 donoreoPremium
join:2002-05-30
North York, ON | [Rant] BC teen arrested for taking photos He took a photo of the mall cops arresting someone. They insisted he delete the photos. They called the RCMP. They say he "failed to comply". I say he could not comply, he was using a film camera.
»www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c···est.html |
|
 SpikePremium
join:2008-05-16
Toronto, ON
1 edit | Better pack a digital next time with our rights being trampled on like this.
Hint: Free basic recovery software will recover your "deleted" photos, something mall cops don't yet realize.
EDIT: Adding onto this, the RMCP would had already been dispatched from the first guy they detained. Looks like the RCMP wasn't notified and assumed this guy was involved as well. |
|
| reply to donoreo
Malls are private property and they can make whatever rules they wish within the law and once you enter you agree to those rules.
No photos means no photos. A lot of malls have a no video no photo policy, hell even the TTC does. |
|
 AnavSarcastic Llama? Naw, Just AcerbicPremium
join:2001-07-16
Dartmouth, NS
kudos:3 | reply to Spike
I didnt know a camera was an offensive weapon that needed to be diffused. Then again, I didnt think I guy holding a stapler warranted four guys attacking you including with a tazer. Sorry not attacking, killing. Sounds like the cops and security guards in BC should smoke some local stuff and bring it down a notch. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Cogeco Cable
| reply to rogersmogers
said by rogersmogers :Malls are private property and they can make whatever rules they wish within the law and once you enter you agree to those rules. Yeaaa... that sounds like the worst understanding of law I've heard in a long time. The label 'private property' does not give those within the property the rights to ignore the laws of a country and create their own arbitrary laws. |
|
 capdjqRIP my friendPremium
join:2000-11-01
Coastie | reply to rogersmogers
I think the RCMP and Mall Cops are edgy ever since the Robert Dziekański incident. If it wasn't for the privately made video the entire matter would have been hushed up.
In that killing the RCMP also asked for the camera saying it would be returned the next day. Luckily he did not comply.
The Airport, too, is Federal property. They could have confiscated the Camera. |
|
donoreoPremium
join:2002-05-30
North York, ON | reply to rogersmogers
said by rogersmogers :Malls are private property and they can make whatever rules they wish within the law and once you enter you agree to those rules.
No photos means no photos. A lot of malls have a no video no photo policy, hell even the TTC does.
If such a rule exists, it must be displayed. Anyone take otherwise take photos in any publicly accessible place even if private property.
--
The irony of common sense, it is not that common.
I cannot deny anything I did not say.
A kitten dies every time someone uses "then" and "than" incorrectly.
I mock people who give their children odd spelling of names. |
|
|
|
peterboroAvatars are for posersPremium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON | reply to rogersmogers
said by rogersmogers :Malls are private property and they can make whatever rules they wish within the law and once you enter you agree to those rules.
No photos means no photos. A lot of malls have a no video no photo policy, hell even the TTC does. The only rule the state will legally enforce is the rule to request you leave the property.
Any unilateral attempt by the mall to enforce any of their rules, including requesting you leave, is actionable. |
|
 TLS2000Crazy CanuckPremium
join:2004-02-24
Mississauga, ON
·TekSavvy Cable
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to donoreo
said by donoreo:If such a rule exists, it must be displayed. Anyone take otherwise take photos in any publicly accessible place even if private property.
Once you are verbally warned to stop taking pictures you need to do so or you can be asked to leave. There is no requirement for signs. That's the extent of what they would have been allowed to do though.
--
Tom |
|
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable
| Exactly. The owner of the private property can simply ask you to leave without signs. He could ask you to leave if he doesn't like your face.
If you're asked to leave, given reasonable time to leave, and you don't leave, you're now trespassing and force can be used to subdue you.
However picture taking is lawful and asking someone to stop taking pictures does not give them the right to subdue you.
If the security guards in question asked the guy to stop taking pictures and leave the property, it's possible they're guilt free. |
|
 PughballPremium
join:2002-07-04
Chatham, ON | reply to TLS2000
Exactly, they can ask you to leave, not remand your property and/or erase the pictures you had already taken. |
|
peterboroAvatars are for posersPremium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON | reply to urbanriot
said by urbanriot: If you're asked to leave, given reasonable time to leave, and you don't leave, you're now trespassing and force can be used to subdue you. No. Only the police can use force not the mall guards. |
|
NCRGuy
join:2008-03-03
Ottawa, ON
1 edit | said by peterboro:said by urbanriot: If you're asked to leave, given reasonable time to leave, and you don't leave, you're now trespassing and force can be used to subdue you. No. Only the police can use force not the mall guards. Bzzt.
ETA: I suppose I should elaborate, but the right to use force is not limited to the police. IN the case of trespass to property, it can be exercised by the property owner, and anyone acting under their authority (ie. the mall guards). |
|
| reply to peterboro
Whoops, I was in US mode. Most of my mall excursions are upstate NY where the mall cops are cops. I spend more time in Buffalo Malls than I do at the mall in my city. |
|
peterboroAvatars are for posersPremium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON | reply to NCRGuy
said by NCRGuy:said by peterboro:said by urbanriot: If you're asked to leave, given reasonable time to leave, and you don't leave, you're now trespassing and force can be used to subdue you. No. Only the police can use force not the mall guards. Bzzt. So you would advise a client his guards can use force before the police arrive if the only offence is trespass would you? Your errors and omissions insurance paid up? |
|
 BonezXBasement DwellerPremium
join:2004-04-13
Canada | reply to NCRGuy
said by NCRGuy:said by peterboro:said by urbanriot: If you're asked to leave, given reasonable time to leave, and you don't leave, you're now trespassing and force can be used to subdue you. No. Only the police can use force not the mall guards. Bzzt. depends on the circumstance, if you are committing a crime mall security can physically detain you(as they were doing with the first guy i hope). other then that the most they can do is ask you not to do something or ask you to leave.
basically you can't detain someone before they commit a crime, only after, but you can tell them to leave before they do something. ALSO you can not pursue them off the property and expect to be covered by insurance if you get your ass kicked.
"told that he couldn't take pictures inside the mall." the question is, before or after he took this picture, before they can say something, after they don't have a leg to stand on. |
|
NCRGuy
join:2008-03-03
Ottawa, ON | reply to peterboro
said by peterboro:So you would advise a client his guards can use force before the police arrive if the only offence is trespass would you? Your errors and omissions insurance paid up?
I would not provide any advice to clients, as to do so would violate a few statutes.
The discussion is not about what the best way to handle a situation is, but what is permissible under the law. The Criminal Code explicitly authorizes owners, and those acting on their behalf, to use force to remove a trespasser. Not sure about provincial law in BC, but I would assume it is similar to that in Ontario, which explicitly authorizes owners, and those acting on their behalf, to arrest those who are committing a trespass. Provided they immediately contact the police to hand them over, force could be used to arrest and detain. |
|
BonezXBasement DwellerPremium
join:2004-04-13
Canada | said by NCRGuy:said by peterboro:So you would advise a client his guards can use force before the police arrive if the only offence is trespass would you? Your errors and omissions insurance paid up?
I would not provide any advice to clients, as to do so would violate a few statutes. The discussion is not about what the best way to handle a situation is, but what is permissible under the law. The Criminal Code explicitly authorizes owners, and those acting on their behalf, to use force to remove a trespasser. Not sure about provincial law in BC, but I would assume it is similar to that in Ontario, which explicitly authorizes owners, and those acting on their behalf, to arrest those who are committing a trespass. Provided they immediately contact the police to hand them over, force could be used to arrest and detain. you can't claim trespass on an open and not marked business during operating hours. especially a mall, you can stop them from returning with a form which name i can't remember right now.
had to clarify business and operating hours. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Start Communicat..
| reply to rogersmogers
said by rogersmogers :Malls are private property and they can make whatever rules they wish within the law and once you enter you agree to those rules.
what the hell are you talking about? All I see on the front doors are hours of operation. I'm not signing any contract when I walk through the mall doors. |
|
| reply to peterboro
someone post the trespass act. |
|
