|
Man arrested at Ex for the devious act of.... (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Form&Funktion
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. |
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. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Carney
yo jay did you get beat up alot in school? |
Comments like this are clear indications that i have won the debate ;) |
|
|
| Carney |
| 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... |
|
|
| Carney |
| 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 ;) |
|
|
| sooper |
| 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?? |
|
|
| Form&Funktion |
| 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. |
|
|
| MarkT |
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? 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... |
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
| MarkT |
| 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. |
|
|
| Cataclysmic |
| Here's a hypothetical for you Jay. Suppose someone saw that sick 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? |
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
