Canadian Teenager Arrested For Photographing Mall Takedown

lawsuit time? by bloodhawk · 2012-10-27 11:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Re:lawsuit time? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-27 11:12 · Score: 5, Informative

You must be new to Canada, Vic Toews (Public Safety Minister) has empowered law enforcement to do as they please.
Re:lawsuit time? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-27 11:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

Myself, I would like to see the mall security cameras footage (if available), or independent witnesses. There's the security personel's / RCMP story, the victim's story, and the truth.
Re:lawsuit time? by sco08y · 2012-10-27 12:25 · Score: 5, Interesting

I'm pretty libertarian and think there are far too many laws in this country but this is one of the cases which makes me favour some law over anarchy. This is one rare case where I'd feel justified in actually calling the police. ... oh wait!
I used to be libertarian, so I'll give you the spiel. Libertarians accept basic criminal law (battery, theft, etc) and contract law (especially rules clarifying how to buy and sell) statutes. That's probably 70% of the laws that affect you on a daily basis, the other 30% being traffic laws. (It's worth noting that assault with a motor vehicle is a criminal offense.)
The laws libertarians disagree with are the special handouts in tax law, the heavy regulation of business, government dictating what people can do with their property, and certain criminal laws that try to regulate society, e.g. sodomy laws. In a libertarian country, you would see people behaving in the same law-abiding manner as you do here. You'd probably find that cities and such would be far more chaotic and eccentric since there would be much less central planning, but there'd be no anarchy to speak of.
Re:lawsuit time? by myowntrueself · 2012-10-27 12:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think it's fair to want people to resolve differences like reasonable adults.
Differences like a mall security wanting some kid to delete his photos, and the kid refusing/being unable to do so? That should have been resolved in a reasonable manner, but it wasn't.
If someone tells you to delete the photos, you ask them "have I committed a crime by taking these photos?" If they say "yes" then you tell them "So you are asking me to destroy evidence of a crime?" if they say "yes" to that then you tell them "so you are asking me to commit another crime." All done in a level, reasonable tone of voice.
If they say "no, you have not committed a crime by taking these photos." then you say "Then I am free to go. Thank you for your time." and walk away.
*reasonable manner*

--
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Re:lawsuit time? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-27 13:48 · Score: 5, Informative

The big problem with libertarianism is that not all the "heavy regulation of business" and "government dictating what people can do with their property" is bad. There are 2 big flaws with the libertarian model of human society as far as I can see, the first being dealing with "externalities" that is to say the downstream costs of industry the second being the cost of information.
Externalities are a problem because the effects are either unnecessary or even economically impossible to mitigate. Some effects can be far away, hundreds of miles or across state borders such that retaliation, even if you permitted mob killings of businesses by non customer victims, is not possible or not within the resources of the victims... So why fix? Other effects can, with race to the bottom cost cutting, be impossible to fix and still keep a ruining business the local population would then be left with a choice of putting up with side effects such as asthma or low level poisoning etc. or losing all their jobs and starving to death en-mass (remember poor people starving to death happens even today in countries without government handouts)
The cost of information may seem trivial but it is important, sensible decisions take information and this requires time and effort. This time and effort is approximated out of most modern market models simply by assuming it does not exist, but this is a flaw in those models not a truth. Everyone knows that people buy overpriced brands not because they are worth the price but because they will not be bad, and the extra cost is worth the time which would be spent finding a better value option. With heath and safety removed unrecognised brands have much less to lose if they take risks with their customers lives, even everyday decisions become life and death. The actually safe brands can at this point charge an even more ridiculous premium for that safety, your life is on the line after all. The rest of the brands will then require actual effort and study to find out just whether they are safe which does not exist now. This might seem a triviality but when every item of food water and hardware you buy from beans to your new car is a choice between an even more expensive premium brand, and a substantive amount of study to find the safe option you will quickly run out of both money and the time to find the best option and be left to gamble with your life on the line. This is not a good thing, it does not make people happier or safer or more prosperous. (This also ignores the distortion effects of marketing that can be brought by existing big players)
Re:lawsuit time? by hairyfeet · 2012-10-27 13:54 · Score: 5, Interesting

Watch the end of America which applies to ALL of the west, because they are all pretty much following the same game plan, suppress rights, use cops as thugs, the stuff we are seeing now is what they saw in Italy and Germany in the early 30s, its how you take a modern society, like Germany and Italy before their "dear leaders" came to power that was an open society, and slowly but surely make it into a closed society.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:lawsuit time? by osu-neko · 2012-10-27 13:58 · Score: 5, Informative

Canada? Is that north or south of Minnesota
Depends on which part. In terms of land area, most of Canada is north of Minnesota. In terms of population, most of Canada is south of Minnesota (the most populated part of Canada being the part that dips down with the Great Lakes, placing Toronto further south than Minnesota's "Twin Cities").

--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Re:lawsuit time? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-27 14:03 · Score: 5, Interesting

Yeah, there's all that. Blah blah. I held opinions similar to yours until last year. And then I got first-hand experience with police thugs.
I was just standing there, watching people having their IDs checked, and failed to immediately comply told to move along. I got beaten up, arrested, and held overnight for fallacious reasons (being drunk). I sued the two cops for assault. They got off clean. I got a fine for good measure.
Fuck the police. And the justice system.
Re:lawsuit time? by erroneus · 2012-10-27 14:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

What I don't get is that here in this land of North America, we've got it pretty good. Why are so many trying to kill the goose which has been laying all these golden eggs? This prosperous society, far removed from places which are simply less fortunate and certainly less civilized, seems to be collapsing down from its enviable position.
I guess they never got the memo talking about balance in society and knowing when you have enough wealth and power. Having too much wealth and power creates and unstable situation which invariably results in the masses seeking to restore stability.
We're okay with insanely rich people... just so long as the majority of us aren't suffering because of it. Turns out, majorities are suffering... and becoming motivated.
Re:lawsuit time? by naroom · 2012-10-27 15:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

And lastly, there is no incentive for companies to create infrastructure - why lay down fiber optics when we're making tons of money from wires? Heck, private interests will try to prevent progress where possible - just look at the Prop 6 "free bridge" fiasco.
Re:lawsuit time? by artor3 · 2012-10-27 15:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

Washed them away?? You're conflating the businesses with the human beings that run them.
If we let the banks go bankrupt, we'd currently be in the Great Depression II, while the bankers would be living like kings off their ill-gotten gains.
We had to bail the banks out for the good of everyone. Where we went wrong was not punishing the scumbags who created the problem, and not breaking up the too-big-to-fail banks. In other words, our problem wasn't too much government intervention, but too little.
Re:lawsuit time? by DeadCatX2 · 2012-10-27 15:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

Libertarians believe that bankers will behave when they're accountable to their customers
They're still accountable to their customers. We can choose to walk away with our money any time we want. Has customer accountability influenced their decisions at all? Well, we've got Goldman Sachs over there, selling Mortgage Backed Securities that are designed to fail to their customers, and then shorting those very same securities. And yet Goldman still has customers...
Libertarians believe that companies who "doctor" their drugs will fail by popular opinion.
After killing people, like the fungal meningitis outbreak. Note that compounding pharmacies are outside of FDA's authority. This allowed them to circumvent regulations that probably would have stopped this outbreak from spreading across half the nation. Yes, circumventing regulations resulted in lower prices, but I think more expensive drugs is worth the lower risk of death.
Sure, this particular pharmacy is going to fail "by popular opinion". But without regulations, it's only a matter of time until the next pharmacy fails...and the next one...and the next one...and with each one comes another group of people who needlessly died.
And if the two biggest companies in a field colluded, in a Libertarian society, they wouldn't be able to collude for long. Number three would wipe its' arse with their remains, in very short order.
Sounds like wishful thinking. How exactly is a smaller company going to take down two bigger companies that are colluding? The two bigger companies can start selling their product at below cost to drive the smaller company out of business, using their cash reserves to out-live the smaller competitor.
There are two problems with the libertarian philosophy. First, it assumes perfect knowledge of all markets, which just isn't happening ever. Without perfect knowledge, consumers lose significant power. Second, it has no solutions to the issue of corporations becoming more powerful than consumers.

--
:(){ :|:& };:
Re:lawsuit time? by asdf7890 · 2012-10-27 22:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

Only real assholes use them instead of cuffs.
So, the sort of people this article about?
Re:lawsuit time? by dkleinsc · 2012-10-28 00:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

The reasons you think that way:
1. Wealth distribution is a curve, not a line. That means the difference between the 50th percentile and the 10th percentile isn't as large as the difference between the 10th percentile and the 5th percentile which isn't close to as large as the difference between the 5% and the 1%. For example, the richest person in the world, Bill Gates, has something like $60 billion. There are approximately 400 billionaires in the US. There are about 5 million millionaire households. If you're something like the 60 millionth wealthiest American, you probably are holding something like $250K. And if you have a net worth above $50K, then you're richer than half of America.
2. Most people with significant cash don't really see the lives of people much poorer than them. For example, a college roommate of mine thought he was from a typical American family with both parents making 6-figure incomes, or an income that was roughly 6 times that of an average American. The key thing to realize is that a life you would recognize as similar to your own, with a fairly spacious and comfortable house, good car, a 4-year degree or higher, working about 8-10 hours Mon-Fri at a desk in an office (or at home), and money socked away for the kids' college education and/or your retirement, is about as far away a dream to a working-class person as getting above $100 million is to you: It's not entirely out of reach, but it's highly unlikely.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:lawsuit time? by bmajik · 2012-10-28 02:52 · Score: 5, Interesting

Well, recent events have demonstrated that the difference still exists in frequency, but the practices of reviled police states have now become acceptable practice in western democracy, which means the difference no longer exists in principle.
In the USA, the president can ask for anyone to be assassinated, and he will get this wish. There is no oversight on this process, and the legal doctrine which creates this power out of thin air is sealed from public review.
Also, in the USA, paramilitary police can now break down the door to your home, assassinate everyone inside, later admit they had the wrong house, and not face any repercussions whatsoever.
In the USA, children are being encouraged to report suspicious activities of their parents to government school employees. Ex-military and persons who profess an interest in the founding legal documents of the country are officially to be considered possible terrorists.
In Canada, if you profess a religious opinion in public which someone finds upsetting, you are hauled into a secret court.
So yeah. The US and Canada haven't quite caught up with former USSR, but we're working hard to get there.

--
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Re:lawsuit time? by bmajik · 2012-10-28 06:03 · Score: 5, Interesting

Since you're not an American, perhaps you're not up to speed on some of what goes on here.
The military police assassinating people primarily happens via drug raids. Local police forces now have SWAT teams. I live in a small town (100,000 persons), with some trivial amount of violent crime annually (perhaps 5 murders). Yet in my town there is a SWAT team, and they sortie several times per month. It is to break into peoples homes for drug enforcement.
In many towns in the USA, these raids are done as "no knock", that is, the police just break down the door, early in the morning (5am is a typical time). The pets are almost always killed while the terrified children watch. The father is often killed during these operations, since he, like any reasonable person, acts defensive, sometimes with a weapon ,when people break into his home in the middle of the night.
The police who incorrectly perform these raids against innocent people are NEVER reprimanded. The commanders and other people in the chain of information that cause the raids to go against the wrong address are NEVER reprimanded.
Regarding the president assassinating people: Perhaps you need to be an American to understand _principle_. In the US, there is this cherished principle that people who are not actively in the middle of commiting a crimeare to be arrested, to have a trial, to face their accuser, and so on.
Yet the current doctrine is that the president can say that _anyone_, _anywhere_ in the world is a terrorist -- and by his accusation alone, that person can be assassinated. This is de-facto the _same_ as saying that you don't like the kid down the street. Your ignorance on this matter makes me wonder if _YOU_ have ever lived in a police state. Do you think police state dictators actually say things like "I had him killed because his music sucked?" Of course not. People are killed for very good reasons -- like "undermining the will of the people" or "being a grave danger to the security of our homeland" and all kinds of other such bullshit.
The point isn't that I think Obama is killing people he doesn't like. The point is that he now has created (and used!) the power for himself to do so. And this power will be handed on to the next president, and so on. This is a critical inflection point in American history, and we will look back to this era and woefully mourn what we let these assholes get away with.
And no, you are wrong. No judge is required. The president's cabinet give him a list of targets, and he says yes or no to each one. That's what we know about the process.
Regarding the story in Canada: yes, I am referring to the hate speech tribunals. It is encouraging to hear that they are making token gestures to fix them. It is outrageous that they ever existed at all. Canada does not have free speech in any meaningful sense until these circuses are eliminated.

--
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.

Re:I'm sorry but.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-27 11:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Re:I'm sorry but.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-27 11:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Re:I'm sorry but.. by Swarley · 2012-10-27 11:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

FREEZE! by fustakrakich · 2012-10-27 11:16 · Score: 5, Informative

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!”

Re:FREEZE! by pla · 2012-10-27 12:02 · Score: 5, Informative

It's not about any of those things. It's about protection from foreign states. Made at a time when there wasn't a sufficient full time army.

Uh, no. You fail history.

We have a second amendment for the explicit purpose overthrowing an oppressive federal government.

Read your Federalist Papers:

"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. [...] 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. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. [...] But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it." (#46, James Madison)

You can make a reasonable argument for the second amendment referring to the National Guard (though that organization has become nothing more than one more branch of the Federal military, making such an argument moot); But they originally existed very clearly for the purpose of protecting the states from the federal government.
Re:FREEZE! by AdmiralWeirdbeard · 2012-10-27 15:21 · Score: 5, Interesting

I have two problems with this argument.
First, it seems to me to be a rather narrow reading of of the federalist papers to validate current concerns, rather than a reading of them in the context of the general concerns of the populace a the time they were written. In doing so it glosses over the true purpose of No. 46, which was to calm fears regarding Madison's proposal that the federal government keep a standing army. Madison was the Big Government Guy in historical context, arguing against the anti-federalists who desired to keep the Articles of Confederation, a weaker federal government, and no standing army, which was obviously seen as a tool of governmental oppression. Madison was simply reminding the people that A. they had already handled that situation before, and B. that the basic federal structure of the states precluded the type of tyranny they most feared. I see No. 46 speaking more about the power of local political organization than about the right to bear arms.
Second, it strikes me as ridiculous to treat the federalist papers as some kind of authority over the constitution. They were pieces of propaganda. This is not to discount their value in framing the political debate in its context or in getting inside the minds of Hamilton and Madison. It is simply a fact. They were written to persuade the populace to support the Constitution. They were propaganda. While they may give insight, they are still advertising. And they certainly do not trump the fact that Article I Section 8 vests the power to organize the militia in Congress, not in the States. Whether or not an armed populace was, in the minds of our founders, provided for the purpose of overthrowing the federal government they were founding, in the Constitution it is tied to the militia, and the militia is explicitly created as a function of the federal government.

--
Come read my stupid blagablog. Rants and Giggles
Re:FREEZE! by VortexCortex · 2012-10-27 23:38 · Score: 5, Informative

Damn, this is the third time this week I've had to post this:
US Declaration of Independence:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
And how exactly do you propose to take up our duty to overthrow such oppressive governments? Sticks and Stones? No. That's why the 2nd. exists... There is no clause: "The Guns and Militias must be federally approved, funded and employed."
Also from the USDI -- This is the section near the end where the crimes against us is listed -- Things that should not be tolerated, and a revolution started instead.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
Laws reducing and limiting Copyright & Patent reform? Laws enabling photographing of police? Refused; while contrary laws benefiting corporate interests are passed with regularity.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
That's what corporations are allowed to do to us. See the Sony vs G.Hotz deal, they could have sued him where the alleged infringement was committed, but instead chose a court thousands of miles away.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
Who votes our federal Judges into power? Oh, that's right, they're appointed...

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
TSA, Homeland Security. Additionally, they don't eat out our substance by way of quartered troops, they do so via increased taxes.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
Just this past month the armed forces declared Julian Asange an enemy of the state. Protip: Only Congress is supposed to be able to do that.
And on the issue of trying to peacefully right the wrongs:

We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity.
Ever tried to get a law changed? We have law making bodies, not law unmaking bodies. Jury Nullification is our defense -- The last jury I was on, the judge tossed all the potential jurors out to get a new batch because we all said we wouldn't be able to make our decision in accordance with the unjust law he quoted -- Thereby removing our only recourse against the unjust rule of law. I followed the case, it took 4 complete jury changes to get 12 people who would uphold that bogus law. Ever gone up against a cop in court? It's a mock trial at best. Very rarely when some truly heinous stuff goes down they'll get a slap on the wrist. Hell, two cops called a wrecker to tow my neighbor's car for being parked the wrong way. I video taped them DROPPING THE CAR on its side, totaling it. Later, the judge refused to ad

Re:I'm sorry but.. by _8553454222834292266 · 2012-10-27 11:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Re:I'm sorry but.. by Scarletdown · 2012-10-27 11:20 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

Re:I'm sorry but.. by Vinegar+Joe · 2012-10-27 11:28 · Score: 5, Informative

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

Re:I'm sorry but.. by compro01 · 2012-10-27 11:40 · Score: 5, Informative

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

"Stop Resisting" is the new LEO mantra. by Jane+Q.+Public · 2012-10-27 11:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

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

Re:"Stop Resisting" is the new LEO mantra. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-27 11:57 · Score: 5, Funny

reminds me of southpark hunting, everything is in season as long as you yell "it's coming right at me"

Re:I'm sorry but.. by Guru80 · 2012-10-27 12:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Re:I'm sorry but.. by Scarletdown · 2012-10-27 12:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

Re:I'm sorry but.. by BadgerRush · 2012-10-27 13:13 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

Re:RCMP staff should be sued and then fired by BadgerRush · 2012-10-27 13:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Re:RCMP staff should be sued and then fired by JMZero · 2012-10-27 13:28 · Score: 5, Informative

Stopping taking pictures on private property is one of the things the someone can be told to do.

This wasn't about stopping taking pictures - the demand was to delete the pictures. Which he couldn't - it's a film camera. And it's not something they're legally entitled to under Canadian law. From the story:

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.

The security guards made an illegal request that they thought they could get away with - and usually they would have because people are easily cowed. In this case, the kid couldn't comply, they didn't pay attention, and they escalated the situation for no reason. I'm hoping the mall gets sued.

--
Let's not stir that bag of worms...

This isn't nearly as bad as it looks by Baron_Yam · 2012-10-28 01:41 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Slashdot Mirror

Canadian Teenager Arrested For Photographing Mall Takedown

36 of 770 comments (clear)