dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1024
share rss forum feed


donoreo
Premium
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


Spike
Premium
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.


rogersmogers

@start.ca
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.


Anav
Sarcastic Llama? Naw, Just Acerbic
Premium
join:2001-07-16
Dartmouth, NS
kudos:5
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.


urbanriot
Premium
join:2004-10-18
Canada
kudos:3
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.


capdjq
Premium
join:2000-11-01
Vancouver
reply to rogersmogers
I think the RCMP and Mall Cops are edgy ever since the Robert Dziekaski 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.


donoreo
Premium
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.

peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
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.


TLS2000
Crazy Canuck
Premium
join:2004-02-24
Mississauga, ON
Reviews:
·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


urbanriot
Premium
join:2004-10-18
Canada
kudos:3
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.


Pughball
Premium
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.

peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
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
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

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).


urbanriot
Premium
join:2004-10-18
Canada
kudos:3
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.

peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
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?


BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada
kudos:1
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
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
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.


BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada
kudos:1
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.


Last Parade

join:2002-10-07
Port Colborne, 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.

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.


urbanriot
Premium
join:2004-10-18
Canada
kudos:3
reply to peterboro
someone post the trespass act.


Last Parade

join:2002-10-07
Port Colborne, ON
reply to urbanriot
said by urbanriot:

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.

Western New York :P


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to urbanriot
I think we are all getting past the issue.

These goons can't demand that you erase stuff or seize your own property because they didn't like that you filmed them taking someone else down.

This is the issue.

He didn't trespass. He didn't do anything. He did what any normal kid/person does.


Last Parade

join:2002-10-07
Port Colborne, ON
By the sounds if it he has some kind of amateur photo hobby, not really another reason to be carrying a film camera around these days.


Anav
Sarcastic Llama? Naw, Just Acerbic
Premium
join:2001-07-16
Dartmouth, NS
kudos:5
reply to hm
Concur, on what basis was he asked to leave the mall. There is no justification. The mall owner, nor his employees cannot discriminate who comes into the mall, unless they have reason.

NCRGuy

join:2008-03-03
Ottawa, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to urbanriot
said by urbanriot:

someone post the trespass act.

For Ontario:

quote:
Trespass an offence
2. (1) Every person who is not acting under a right or authority conferred by law and who,
(a) without the express permission of the occupier, the proof of which rests on the defendant,
(i) enters on premises when entry is prohibited under this Act, or
(ii) engages in an activity on premises when the activity is prohibited under this Act; or
(b) does not leave the premises immediately after he or she is directed to do so by the occupier of the premises or a person authorized by the occupier,
is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $2,000. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 2 (1).
quote:
Arrest without warrant on premises
9. (1) A police officer, or the occupier of premises, or a person authorized by the occupier may arrest without warrant any person he or she believes on reasonable and probable grounds to be on the premises in contravention of section 2. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 9 (1).
Delivery to police officer
(2) Where the person who makes an arrest under subsection (1) is not a police officer, he or she shall promptly call for the assistance of a police officer and give the person arrested into the custody of the police officer. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 9 (2).

NCRGuy

join:2008-03-03
Ottawa, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to Anav
said by Anav:

Concur, on what basis was he asked to leave the mall. There is no justification. The mall owner, nor his employees cannot discriminate who comes into the mall, unless they have reason.

Umm, yes they can. Unless he was being asked to leave for a prohibited ground (ie. discrimination based on race), the mall can tell anyone to get the F out and never come back.

peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON
reply to NCRGuy
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 are correct but as the SCC in R. v. Asante-Mensah states also there must be caution by private citizens and security personnel before they attempt this.


donoreo
Premium
join:2002-05-30
North York, ON
reply to donoreo
It does not say in the story they asked him to leave, only to delete the photo. It is a different matter if they told him to leave and he refused, but it does not say this was the case.

I had someone on Facebook say that many cities have a bylaw against photographing in public. Of course that would be a violation of Charter rights so I asked her to name one.

NCRGuy

join:2008-03-03
Ottawa, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to peterboro
said by peterboro:

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 are correct but as the SCC in R. v. Asante-Mensah states also there must be caution by private citizens and security personnel before they attempt this.

You suggested mall guards had no right to use force, and that only police could do so. I said you were wrong. Thank you for citing a case that further proves my point.


urbanriot
Premium
join:2004-10-18
Canada
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable
reply to donoreo
A complimentary video to the story, interviewing the boy -»en.video.sympatico.ca/home/new-i···28431001