|
Man arrested at Ex for the devious act of.... (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by 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. |
And it would be your right - in fact it would be your duty as a parent - to confront this man and tell him to off otherwise he's going to get hurt. But that doesn't justify police assuming control of the matter. |
|
|
| Form&Funktion |
| quote: | 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... |
AMEN to that!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
| Form&Funktion |
| quote: | | And it would be your right - in fact it would be your duty as a parent - to confront this man and tell him to off otherwise he's going to get hurt. But that doesn't justify police assuming control of the matter. |
Where is the logic in defending a very questionable figure who we must ALL conceed may very well have had photos on his cameras that pushed his activity from lawful public nuisance to chargable offence...then in the same breathe condone assault and vigilantism. How does one who works to so meticulously hammer the technicalities of these shady actions as untouchable to police yet at the same time ACTUALLY voice support for THE SAME action by a father or other citizen who, unlike the police, actually do not have such authority to intervene???
Let's do the math.....for random parents/citizens to engage and possibly subdue this man = "Your right"
...for trained and authorized police personal to do the same thing = A glaring misuse of power and a blanket infringement on basic human freedoms and our criminal code
I'm sorry Aaron but I'm not buying it |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Form&Funktion
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. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
The ex is private property. They could have escorted him off the property with the consent of the manager or superintendent of the property. |
|
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Form&Funktion
Where is the logic in defending a very questionable figure who we must ALL conceed may very well have had photos on his cameras that pushed his activity from lawful public nuisance to chargable offence... |
What pictures, if any, could have "pushed his activity from lawful public nuisance to chargable offence?" Unless he actually had hardcore pedophilia, which he didn't, there's no case for that. Besides which, the codification of pedophilia as a criminal offence is a gray issue at best - obviously the activity offends most of us including myself, so I won't open THAT can of worms here, but let's not treat this as some kind of absolute evil.
| quote: | | then in the same breathe condone assault and vigilantism. How does one who works to so meticulously hammer the technicalities of these shady actions as untouchable to police yet at the same time ACTUALLY voice support for THE SAME action by a father or other citizen who, unlike the police, actually do not have such authority to intervene??? |
I was not condoning assault, or the use of physical force at all by a parent - I was simply advocating confronting the situation instead of whining to the authorities.
And if confrontation fails (which it almost NEVER does, because the majority of all people will tend to avoid a fistfight), then speak to the property owners.
| quote: | Let's do the math.....for random parents/citizens to engage and possibly subdue this man = "Your right"
...for trained and authorized police personal to do the same thing = A glaring misuse of power and a blanket infringement on basic human freedoms and our criminal code
I'm sorry Aaron but I'm not buying it |
Again, there's no right to use physical force at all, by citizens or by police. Confrontation does not have to involve physical force.
Police should have no stake in the situation unless there is physical force already involved. |
|
|
| malek |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Taking pictures of people in public is NOT illegal.. DONT YOU GET IT?
ITS NOT ILLEGAL!
SAY IT WITH ME NOW!
|
it depends where you are, in Quebec its strictly illegal to take pictures of people without their consent, public areas included. |
|
|
| StereoPrincess |
| who owns the CNE grounds? |
|
|
| StereoPrincess |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
the city |
so who is responsible for safety on city grounds? |
|
|
| tw1tch |
An old man walking around with a hidden camera taking pictures of children. Several parents are concerned, so they go talk to the police to voice their concerns (perfectly acceptable thing to do). The police have an obligation to look into it (or are is it suggested the Police should ignore it?), so they go and talk to the man. This man does not cooperate, and he runs, then what happened happens.
I fail to see how anyone has a problem with this. |
|
|
| tw1tch |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
the city |
I'd consider "city" grounds as public property, no different than a public park. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| public parks are in fact private property which why the city can enact and enforce its own bylaws. As well, the city can ask you to leave even if you arent doing anything illegal. If you refuse you can be charged with trespassing. Look to dundas square as an example of this. The rules regarding this square are pathetic to say the least. |
|
|
|
|
