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 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.
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.
The job of the police is to keep the establishment safe from the people. Once that is appreciated, their behaviour makes perfect sense.
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
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
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!”
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?
It only became a problem when more and more people were pushed out of the "establishment". 'til we were kicked out of the "good, hard working and well earning citizen" country club, we were quite happy that law enforcement kept us safe from the proles.
Well, now we've become proles too. Wonder how long it takes for critical mass to accumulate and society to explode violently.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I have seen them do it in many clips on the internet by now: they assault an innocent victim, all the while chanting "Stop resisting!"
Apparently the idea is to make it look like the person is resisting arrest, justifying their use of force.
It's complete bullshit of course. Which is precisely why we need those cameras.
what is a mall takedown?
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.
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.
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!
"...using last century's tech?"
It may be last century's tech, but it's more rugged, less expensive and you don't have to worry about getting dirt and dust on the sensor. There Is nothing like digital for convenience, but old school film cameras were great, too.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
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
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!
Contact Metrotown and tell them that, if you're nearby you may boycott them, if you're "away", you've now heard of them and it's not good what you've heard.
.
The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.
.
And militia is defined as all able-bodied men of and over the age of 17 at that time, I believe.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3210135&cid=41786487
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)#Twentieth_century_and_current
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.
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.
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.
Let's see:
assault
battery
unlawful restraint
unlawful imprisonment
kidnap
criminal damage
unlawful search
unlawful seizure
That's enough to put the mall managers (by accessory), the rentacops and the actual cops, all away for LIFE.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Time to do a internet fight club on these nazi fuckers.
Lets organize a international VIDEO A COP DAY, and have 1000s of geeks with, RECORD A COP tshirts and just go recording them like its new craze.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.