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.

___________________
Subscribe to MCast podcasting of Beat Science Worldwide:

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

MCAST - Automated Variant Music

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

___________________
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 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

___________________
Subscribe to MCast podcasting of Beat Science Worldwide:

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

MCAST - Automated Variant Music

Last edited by Form&Funktion on Aug-26-2004 at 18:01

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?