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 »

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 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.

Screw everything you have said so far, just think about it logically or like a parent. Your at a wading pool with your kids and some old dude is taking pictures of them from a distance with a concealed camera, what do you do?

I know i would be upset...

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Comments like this are clear indications that i have won the debate

Comments like this are clear indications that you did get beat alot in school

quote:

Originally posted by Carney Screw everything you have said so far, just think about it logically or like a parent. Your at a wading pool with your kids and some old dude is taking pictures of them from a distance with a concealed camera, what do you do? I know i would be upset...

I asked a very similar question - which Jay so far has left unanswered. If how the parents and police acted was wrong, then what is the proper alternative action??

Jay....albiet I disagree, I can appreciate your points, however why do you defend the GREATER of the two potential evils? Saying you hope it's thrown out and he collects a lot of money for being a creep if not borderline criminal rather than defend the equal theory that the police found just cause for arrest IS tantamount to supporting his behaviour. A system that punishes the police for every arrest which the court later deems innocent would cease to function in any degree of logic or practice.

He'd NEVER have been formally arrested and charged if he didn't attempt to flee or resist arrest. ie. I'd suggest that the mischief charge was just tacked on after the fact...I HIGHLY doubt he was actually BEING charged with mischeif and THEN resisted arrest too. The police do this all the time. You get caught for speeding, you get lippy when they give you a ticket, they FIND other things wrong, like illegal modifications, parts that need repair, etc.

Is this arrest sketchy? Yep. But he's a dumbass for not fully co-operating with the police. Why try to run? Why resist? I have ZERO sympathy for him. ZERO. I don't think the search of his home and computer is at all warranted though.

If the public complains to police, they MUST investigate...it's their damn job!!! This jackass created the situation himself by attempting to flee or resist, no? What a complete moron!!! He'll get off, I'm sure...but HE made his own life difficult. He engaged in what is CLEARLY suspicious behaviour and then when confronted by police, who are rightfully investigating public complaints, he tries to flee or refuses to co-operate? Fuck him...he deserves what he gets, IMHO. Don't run, don't resist...if you're innocent, it will be nothing more than an inconvenience. They likely would have asked him to stop or maybe would have thrown him out of the park (it is private property, of course, and he could be asked to leave for pretty much any reason). Instead, he created a situation...I'm not exactly sure how he defended his actions, legal or not, when questioned.

Protecting the rights of the public vs. potentially infringing upon the rights of someone engaged in extremely suspicious behaviour who then tried to flee and/or resist...sorry, I'll vote for the latter every single time.

This police bashing gets tired...if this guy HAD done something, the public would be OUTRAGED that police didn't investigate. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. It's a wonder that anyone wants to be a copy anymore, the job is soooooo godamn thankless...

Reposted:

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 Form&Funktion Reposted: 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

which is exactly what I said. Fantino, like him or not, is not a complete idiot. No charge would stick for the guy simply concealing a camera. Likely, they'd have made him stop or tossed him from the park...instead the guy *created* this situation himself.

no sympathy.

Here's a hypothetical for you Jay. Suppose someone saw that sick fuck from yesterday at Union station, and reported to a cop that he saw a suspicious man. Now based on your argument, this officer should not go and check things out because there is no law against walking around looking suspicious. Is that the way the city should be policed? Reactionary policing rather than preventative? Is that the argument you're trying oh so hard to make?

i say if i have a son or a daughter and some strange man takes pictures of them and acts all shady, he is gonna die under my wrath. there are too many wierdos in this world.

quote:

Originally posted by sooper I asked a very similar question - which Jay so far has left unanswered. If how the parents and police acted was wrong, then what is the proper alternative action??

Well, here's what I'm thinking: Patrons complain to management/security at the Ex, and after enough complaints, Ex security has him forcibly removed from the premises.

Since the Ex is private property, they are well within their rights to do this.

Can somebody explain to me why police needed to be involved? And no, "taking pictures of kids without their parents' permission" is not an illegal act, nor should it be. The law is not here to protect people's paranoia or their enjoyment of the moment.

quote:

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)

The court system, as far as I know, is present to protect the rights of the accused to a fair trial. Police should only be arresting people who are "suspected" of ACTUALLY committing a crime - it is then the courts which determine if that suspicion is in fact accurate.

One might argue that laws against carrying a concealed weapon are unconstitutional, and that is indeed the case down south is it not? Regardless, the difference between concealed weapons and concealed cameras are twofold:
1. Guns are regulated by the government. Cameras are not.
2. Guns can pose an immediate danger to others; cameras cannot.


This event should have been left to be handled by Ex personnel. There is no excuse for police arresting someone who was acting weird. Just exactly what was he under suspicion for? I mean hell, you have dirty old men on the streets slobbering after teenage women and sure, it's disturbing, but unless he actually tries to rape one of them it isn't a crime (although in this day and age, I fear it's only a matter of time before it becomes one). On the other hand, it WAS making patrons feel uncomfortable and the Ex should have taken care of it - if they didn't take care of it, they would lose business. That's how things work in the real world when you're not living in a nanny state.

quote:

Originally posted by trancechaos i say if i have a son or a daughter and some strange man takes pictures of them and acts all shady, he is gonna die under my wrath. there are too many wierdos in this world.

And it would be your right - in fact it would be your duty as a parent - to confront this man and tell him to fuck off otherwise he's going to get hurt. But that doesn't justify police assuming control of the matter.

quote:

He'd NEVER have been formally arrested and charged if he didn't attempt to flee or resist arrest. ie. I'd suggest that the mischief charge was just tacked on after the fact...I HIGHLY doubt he was actually BEING charged with mischeif and THEN resisted arrest too. The police do this all the time. You get caught for speeding, you get lippy when they give you a ticket, they FIND other things wrong, like illegal modifications, parts that need repair, etc. Is this arrest sketchy? Yep. But he's a dumbass for not fully co-operating with the police. Why try to run? Why resist? I have ZERO sympathy for him. ZERO. I don't think the search of his home and computer is at all warranted though. If the public complains to police, they MUST investigate...it's their damn job!!! This jackass created the situation himself by attempting to flee or resist, no? What a complete moron!!! He'll get off, I'm sure...but HE made his own life difficult. He engaged in what is CLEARLY suspicious behaviour and then when confronted by police, who are rightfully investigating public complaints, he tries to flee or refuses to co-operate? Fuck him...he deserves what he gets, IMHO. Don't run, don't resist...if you're innocent, it will be nothing more than an inconvenience. They likely would have asked him to stop or maybe would have thrown him out of the park (it is private property, of course, and he could be asked to leave for pretty much any reason). Instead, he created a situation...I'm not exactly sure how he defended his actions, legal or not, when questioned. Protecting the rights of the public vs. potentially infringing upon the rights of someone engaged in extremely suspicious behaviour who then tried to flee and/or resist...sorry, I'll vote for the latter every single time. This police bashing gets tired...if this guy HAD done something, the public would be OUTRAGED that police didn't investigate. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. It's a wonder that anyone wants to be a copy anymore, the job is soooooo godamn thankless...

AMEN to that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

quote:

And it would be your right - in fact it would be your duty as a parent - to confront this man and tell him to fuck off otherwise he's going to get hurt. But that doesn't justify police assuming control of the matter.

Where is the logic in defending a very questionable figure who we must ALL conceed may very well have had photos on his cameras that pushed his activity from lawful public nuisance to chargable offence...then in the same breathe condone assault and vigilantism. How does one who works to so meticulously hammer the technicalities of these shady actions as untouchable to police yet at the same time ACTUALLY voice support for THE SAME action by a father or other citizen who, unlike the police, actually do not have such authority to intervene???

Let's do the math.....for random parents/citizens to engage and possibly subdue this man = "Your right"

...for trained and authorized police personal to do the same thing = A glaring misuse of power and a blanket infringement on basic human freedoms and our criminal code

I'm sorry Aaron but I'm not buying it

quote:

Originally posted by Form&Funktion 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.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 The ex is private property. They could have escorted him off the property with the consent of the manager or superintendent of the property.

quote:

Originally posted by Form&Funktion Where is the logic in defending a very questionable figure who we must ALL conceed may very well have had photos on his cameras that pushed his activity from lawful public nuisance to chargable offence...

What pictures, if any, could have "pushed his activity from lawful public nuisance to chargable offence?" Unless he actually had hardcore pedophilia, which he didn't, there's no case for that. Besides which, the codification of pedophilia as a criminal offence is a gray issue at best - obviously the activity offends most of us including myself, so I won't open THAT can of worms here, but let's not treat this as some kind of absolute evil.

quote:

then in the same breathe condone assault and vigilantism. How does one who works to so meticulously hammer the technicalities of these shady actions as untouchable to police yet at the same time ACTUALLY voice support for THE SAME action by a father or other citizen who, unlike the police, actually do not have such authority to intervene???

I was not condoning assault, or the use of physical force at all by a parent - I was simply advocating confronting the situation instead of whining to the authorities.

And if confrontation fails (which it almost NEVER does, because the majority of all people will tend to avoid a fistfight), then speak to the property owners.

quote:

Let's do the math.....for random parents/citizens to engage and possibly subdue this man = "Your right" ...for trained and authorized police personal to do the same thing = A glaring misuse of power and a blanket infringement on basic human freedoms and our criminal code I'm sorry Aaron but I'm not buying it

Again, there's no right to use physical force at all, by citizens or by police. Confrontation does not have to involve physical force.

Police should have no stake in the situation unless there is physical force already involved.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Taking pictures of people in public is NOT illegal.. DONT YOU GET IT? ITS NOT ILLEGAL! SAY IT WITH ME NOW!

it depends where you are, in Quebec its strictly illegal to take pictures of people without their consent, public areas included.

who owns the CNE grounds?

the city

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 the city

so who is responsible for safety on city grounds?

An old man walking around with a hidden camera taking pictures of children. Several parents are concerned, so they go talk to the police to voice their concerns (perfectly acceptable thing to do). The police have an obligation to look into it (or are is it suggested the Police should ignore it?), so they go and talk to the man. This man does not cooperate, and he runs, then what happened happens.

I fail to see how anyone has a problem with this.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 the city

I'd consider "city" grounds as public property, no different than a public park.

public parks are in fact private property which why the city can enact and enforce its own bylaws. As well, the city can ask you to leave even if you arent doing anything illegal. If you refuse you can be charged with trespassing. Look to dundas square as an example of this. The rules regarding this square are pathetic to say the least.

^^^^ i work in public parks and with the city. If we see people taking pictures of kids we are suppose to stop it or call the po.

quote:

to confront this man and tell him to fuck off otherwise he's going to get hurt. But that doesn't justify police assuming control of the matter.

quote:

Again, there's no right to use physical force at all, by citizens or by police.

I fail to see the consistency here.......what then is this HURT you speak of in the first statement if you do not advocate physical force?

quote:

Besides which, the codification of pedophilia as a criminal offence is a gray issue at best

The fact that you concede that the laws regarding Pedaphilia are gray at best confirms my point that both the police and the courts are forced to make these borderline decisions on activity that suggests such offences and yet there is no shade of grey in your opposition to their actions towards this man. That is an inbalance in scope my friend.

I not once claimed he was guilty of anything...that is the rightful duty of the courts and "due process" to discern, not you or I. But it is clear his actions and subsequant non-cooperation after being confronted forced them to arrest him and in this environment of grey law interpretation...as you admit....it was their right to consider the situation and feel compelled to charge him.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 public parks are in fact private property which why the city can enact and enforce its own bylaws. As well, the city can ask you to leave even if you arent doing anything illegal. If you refuse you can be charged with trespassing. Look to dundas square as an example of this. The rules regarding this square are pathetic to say the least.

who is the enforcing body?

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