|
Man arrested at Ex for the devious act of.... (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Diginut: these guys are a lost cause. Let them feel good that theyve busted some wierdo taking pics and lets just hope they never get wrongly arrested. |
Why would any of us EVER find ourselves in this type of situation? Who here is going to get lippy with a cop or resist/flee when they're not guilty of any crime?
This guy brought this ALL on himself...from his undeniably suspicious behaviout to his lack of cooperation with the police.
Neither of you really acknowledged my point either...ie. IF this guy DID do something, the police would have been RIPPED by the public for not even approaching him at all. They were doing their job. If you want to criticize the parents for being paranoid fine...but being paranoid isn't any more illegal than taking concealed pics of children in public.
Honestly, you guys find overly protective parents more offensive than a guy taking pics of kids with a concealed camera? GIVE ME A BREAK! ;)
Loca, you should be more pissed at *your manager* for being such a and catering to the whining of that customer, lol... |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| I find a blatent disrespect for the law by the people who are supposed to enforce it offensive. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
I find a blatent disrespect for the law by the people who are supposed to enforce it offensive. |
so...people who smoke in a club, despite a no-smoking bylaw? (haha, couldn't resist)
I don't know where "disrespect for the law" factors into this case. The only law I see as having been broken here is when the guy apparently tried to flee and/or resisted arrest from the police.
but ok...argue some more for the manufactured "right" the creepy guy has to not be questioned by police who have received complaints about his deviant behaviour. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| i said "by the people who are supposed to enforce it" so i guess that means that if a bylaw officer (one of trailer park boys, or at least thats what they look like) was smoking then yes i d have to disrespect that guy as well. Although it would be priceless! |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
argue some more for the manufactured "right" the creepy guy has to not be questioned by police who have received complaints about his deviant behaviour. :rolleyes: |
He has the right to be escorted off private property. The right to be under surveillance and the right to be charged when an actual illegal act has been comitted. ie) if they investigate his server and find kiddie porn downloads. Sadly, Fantino just couldnt resist a photo op it seems. And because of this im sure it will be thrown out of court and the story at that point will be somewhere on page 12. The damage to him will have been done and fantino will still look like mr superhero. |
|
|
| Photon_Trance |
| quote: | Originally posted by Crazy Serb
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. |
They have a right to be paranoid
If people were more concerned like that then we will have less "Cacilia Zang" incidences |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| If people were even more paranoid we'd be an even more closed up society than we already are |
|
|
| Crazy Serb |
| quote: | Originally posted by Tordan
Now the difference is in a 3rd world country if a customer demands for their money back citing "lawsuit" they'd be lucky walk out the store fully functional. But over here in the western world, even the hint of "lawsuit" causes the shop owners to drop their pants and spread em. You can thank the American legal system for that. |
Hahaa... this system is pure jokes. People getting sued for all kinds of dumb things, just because the customer has a right to do it.
Oh man, if they tried to pull that off in my country, they'd get laughed at so much... it would probably make the newspaper headlines as well. And if they even thought of complaining to the store owners, hahhaa... they'd probably get beaten up too and kicked out of the store with a friendly advice of "Have more respect for me and my employees next time you walk in to the store, you dumb bitch!" |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
...complaints about his deviant behaviour. :rolleyes: |
Deviating from what exactly? I see that as the falling point of this argument. Unless he was actually exhibiting criminal behaviour, the police should not have been involved at all. Yes, he should have cooperated, for his own sake, but he had the right not to do so and should neither have been investigated in the first place nor arrested after the fact.
We can't equate moral relatives with legal absolutes, as much as citizens of this country enjoy doing that. The law is (or should be) black and white, either a crime was committed or it wasn't, and if police receive a complaint about something that is definitely NOT a crime, their default response should be "great, keep us posted". Or even to keep an eye on, but not directly confront the "suspicious man." But arresting him? On suspicion of... what exactly? There's simply no justification under the law for that.
It's nothing more than a "feel good" move by the police. They get away with it because it's popular, no matter how unlawful. But the primary responsibility of police is to uphold the law, not to ensure that other people feel good.
Police used to do this with black people, too. Black people made some bigots uncomfortable, so the police would step in and administer arrests or beatings on some half-witted suspicion. That was called racism. So what is the exact same thing called when the discomfort is called by something other than race? |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Deviating from what exactly? I see that as the falling point of this argument. Unless he was actually exhibiting criminal behaviour, the police should not have been involved at all. Yes, he should have cooperated, for his own sake, but he had the right not to do so and should neither have been investigated in the first place nor arrested after the fact.
...
|
I disagree...there's nothing wrong with him having been approached by police when they received complaints. Police are there to maintain order, not just uphold "the law".
If you're going to strictly follow the letter of the law in pointing out that he did nothing illegal, that you must also at least accept the fact that no one has a legal right to not be approached by police when exhibiting suspicious behaviour.
You can't have it both ways ;)
You're saying he "shouldn't" have been approached...well, the police did nothing "illegal" in approaching him. It works both ways. You're making a moral judgement on their actions, but object when moral judgements are made on the actions of the guy. That's inconsistent, IMHO. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
the police can approach him, but unless he was doing something wrong they cannot engage him. In other words, the police can ask all the questiosn they want, but unless you are under arrest you dont have to co-operate with them. Even then you have the right to remain silent.
Its sickening how many people do not even know their basic rights as evident by some of the comments posted here. |
|
|
|
|
