TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Man arrested at Ex for the devious act of....
Pages (5): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »

I was told once by someone who claimed to be a lawyer, that you could not legally prevent someone from taking your picture in public. According to him, as long as you did not have the expectation of privacy people can take your picture legally without your concent. I guess he was mistaken?!

i guess so.

as i said... the ramifications of this arrest scares the crap out of me.

quote:

mischief since "public photo taking" isnt a charge.

From the Crimnal Code of Canada:

MISCHIEF:

Every one commits mischief who wilfully

(a) destroys or damages property;

(b) renders property dangerous, useless, inoperative or ineffective;

(c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property; or

(d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property.


IN THIS CASE, both C and D would apply since he refused to cease and desist after he was initially asked to stop.

Jay, you keep refering to the same vague sense of due course here but yet to have replied to my quiries regarding his refusal to stop, his concealment, his resisting arrest and his very focused point of interest...that being children. You also give no recourse on how this SHOULD have been handled? Please enlighten us!!!!

Further, people are charged AND sometimes convicted on circumstantial evidence every day. Yes, a few points alone cannot effect this, but the term, Perponderance of Evidence, exists because every case does not have a smoking gun, and often relies on a network of cicumstantial evidence that pieced together is enough to reach verdict. The amount allowed is determined by the seriousness of the charge.

I agree that he may eventually be acquited due to lack of hard evidence in terms of motive or intent but to cry that he should not have been arrested for his suspicous behaviour is pure hippie, always-slam-the-cops bullshit.

I concur that there is the possibility he is guilty of no crime....but at the very least, any lawful person with common sense would cease the activity when confronted with multiple complaints. He did not and because of his lack of common sense he must face trail to clear his name, that to me his the law working well. He now gets the chance to clear his name......hardly the gestapo state you paint. Some people are always looking for a bone of contention

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 What exactly was the crime that the public was accusing this guy of? And dont say taking pictures because that clearly is not a crime. Tell me what he was doing legally wrong... What if the same person went up to the cops and accused me of being a pedophile because i was "hanging around a daycare centre in my car suspiciously" and i got arrested for mischief? This shit scares me for that reason alone. And if a cop ever came to my window and asked me what i was doing my answer would have been "so now its illegal to idle in your car in a public place?" Dont think id be too friendly towards this man either.

He was accussed of taking pics of little kids at the EX, which in turn constitutes mischief Jay. That is the crime here. The cops had to act, and did so accordingly. For myself, I'm not offended if accussed of a crime mistakenly. That can be an honest mistake. You know what, it would piss me off a bit. However, the cops have to act on their suspicions. They then investigate to find out if there is enough evidence to charge someone. Period. That's the way it works Jay.

I just don't understand what the cops did wrong in this situation. I will agree that public opinion has turned our current society into a little bit of a witch hunt, but it's the police that have to act on the publics opinions/accusations.

It's still unclear for me if you're bitching about how the Toronto police force do their job, or if you're concerned with how public opinion affects the way cops do their job.

It's funny how people here are accusing Jay of getting hung up on technicalities while getting hung up on them themselves.

Let's look at this from the broadest perspective possible: in a free society (I know, I know, Canada is not a free society), the role of law is to protect people's rights. Not to protect culture. Not to protect comfort. Not even to protect safety, although I can see this as being a legitimate use of the law.

Just exactly whose rights, and what rights specifically, was this arrest protecting? I fully understand that this man was being a nuisance and making people very uncomfortable, but it is not the responsibility of LAW ENFORCEMENT to fix that. The law is supposed to be retaliatory, not preemptive. You don't arrest people on mere suspicion, you arrest them when they've committed a crime. It's a myth in Canada, but as the saying goes, we are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

What was this strange man infringing on? Their person? Their property? Can someone please explain to me how what he was doing, however slimy and annoying and discomforting it may have been, was actually illegal in even the crudest sense of the word?

so i guess im causing mischief if i pretty much do ANYTHING that might offend someone in public?

I guess the other day when i was shaking my "NOW OPEN" sign around on the sidewalk i was causing mischief because maybe someone didnt like the way i looked or the fact that i was giving them coupons on the street thus obstructing them from enjoying a peaceful walk down the street?

quote:

Originally posted by Form&Funktion I concur that there is the possibility he is guilty of no crime....but at the very least, any lawful person with common sense would cease the activity when confronted with multiple complaints. He did not and because of his lack of common sense he must face trail to clear his name, that to me his the law working well. He now gets the chance to clear his name......hardly the gestapo state you paint. Some people are always looking for a bone of contention

so if he did no crime why was he arrested? So we are now arresting people for failing to adhere to common sense? Guess what, 98% of society is guilty here...

See you all in jail!!

quote:

And if a cop ever came to my window and asked me what i was doing my answer would have been "so now its illegal to idle in your car in a public place?" Dont think id be too friendly towards this man either.

Well there is your problem.....why do people get so offended at officers who come up to check things out?????? It's their DUTY to do so when what's presented to them causes question!!

NO POLICEMAN ON EARTH would arrest you or give you second concern if you politely rolled down your window and simply explained you were there to pick up one of the employees after work instead of rashly snapping back with a defensive and stupid remark. If I was the cop, I'd be instantly suspicous at how quick you jump to irritation and defence. Cops do not have psychic filters to decipher every situation as innocent or genuinely criminal. They must judge on suspicous behavior and make decisions based on that which is presented to them. In this case, the man clearly was acting suspicous and he was arrested.

That's a far cry from spouting out that civil liberties are at risk for anyone taking pictures.....laughable really.

At least Diginut gets it... im not condoning the guy's actions. But if we are going to start arresting and charging people on mere suspicions then we are all in trouble.

Investigate, do some detective work (within legal means) and THEN arrest this guy.

The cops could have done surveillance on the guy and if he was caught downloading porn or doing illegal things then they could have acted.

quote:

so if he did no crime why was he arrested? So we are now arresting people for failing to adhere to common sense? Guess what, 98% of society is guilty here...

Ok not to explore this obvious flawed comment in length but.....courts determine who is guilty....NOT COPS...atleast in this reality and in this country. Are you suggesting police must be SURE of guilt before arresting someone? THAT sounds like the police state you seem so bipolar about.

[QUOTE] arresting people for failing to adhere to common sense?[/QUOTE}

.....if that lack of judgement leads to clear suspicion of criminal behavior then DAMN RIGHT!!!!!!!!!

So again i go back to my first point. Taking pictures can now get you arrested. And that scares me.

It would be different if this guy were taking "upskirt" pics etc but this guy was just taking pictures of the general public going about its business, whether they be kids or adults is not the issue.

I cant believe people fail to see my point of view here. I just hope that one day you dont find yourself in this guy's shoes for comitting a non-illegal act.

Bottem line...... this sicko was taking pictures of little kids without their parents permission, and thats illegal. he was at the Ex by himself doing it with a hidden camera, so obviously he had issues. He's lucky some dad didnt beat the shit out of him. On top of all that he resisted arrest. Think about it???

quote:

The law is supposed to be retaliatory, not preemptive. You don't arrest people on mere suspicion, you arrest them when they've committed a crime. It's a myth in Canada, but as the saying goes, we are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

This is a contadiction in terms. If police only arrested people WHO HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME then there is no need for the court system, just a chart on the prison wall saying in effect: Crime A = punishment B. No one here has stood up and said guilty, just that his behavior, concealed paraphanalia, and focus of activity was enough to warrant arrest. You say that behavior is not enough to warrant arrest and that is the debate.

You also say law is meant to be retaliatory, not preemptive when in fact it is both. The structure of law imposes many charges to prevent further criminality (ie carrying a concealed weapon....no harm in someone's pocket..no crime in this vein of logic...yet an obvious offence and a preemptive charge to deter UNPROVEN but SUSPECTED future criminal use)

We all can only use conjecture (thus we both may be way off here) on how the arrest truly played out but I contend that anyone with innocent intentions could have discussed the issue at the time of approach by the police and easily shown or explained the behaviour as perhaps piculiar but not criminal.

However, if he was jumped without a chance to clarify the situation then I take back all comments.

quote:

I cant believe people fail to see my point of view here. I just hope that one day you dont find yourself in this guy's shoes for comitting a non-illegal act.

If I did, I would be smart enough to be polite to the police and simply state the innocent truth to diffuse the suspicion....and not be stupid enough to persist my activity when clearly annoying fellow citizens.........seems pretty easy really

quote:

Originally posted by Carney Bottem line...... this sicko was taking pictures of little kids without their parents permission, and thats illegal. he was at the Ex by himself doing it with a hidden camera, so obviously he had issues. He's lucky some dad didnt beat the shit out of him. On top of all that he resisted arrest. Think about it???

Taking pictures of people in public is NOT illegal.. DONT YOU GET IT?

ITS NOT ILLEGAL!

SAY IT WITH ME NOW!

The dad's lucky he didnt beat the shit out of him because vigilante justice is also something that isnt (and shouldnt be ) tolerated by law.

Sure the guy had issues, but he did not committ a crime here.

the same flawed logic could be extended to stores. Am I comitting a crimne when i photograph the public coming into my store? What about when they bring little kids into my store?

Same thing isnt it?

The difference here is public perception of the reason behind it, not the law.

Im pretty sure its illegal to take pictures of kids without parents permission. plus its the ex they make there own rules for shit like this. i cant beleive your sticking up for this guy. please stay away from all children

Ahh so now i must be a child molester because i stand up for laws and justice.

I dont think this guys actions were innocent but i dont think the arrest was appropriate either.

And while you are pretty sure its illegal to take pics of kids without permission, I KNOW its not. Or else they would have charged him with several counts of "illegally taking pictures of small children".

So i guess every store operator with a security camera in Canada is guilty of the same said crime.

geeeeze

I don't think you are sticking up for him and understand your view Jay...but I contend there needed to be action on this behaviour. It's borderline....no doubt but based on their judgement when confronting him, the cops determined an arrest was warranted. Hence the existance of the Court system to determine whether that decision of charge was warranted...as in EVERY case where someone does not plead guilty.

ps - page 4 and still no alternative solution on the arrest from you??? Please respond. At the very least, the Ex operators have the right to remove any person from their property and perhaps sparing arrest, they could have simply exercised the right to remove him and then the police could have investigated further. Regardless, I could never except a do-nothing policy on such base if not criminal behaviour....we can agree on that much I would hope

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 I dont think this guys actions were innocent but i dont think the arrest was appropriate either. geeeeze

you just said yourself not innocent.... what do you expect them (cops)do??? give him a pat on the back and kick him out of the ex? especialy when hes giving them a hard time?

i expect the cops to do exactly that. They overstepped their bounds.

When i say innocent here im talking about the fact that i dont think they were casual pics and that he was not morally innocent but i still say he's criminally innocent from any charges.

Dont put words in my mouth please...

The ex is private property. They could have escorted him off the property with the consent of the manager or superintendent of the property.

yo jay did you get beat up alot in school?

quote:

Originally posted by Form&Funktion I don't think you are sticking up for him and understand your view Jay...but I contend there needed to be action on this behaviour. It's borderline....no doubt but based on their judgement when confronting him, the cops determined an arrest was warranted. Hence the existance of the Court system to determine whether that decision of charge was warranted...as in EVERY case where someone does not plead guilty.

But arbitrary detention is not what the court system was set up for. I predict this will be thrown out. And if it is i hope this guy collects a lot of money from the police and the city as a warning to other cowboy cops out there.

quote:

Originally posted by Carney yo jay did you get beat up alot in school?

Comments like this are clear indications that i have won the debate

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.