quote:

Originally posted by Skipper In principal, yes, the arrest seems shady. But if I saw a strange man taking pictures with a concealed camera of my child, I'd flip out a little too.

The law is (was) based on principal... not someones kooked out emotions.

Sadly it looks like the emotions and a photo opportunity won out over justice.

Jesus Jay.........throw away the technicalities for a second and use your common sense....I know you have it from other posts but I think you are way off on this one.

The point here is even if he truly was a hobbiest out for innocence pics out at the CNE a) what possible logic can you derive from concealing your camera b) when approached, simply talk with the officer regarding your intentions...DO NOT run then fight with the arresting officer c) why are there only photos of children on the cameras (as reported in The Star) d) if innocently taking pictures and you are asked to stop by parents....why do you persist until MULTIPLE parents complain to police?

I agree it's mostly circumstantial but the burden of evidence highly suggests mischieveious behavior....of which is his main charge against him. Lastely, given due cause for this behavior surrounding children, the cops had a LEGAL search order of which they executed. I feel bad for the unwitting parents but the police followed pretty standard procedure here.

On a satirical note: How much can you REALLY trust a single 42 old man who still lives with his parents anyway?

___________________
Subscribe to MCast podcasting of Beat Science Worldwide:

http://www.mcast.mercuryserver.com/?feed=rss2&cat=24

MCAST - Automated Variant Music

quote:

If i had a nickle for every kid i knew who had a switchblade because they thought it was cool in high school.

How many kids in highschool do you know are 42 years old?

___________________
Subscribe to MCast podcasting of Beat Science Worldwide:

http://www.mcast.mercuryserver.com/?feed=rss2&cat=24

MCAST - Automated Variant Music

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 He wouldnt have resisted arrest had he not been arrested. And, since he shouldnt have been arrested this charge should also be dropped. Want to nab this guy for kiddie porn? Catch him downloading it which is actually an illegal act. Dont just charge him for doing what i would definately call questionable, BUT LEGAL things.

What should they have done, once they realized he was taking pictures of other people's children with an intentionally hidden camera?

just curious.

___________________
I gots some of them there songs I wrote, mmm hmmm that's right ---> www.TrevorKay.tk

We are the ones we've been waiting for

Jayx, I just wanted some clarification regarding your comments. Are you suggesting that it is Canadian Law that is commiting error here?
i.e. a classic Jayx rant about how are freedom is being comprimised, blah, blah, blah type deal...

Or are you simply saying that public perception is affecting the manner in which our police force react to these types of scenarios?

You have to understand that this is a highly sensitive issue for some. Current culture dictates that parents have to be very protective of their children, due to the number of abductions, sex crimes, etc. that are committed. Our police force is driven by public opinion. If people came up to Fantino and said there is some creep taking pics of little kids, what was he supposed to do? You failed to mention that it was reported (may or may not have happened) that this guy resisted arrest. The only reason he was "taken down" was because of his actions.

If you are saying that public opinion is forcing the hand of our police force, I will agree with you. However, I would submit that this is preferrable to a force that does not value public opinion.

aaah so if he were single and living with his parents at 22 it would be different?

Sorry but technicality is what the rule of law is all about. You cant just throw justice to the wind because your emotions are getting the better of you.

quote:

I agree it's mostly circumstantial but the burden of evidence highly suggests mischieveious behavior....of which is his main charge against him.

circumstantial evidence has never (or was never)been enough to get you charged or convicted in the past. Not to mention the charge is mischief, not picture taking. Whats to stop the police from arresting other people for public picture taking?

Im not defending this guy if he does turn out to be a perv. But the manner in which they went about apprehending this guy is what is disturbing. By this logic, will the act of driving down jarvis and looking at prostitutes now be considered soliciting? Where do we draw the line?

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 The law is (was) based on principal... not someones kooked out emotions. Sadly it looks like the emotions and a photo opportunity won out over justice.

But was he charged with anything?

quote:

Originally posted by Cataclysmic Jayx, I just wanted some clarification regarding your comments. Are you suggesting that it is Canadian Law that is commiting error here? i.e. a classic Jayx rant about how are freedom is being comprimised, blah, blah, blah type deal... Or are you simply saying that public perception is affecting the manner in which our police force react to these types of scenarios?

im suggesting both. Canadian law has comitted an error by charging someone with a crime that is not registered on the books and will continue this error if he is convicted. It is my guess that this will get thrown out by the courts. The police are acting on public emotion which is not a good thing either. The police are not there to create the law they are there to enforce it.

If the police had acted within their means the

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper But was he charged with anything?

mischief since "public photo taking" isnt a charge.

Jay, you're sid stepping the real issue here. The police were acting on information provided by the public which suggested that this man was commiting a crime. They arrested the man based on this information. The crime that he was suspected of is a grave one, and hence the take down that ensued. Comparing: a) taking pics. of little kids at the ex and b) looking at hookers from your car are two completely seperate things. Come on man, you cannot honestly believe the two are remotely parallel in any way.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Let me tell you a story related to this: I had to pick up a friend who works at a daycare centre the other day. Of course their policy is that they never hire men. So i had to wait 10 minutes int he car for her to come outside. Do you want to know how many people stared at me and look at me as if i were some sort of child molester. People coming to get their kids, people who actually worked there who looked out the window repeatedly and then even asked my friend if she knew who i was. The whole experience made me feel so nervous that i told her im never going back there to pick her up again. She can take the bus.

Now that's just downright paranoia... people need to chill out a bit. Everyone's so afraid of everything these days, politically correct, scared of terrorists, government, pedofiles, etc.

___________________

Keep it real, and stay single, always mingle...