Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Canadian Teenager Arrested For Photographing Mall Takedown

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the i'm-sure-it-was-a-polite-takedown dept.

Canada 770

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.'"

cancel ×

770 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

lawsuit time? (5, Insightful)

bloodhawk (813939) | about 2 years ago | (#41792507)

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

Re:lawsuit time? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792549)

You must be new to Canada, Vic Toews (Public Safety Minister) has empowered law enforcement to do as they please.

Re:lawsuit time? (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 2 years ago | (#41792777)

Mall security thugs too? I am new to Canada.

Re:lawsuit time? (1)

fm6 (162816) | about 2 years ago | (#41792907)

Canada? Is that north or south of Minnesota

(I'm only half joking, since TPP seems to not grasp that this story took place outside the U.S.)

Re:lawsuit time? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792983)

You must be new to Canada, Vic Toews (Public Safety Minister) has empowered law enforcement to do as they please.

This is one more of many many reason why smart people spend their
tourist money elsewhere.

No one with a brain is interested in visiting a police state, even if it is the
half-assed sort of mess typical of everything else Canadians do.

Re:lawsuit time? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792649)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792773)

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!

Re:lawsuit time? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792781)

If someone were to walk in with 4 quarts of gasoline and burn the place it might make them reconsider their evil.

Wah Mama (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792509)

Boo fucking hoo. Stupid people encounter other stupid people. News at 11.

I'm sorry but.. (-1, Troll)

Time_Ngler (564671) | about 2 years ago | (#41792523)

You shouldn't take pictures if you are unsure of the legality of doing so.

Re:I'm sorry but.. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792555)

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

Re:I'm sorry but.. (-1, Troll)

Hentes (2461350) | about 2 years ago | (#41792901)

Except that he wasn't in a public place but in a mall.

Re:I'm sorry but.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792929)

Since it is Canada, I can't say, but at least in Florida the worst a store can do is tell someone to leave and bar them from the store. Note that this is not asking, but telling. If asked they can refuse. Just like you are not required to hand over a driver's license to a cop if you are not driving.

Re:I'm sorry but.. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792571)

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

Re:I'm sorry but.. (5, Insightful)

Swarley (1795754) | about 2 years ago | (#41792573)

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.

Re:I'm sorry but.. (3, Funny)

skywire (469351) | about 2 years ago | (#41792917)

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.

Re:I'm sorry but.. (1, Insightful)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 2 years ago | (#41792943)

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.

Re:I'm sorry but.. (2)

jc42 (318812) | about 2 years ago | (#41792979)

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.

Re:I'm sorry but.. (3, Informative)

Scarletdown (886459) | about 2 years ago | (#41792579)

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.

Re:I'm sorry but.. (-1)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | about 2 years ago | (#41792591)

A mall is private property.

Re:I'm sorry but.. (5, Informative)

Scarletdown (886459) | about 2 years ago | (#41792635)

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.

Re:I'm sorry but.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792661)

And even if there were such signs, they can only legally ask them to leave to premises.

Re:I'm sorry but.. (5, Informative)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | about 2 years ago | (#41792695)

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/ [ambientlight.ca]

Re:I'm sorry but.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792759)

That doesn't mean they can arrest him and physically harm him. At most they can just ask him to leave.

Re:I'm sorry but.. (5, Informative)

compro01 (777531) | about 2 years ago | (#41792767)

Wrong province. BC's law is broadly similar though.

http://ambientlight.ca/laws/the-laws/provincial-law/british-columbia/trespass-act/ [ambientlight.ca]

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.

Re:I'm sorry but.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792869)

Prove the mall security actually did this.

Lots of people make up stuff that the cops "seize" for random attention.

Re:I'm sorry but.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792853)

"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."

In which case the photograph is evidence of a crime and deletion(if it wasn't film) is destruction of evidence.

Re:I'm sorry but.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792863)

"Don't read this sign." "Don't talk about this building." "Don't blink".

I think there's a subtle problem with this Canadian rule. Signs forbidding forms of physical intrusion such as "No trespassing" and "Keep off the grass" make some sense but "No photographs" is plainly absurd.

To all those who think they have any kind of "subject rights" whatsoever, enjoy the next 100 years of technological progress. Your only hope of having this deluded presumption respected is via a mass extinction event.

Re:I'm sorry but.. (1, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | about 2 years ago | (#41792915)

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

Re:I'm sorry but.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792663)

It's a public space.

As a public space, it may be privately owned, but it's still a public space.

Stop trying to give the Mall owners plenipotentiary powers. Corporations are not our government.

Re:I'm sorry but.. (3, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41792747)

Corporations are not our government.

Where have you been? Government is the proxy of corporate authority.

Re:I'm sorry but.. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792667)

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.

Re:I'm sorry but.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792701)

> A mall is a pretty public space.

Sounds questionable citizen.

Re:I'm sorry but.. (0)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 2 years ago | (#41792861)

Sorry but the fact that a mall is on private property makes it private space that the private owner allows the public to use under certain conditions. One of the conditions in this mall is no photography. Public spaces are things like parks, community recreation centers as they are owned by the public.

In my opinion the guards did overreact and probably need more training in the proper procedures of dealing with photographers.

Re:I'm sorry but.. (2)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 years ago | (#41792937)

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.

Re:I'm sorry but.. (1, Interesting)

skywire (469351) | about 2 years ago | (#41792951)

So the libertarian utopia might well turn out to be a nightmarish dystopia.

Re:I'm sorry but.. (2)

jimshatt (1002452) | about 2 years ago | (#41792581)

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?

Re:I'm sorry but.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792725)

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....

Re:I'm sorry but.. (2)

amiga3D (567632) | about 2 years ago | (#41792587)

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.

Re:I'm sorry but.. (1)

Smartcowboy (679871) | about 2 years ago | (#41792589)

If you can see it, it should be legal to photography it.

Re:I'm sorry but.. (0)

Slyfox696 (2432554) | about 2 years ago | (#41792867)

If you can see it, it should be legal to photography it.

Child pornographers across the globe agree with you.

...wait, was that too extreme of an example?

Re:I'm sorry but.. (1)

Smartcowboy (679871) | about 2 years ago | (#41792949)

One could argues that it is illegal to see cp in the first place.

Re:I'm sorry but.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792595)

You should kill yourself.

Re:I'm sorry but.. (5, Insightful)

_8553454222834292266 (2576047) | about 2 years ago | (#41792605)

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.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792669)

Fuck You

Re:I'm sorry but.. (4, Informative)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 2 years ago | (#41792815)

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?

FUCKNUTS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792527)

Hopefully, he has a 3rd year law student friend with an old school Dad who is head of a kick ass law firm, hires them, and sues these assholes out of jobs and 10 years of paychecks

Dicks.

Very good photographer. (2)

ehiris (214677) | about 2 years ago | (#41792537)

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.

Re:Very good photographer. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 years ago | (#41792807)

Maybe, but aren't we always turning our noses at "such" countries and how they are so beneath us for being so unfree and so undemocratic? And now we should be glad we don't have it as bad?

Sorry, but I expect more from my democracy. I expect freedom. If it doesn't provide that, it's not better than those undemocratic despotic regimes. It's just less bad.

Socialized medicine is only the beginning... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792541)

First they take away your guns, then they promise you socialized medicine and other services, and the rest of your civil liberties soon disappear. Poor, poor Canucks.

It smells like troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792623)

How socialized medicine can be related to guns ownership or civil liberties is beyong my understanding.

Re:It smells like troll (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792699)

Yeah, that's the problem. Failing to see the human rights violations in socialized medicine is the exactly the kind of blindness that will get you all the way to serfdom before you recognize the road you're on.

Re:It smells like troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792765)

I thought Canada had more firearms per capita than the US.

Re:Socialized medicine is only the beginning... (1)

Minwee (522556) | about 2 years ago | (#41792893)

And then they get a decent doughnut shop, and it`s all downhill from there.

Love it (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | about 2 years ago | (#41792551)

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?

Re:Love it (2)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 2 years ago | (#41792645)

The job of the police is to keep the establishment safe from the people. Once that is appreciated, their behaviour makes perfect sense.

Re:Love it (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 years ago | (#41792831)

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.

Nothing to hide (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792553)

Mall cops (and the real ones too) have nothing to hide, absolutely nothing. That's why they'll arrest you if you do. Because they have nothing to hide.

Damn You George Bush!!! Damn You!!! (-1, Troll)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | about 2 years ago | (#41792557)

Oh, wait a second.....this was in Canada.

Nevermind.

RCMP staff should be sued and then fired (4, Insightful)

Alain Williams (2972) | about 2 years ago | (#41792565)

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.

Kids these days (2, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 2 years ago | (#41792567)

Don't even know how to rip the film out of a camera and expose it.

security guards (0)

roman_mir (125474) | about 2 years ago | (#41792577)

After the security guards insisted that he must delete pictures from his film camera, they also forced him to Skype home on a rotary dial phone and beat him until he admitted in breaking and entering their bank accounts with his calculator.

Security guards, the paragons of intelligence and wisdom. They are also almost a full head above the local cops in understanding of the individual rights.

Re:FREEZE! (1, Troll)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | about 2 years ago | (#41792643)

That's why the US has the Second Amendment. It's to protect us from the government.........it's not about hunting or sports.

Re:FREEZE! (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41792683)

Yeah, try using it on a cop, and see what you'll get..

Re:FREEZE! (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 years ago | (#41792849)

More cops. They're just like ants, kill one and a thousand more come.

Re:FREEZE! (2)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 2 years ago | (#41792717)

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.

If you really think the second amendment COULD protect you from the government, you're insane. The US has by far the biggest and most sophisticated war machine in the world. Your puny firearm isn't going to stand up to a tank, a fighter jet, a helicopter gunship or a drone.

Re:FREEZE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792771)

Tell that to Vietnam.

Re:FREEZE! (1)

SecurityGuy (217807) | about 2 years ago | (#41792825)

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.

Buy a bunch of guys who had just overthrown their government.

Re:FREEZE! (1)

SecurityGuy (217807) | about 2 years ago | (#41792919)

s/Buy/By/

Re:FREEZE! (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 2 years ago | (#41792935)

That's who they were, but that's not what they wrote about in the second amendment.

Re:FREEZE! (2)

NFN_NLN (633283) | about 2 years ago | (#41792965)

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.

Buy a bunch of guys who had just overthrown their government.

I'm not entirely familiar with p0wning, but did it just happen to BasilBrush?

Re:FREEZE! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792859)

Seconding the point above -- while I doubt they could protect anyone from a government armed with tanks and missiles -- let's remember that the founding fathers who wrote the constitution and the second amendment were people who gained their independence by armed revolution against the existing government. So it seems very likely that one of their objectives was to keep the balance of power of arms in the hands of the people, not the government, just in case. They never could have envisioned the military advances since then, which made that point somewhat moot.

Re:FREEZE! (1)

tftp (111690) | about 2 years ago | (#41792923)

It's not about any of those things. It's about protection from foreign states.

This is patently untrue, if you only read what founders said on the subject. But leaving that alone, what if the government becomes a foreign state to the rest of the country? What if the country has no control over who runs the government; what if the country has no control where its army fights or does not fight, and against who; what if the country pays ever-increasing taxes to the government which then uses it as the government pleases. What then? This is not a contrived situation; most governments, right before they are overthrown by the angry mob, decay into such a world unto itself, detached from the reality and ultimately abandoned by everyone - including the palace guards.

Re:FREEZE! (5, Informative)

pla (258480) | about 2 years ago | (#41792945)

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! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792711)

This is why the judges will be the second group up against the wall, come the revolution.

Google Glass (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792647)

I wonder what will happen when everyone will start walming around with google glasses in a few years...

Re:Google Glass (3, Interesting)

SecurityGuy (217807) | about 2 years ago | (#41792757)

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.

Re:Google Glass (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 years ago | (#41792871)

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.

Re:Google Glass (1)

SecurityGuy (217807) | about 2 years ago | (#41792991)

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.

What do you expect from Mall Security... (2)

hypnobuddha (2743161) | about 2 years ago | (#41792673)

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.

I get angry, too... (1, Funny)

CheeseTroll (696413) | about 2 years ago | (#41792681)

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?

Time to build a camera (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792685)

that uploads instantly using the phone connection. Suing pigs would get so damn easy and delicious.

Re:Time to build a camera (1)

Kernel Kurtz (182424) | about 2 years ago | (#41792753)

Try Qik

http://qik.com/ [qik.com]

It does exactly that.

Re:Time to build a camera (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792961)

Ignoring the fact that the camera in question uses film, as noted that already exists. In at least a few forms.

Re:Time to build a camera (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | about 2 years ago | (#41792975)

Eye Fi wireless ad card, a phone in tethering mode, and done.

Warms the heart (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792707)

God bless our brave boys in blue.

Good kid, but he's doing it wrong (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792739)

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.

Re:Good kid, but he's doing it wrong (3, Informative)

compro01 (777531) | about 2 years ago | (#41792835)

If you can keep your cool, when you've snapped a great takedown pick and a mall-cop demands something of you, politely decline.

Actually, they CAN (in BC and Ontario, at least) legally tell you to stop taking pictures and/or leave the property. Failing to do so "as soon as practicable" then becomes trespassing and they can have you arrested.

They cannot make you delete the pictures you've already taken nor can they detain you nor can they search or seize anything.

Re:Good kid, but he's doing it wrong (1)

Arker (91948) | about 2 years ago | (#41792855)

From what I read, he only 'lost his cool' after these thugs laid their hands on him. His legal options should be in no way compromised by that. I hope he gets a good lawyer and throws the book at the mall.

Stop hitting yourself! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792813)

Bullies, or as we call it "police state".

"Stop Resisting" is the new LEO mantra. (5, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 2 years ago | (#41792833)

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. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792903)

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

Re:"Stop Resisting" is the new LEO mantra. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792969)

Just don't move unless they tell you to move, is it that hard?

When you are told to delete the photos, delete the photos or don't whine about disciplinary action including arrest.

what is a mall takedown? (2)

iamagloworm (816661) | about 2 years ago | (#41792873)

what is a mall takedown?

Photographers have to learn to deal with bullies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792885)

I have had similar problems taking photos in BC. I don't know if security guards are particularly thuggish in Canada, but it's certainly a job which attracts more than it's fair share of dimwitted bullies. Luckily bullies are easily intimidated, and for this reason many photojournalists cultivate a tough sort of image. A teenage kid is going to have difficulty looking like a tough-guy, so in this case discretion is probably the better part of valour. Learn to shoot from the hip, with your eyes away from the target, and nobody will realise a picture was taken. Street photographers, who depend on getting a candid shot, work this way. One reason Leicas are so valued is their quiet shutter sound.

ITT (-1, Troll)

Revotron (1115029) | about 2 years ago | (#41792895)

ITT: Slashdotters nerdrage over one side of a story. Other side nowhere to be found. And now, sports!

Mental note (1, Troll)

lightknight (213164) | about 2 years ago | (#41792911)

Make it an executable offence for law enforcement of any type to fail to uphold the public good.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?