|
Man arrested at Ex for the devious act of.... (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| 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 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. |
|
|
| DJ_Science |
| 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?! |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
i guess so.
as i said... the ramifications of this arrest scares the crap out of me. |
|
|
| Form&Funktion |
| 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 bull. |
|
|
| 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:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Cataclysmic |
| 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 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. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
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? |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
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? |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| 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:rolleyes: |
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!! |
|
|
| Form&Funktion |
| 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. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
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. |
|
|
| Form&Funktion |
| 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!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
|
