaces that have nothing to do with property. For example it is illegal in most countries to take pictures in private spaces (like bathrooms or inside the house of someone else) without permission,
You really need to get your terms straight. By you definition a public space is"any space open to the public". Is a bathroom in a mall "open to the public"? Yes, then why is it a private space? It goes back to your spurious idea of public vs private space. The reason that one can not take pictures of someone in a batroom is the "expectation of privacy" not "private space".
He didn't do even that. He refused to erase the pictures (which was within his rights) and was leaving as requested and snapped a picture of the COPs in his way out (which is still within his rights), when they pinned him down.
This is even more laughable. The photographer turned around and took another picture after being told not to. The security guards had no idea he was going to leave; they are not mind readers. All they saw was him continuing the activity that he was lawfully told to cease. You are also mixing up two concepts; where it is unlawful to take pictures and where property owners can restrict the activities of people on their promises. Property owners can place any restriction they want for activity on their property as long as it is not considered discriminatory. Theaters restrict filming and photography on site. They also restrict bringing in food and beverages. That is all completely legal as it is private property.
He didn't resist.
How does one "use his body to protect two cameras he carried in his bag" without resisting? To protect something would require moving in ways that other than directed. Again, security guards are not psychic. The act of protecting a bag can look very much like the act of getting a weapon out of a bag.
Next time try reading TFA before arguing about it.
The quote is the opinion of one lawyer. Have lawyers always been right about the law? If so, then why do we have courts? If the lawyer could cite cases to support his claim I might be less suspicious.
A security guard is not a lawyer and must rely on what he is told to do by management.
I would say, a security guard is, or should be, held legally responsible for his own actions. If management tells him to do something illegal, there is no reason that should be any different than if his brother-in-law tells him to do something illegal.
Because there is a limit to the crap that can be thrown.
http://www.photographyisntacrime.com/
Oh, and: my house, my fucking rules.
Word of advice: don't use that argument in court.
The proof of that is that the cops where forced to give him back his pictures and couldn't press charge of anything against him.
Taking pictures in theaters is covered by copyright laws and it is actually a crime. It has nothing to do with the case here.
How does one "use his body to protect two cameras he carried in his bag" without resisting? To protect something would require moving in ways that other than directed. Again, security guards are not psychic. The act of protecting a bag can look very much like the act of getting a weapon out of a bag.
He was already handcuffed and dominated you idiot. He represent zero threat. How can you be this stupid? Do you even know how to read?
The quote is the opinion of one lawyer. Have lawyers always been right about the law? If so, then why do we have courts? If the lawyer could cite cases to support his claim I might be less suspicious.
Sorry, but The opinion of one lawyer is considerably more valuable than yours in this, especially considering you have talked nothing but ignorant nonsense from the beginning.
In a private location where permission is granted by default (e.g. a business open to the public), criminal trespass in the absence of another criminal act requires specific notice to leave by the property owner or an authorized agent and a failure by the notified person to do so. While a person may be unknowingly violating establishment rules, the intent is not determined until contact is made. Even prominently posted signs can be missed, which is one of numerous reasons most criminal statutes require intent for something to be considered a crime.
On private property a sign visible on the way in is enough. They can reserve the right to kick everyone out though I doubt they'll have much profit that day if they do.
Unfortunately stupidity and irrationality trump common sense these days.
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.
word of advice: don't be walking on my property.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
...you should never assume that capturing photons flying through public spaces is illegal. Ever.
Tell that to the photon liberation front...
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.
The law is not just about common sense, or you wouldn't need to train lawyers and judges, would you?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
We've already had stories of people being charged with "child porn" by undressing a child, e.g. to change its diaper. t's very easy for child-porn laws to be used against anyone who has a child, at least if they want to keep that child reasonably clean and healthy.
To quote your sig [citation needed].
That sounds like some Daily Fail "social workers took my children off me because I voted conservative" story.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Even a dressed 17 year old in a non-sexual pose could count as child pornography, in the UK.
Could you please provide links to a few actual cases where this has happened?
Because I don't believe you.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
The proof of that is that the cops where forced to give him back his pictures and couldn't press charge of anything against him.
The "couldn't press charges" statement is an assumption. It is quite possible that they decided not to press charges. Not every offense goes to court. How many people who are guilty of public drunkenness just sleep it off in a cell over night with no charges filed?
He was already handcuffed and dominated you idiot. He represent zero threat. How can you be this stupid? Do you even know how to read?
The issues you seem to have are that he was physically assaulted and had his backpack cut off. Take a look at the sequence. He was restrained because he was seen to be resisting as "protecting the backpack" can not be differentiated from getting a weapon from the backpack. He was then handcuffed. At this point he was in custody of the RCMP and being arrested. At this point he needed to be properly searched which could not be done with the backpack on. Due to his behavior and policy it was unsafe to uncuff a suspect who has resisted arrest and a proper search can not be done with a backpack on so it was cut off.
Sorry, but The opinion of one lawyer is considerably more valuable than yours in this, especially considering you have talked nothing but ignorant nonsense from the beginning.
Sure the opinion of one lawyer is more valuable than mine but it does not make it fact.
What's the Canadian equivalent of the ACLU?
Because we really need one.
If they could press charges they would, because they will be certainly sued here (as they should) and criminal charges against the boy would help them to defend themselves.
Your excuses for the arrest procedure are ridiculous. There was absolutely no motive to judge him dangerous. He could be easily dominated without handcuffs. They could have taken his backpack from him before handcuffing him, and they certainly didn't need to search his belongings after he was handcuffed and completely dominated, thus presenting absolutely no threat, even if he had a Uzi in his backpack, which he obviously did not. They didn't search his belongings looking for guns, but looking for cameras in order to illegally apprehend them after illegally demanding him to do erase his pictures.
Now about the lawyer's opinion. No, it is not fact, but it is more likely than not an accurate analysis whilst yours is more likely than just uninformed stubbornness.
Sound advice. Your "common sense" approach to social issues makes you a person to avoid.
For the purposes of photography the law treats shopping malls as public space - ie you have no privacy. The owner can still have rules regarding photography, but the only way to enforce them is to ask the person to leave - which this teen was attempting to do when the guard assaulted him.
AccountKiller
Again, you are not a trained police or security officer. Many have been injured or killed because they assumed that a mild altercation was safe and that a suspect who did not have a visible weapon was not going to harm them.
and they certainly didn't need to search his belongings after he was handcuffed and completely dominated,
So the keys in his back pocket or the pocket on his backpack which can not be searched properly because it is attached to him. Handcuff keys are universal so the officer putting them on does not need to be there to take them off. The reason they searched his belongings is unknown to you as you are not a psychic. If you had been a peace officer you would know that anyone in custody must be searched. This is another example of your lack of understanding of arrest procedures.
No, it is not fact, but it is more likely than not an accurate analysis
Is "likely" enough for one to pass judgement on the actions of another? I look at it as if I was on a criminal jury and "likely" certainly does not pass the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard.
Shoot.. I wrote a nice reply.. but forgot to hit submit after preview.
IANAL.. took a little law in school (mainly contract) but I honestly don't know shit. I ask for my lawyer's advice on all things legal regardless of how good a grasp I think I have on them (and then most often find out how little I know).
How would it help? Well you'd have your day in court (as you can sue, whereas the Crown must prosecute criminal cases) and some kind of remedy would be applied by the judge. It may be a trivial amount of damages (i.e. money) depending on the culprit's income, but they would apply something. The culprit would not end up with any criminal history due to the case, nor can the judge sentence jail time or similar.
Based on what you've said you should be able to get him on battery (for touching you) and trespass (trespass of chattels in particular). It should be noted the torte known as assault does not involve touching but simply putting you in a position where you fear imminent harm. It may apply as well. To start your case you'd need to make a statement of claim to be served to the defendant. It would be advisable to look up similar cases online to see what was applied so you can request a similar amount. If the defendant doesn't settle our of court and you have to go to trial you can apply for filing fees (it cost something like $400 in filing fees to take a case through to court.. luckily that's recoverable). If it goes to court and the judge thinks the actions of the defendant were egregious.. then he/she can apply punitive damages in addition to the damages you requested. The judge also can apply other remedies such as an injunction. In BC they have tried to streamline the civil suit process for cases under $25K: small claims bc.
As an aside.. had they followed through with criminal charges you could have still filled civil charges as well. It actually makes the process easier as you can just refer to the criminal case (which has a higher burden of proof). There was an instance of a vandal being charge twice (teen tagger) in Victoria. I laughed when his mom was complaining to the paper that he shouldn't get charged twice for something he was already punished for. One applied criminal charges (and possibly related fines) and the other sought the financial damages he caused. Being charged criminally doesn't get you off a civil case, it makes it easier to pursue. Also each property owner who had their property damaged by his graffiti could sue him. At the same rate, losing a criminal case doesn't mean a civil won't succeed (OJ being a famous example).
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
common sense approach to ensuring your longevity.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
I never said common sense wasn't useful. I only said it didn't make you a legal expert.
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.
Or just stream it straight to a recording server.