|
Man arrested at Ex for the devious act of.... (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Superstar |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
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.
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. |
I don't think anyone phoned the police. They just saw officers walking around and it was convenient to get them to see what the guy was up to. My opinion is that his arrest had nothing to do with taking pictures. MarkT has already said it, what got him in trouble was not cooperating with police. Apparently the guy got violent and "A second officer was slightly injured during the arrest." |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Superstar
I don't think anyone phoned the police. They just saw officers walking around and it was convenient to get them to see what the guy was up to. My opinion is that his arrest had nothing to do with taking pictures. MarkT has already said it, what got him in trouble was not cooperating with police. Apparently the guy got violent and "A second officer was slightly injured during the arrest." |
The point is there was no reason he should have had to cooperate with the police in the first place. The Law does not function as a substitute for premise security. I'm making two simple points:
1) The police should never have been brought into it, whether they were called or tapped on the shoulder.
2) Whichever officers actually made the arrest would not have been out of their league to say to the management, "Hey great, call us when there's a real crime."
What's more, being uncooperative with police when there's no suspicion of actual crime is absolutely not a valid reason for an arrest. If they start to get violent then yes, that will lead to trouble, but as I understand it, he only got violent after they were already trying to arrest him. Our code of civil rights says that we can be as confrontational as we want with police and not have to worry about them using force unless we use force ourselves or we're believed to have committed an actual crime. We don't have to answer questions, or allow unreasonable searches. Sadly, this is no longer the truth in most cases; the police can be as belligerent and abusive as they want and there is nothing ordinary citizens can do about it.
Side note, it was the drug campaigns that truly eroded our civil rights to this extent with respect to police. But I guess that's another discussion entirely. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Our code of civil rights says that we can be as confrontational as we want with police and not have to worry about them using force unless we use force ourselves or we're believed to have committed an actual crime. We don't have to answer questions, or allow unreasonable searches. |
Unfortunately most people are too ignorant to realize the above point. Once when i was walking home from a bar the cops stopped me and started asking me where i was going etc etc. When they threatened to arrest me i said "for what? walking on the sidewalk at 2am?" And they left...
Go harass criminals!!
| quote: | Sadly, this is no longer the truth in most cases; the police can be as belligerent and abusive as they want and there is nothing ordinary citizens can do about it.
Side note, it was the drug campaigns that truly eroded our civil rights to this extent with respect to police. But I guess that's another discussion entirely. |
Not necissarily. If cops realize that you are well educated on your rights they will usually back off. You just have to be quick and well spoken. |
|
|
| crazedcanuck |
Unfortunately guys, the cops are part preventative/proactive, part reactionary/after the fact. (i'm sure we all have our stories of harassment, myself included)
This is a case where they were proactive in doing their jobs (investigating a public complaint) and if the man hadn't run @ the sight of the police and struggled with them(illegal btw to disobey a command from a police officer) there wouldn't have been a struggle and arrest. He took the wrong course of action when confronted, and payed the consequences. Imagine if any of us were to refuse to pullover when ordered for example, what are the likely outcomes there?
Due to growing up in the small town that became the provincial headquarters for the O.P.P as soon as I turned 16, I've been through the wringer a few times, simply for the way I dressed or car I drove (we can get into the profiling by race/class discussions another time) but I always came out clean by obeying nice commands like stop, exit your vehicle, etc, and then politefully and honestly dealing with the officers and giving them the proper answers and defending my rights when I felt I was being treated unfairly.
This wasn't a paranoid mob-hunt, this was an investigation in progress, and the subject is the one who reacted improperly here, not the police. |
|
|
| loconet |
What I think is happening here is that nobody is understanding or wanting to understand what Jay and Digi are saying.
North American society is ing spoiled by the law. They think the law is here to protect their parnoia and their every day cry for the smallest of bull. I've seen this done soooo many times. Not only here at home but by tourists in forgein countries as well! It is scary because out of nowhere you might get treated like a criminal for doing jack  . That is the point of this thread.
Unfortunatly It just happens that the guy taking picture of the kids might be a bad example to get that point across because he obviuosly was doing something shady by 1) hiding the camera, 2) resisting arrest.
I think both ends of the discussions are right here ! |
|
|
| crazedcanuck |
I think Jay and Digi are right as well in regards to the abuse of rights in general, but not in this situation.
Look @ the O.P.P for instance. They were the largest armed force with fully active staff in Canada, and are personally accountable not to higher ranking officers or boards, but to CABINET MINISTERS.
My room-mate's father is a high ranking OPP officer, and I didn't convince him about the Harris government until I drew the Police State paralell for him when he mentioned he mainly answered to MPPs.
Not that much of a co-incidence that Orillia got the OPP Academy and Headquarters when they got Casino Rama. Need a personal army to protect their millions. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
Phew, I'm glad to see some people are at least understanding what I'm trying to say even if they don't agree.
I'm not saying that this guy shouldn't have cooperated with the police. It's this age-of-entitlement thing that drives me crazy. Rights are now supposedly guarantees, and therefore the law is there not only to make sure that they CAN be happy but that they ARE happy, even if that impinges on somebody else's enjoyment. Well I call bull, society is due up for a total reversal of this principle.
People just need to take responsibility for themselves more often instead of complaining. |
|
|
| Form&Funktion |
| quote: | | I'm not saying that this guy shouldn't have cooperated with the police |
But that is exactly what you guys were saying earlier of which I had issue with. Even the man's own father admited to the media that he was most likely arrested after becoming beligerent because he has a very bad temper. Had he been polite and forthcoming with an understandable explaination (like Crazedcanuck suggests) then I doubt it would have happened the way it did.
I AM glad both sides of this debate are seeing a bit more of the middle ground though...myself included and I definatly agree with:
| quote: | | People just need to take responsibility for themselves more often instead of complaining. |
That truth should be more pertinant than any opinion posted here. I did immediatly think if it was my child...I would have gone up to him myself before looking for any authorities...as Digi had mentioned but that also has it's dangers and trappings.
The problem we face in terms of personal responsibility is that collectivley we've all but removed it from daily life. Look at no fault Car Insurance, look how parents abuse teachers because little Johnny is a up but they can't accept any blame, look at how people are afraid to even help a dying person on the street because they are too worried they'll get sued if they make one wrong move in terms of first aid. In this case personal responibility would have meant either to move on and ignore the man or confront him personally to stop if you had issue with his activity. If the law should not have intervened for his actions, they would have assuridly if a person confronted him and it led to assault. A great system....the creep stealing shots of kids gets off and the concerned and proactive citizen gets charged with assault, but everyone's rights have been preserved YAY!!!!! |
|
|
| LoCa |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Phew, I'm glad to see some people are at least understanding what I'm trying to say even if they don't agree.
I'm not saying that this guy shouldn't have cooperated with the police. It's this age-of-entitlement thing that drives me crazy. Rights are now supposedly guarantees, and therefore the law is there not only to make sure that they CAN be happy but that they ARE happy, even if that impinges on somebody else's enjoyment. Well I call bull, society is due up for a total reversal of this principle.
People just need to take responsibility for themselves more often instead of complaining. |
I can very much relate to what you and Jay are trying to say. As loconet pointed out, people in North America are spoiled into thinking they can cry wolf at any given opportunity.
Just a recent example of how this has degenerated:
I work at a very big tourist shop in Dublin behind the cash registers. We have a huge amount of Americans who come to the place everday. Now earlier this week, I had heard about a warning of a supposed "electronic jihad" against American banks, which would result in chaos for Americans at home and abroad.
That day I had quite a few American customers ask me if I knew where a "working ATM" was because it seemed their cards were being declined in most ATMs.
I was busy helping two Americans at my till when an American lady came to the register next to mine asking that same question: "Where do I find a working ATM?". Hearing her say that, I jokingly commented that "it must be only American credit cards that are being declined". The people I was helping laughed at the comment. The other woman said nothing. I go on my lunch and resume everything as normal. At the end of the day, I get called into the shop owner's office.
By this time I'm petrified because someone had already leaked to me that a customer had complained about me.
What do you know, that silly bitch had gone to my manager after I left for lunch (under the pretext that she couldn't stand the sight of me) and asked for all her money back and an official apology from myself and the shop otherwise she would sue the shop for the diffamation of the good American name. Apparently she had been extremely upset by my (in my eyes) anodine comment.
Give me a break? I wasn't attacking friggin America when I said that (and God forbid I ever do). The people I was helping were Americans and laughed about it for christ's sake! But no, this woman thought what I had said was extremely unpleasant, hurtful, and wanted her money back. Not to mention the fact that she also asked for money because of the fact that she went through "emotional distress".
I can't even say something as little as that without being threatened with a lawsuit. If that's not spoiled, I don't know what is. People should chill the feck out and relax a little when it comes to small things like that. Had I smacked her across the face and called her a dumbass I would have expected something, yes. But for something as small as that well... I'm realizing more and more how much North America in general has become over-sensitive to the most minor things. |
|
|
| malek |
| loca what you are describing is menopaused bitch who has no common sense. |
|
|
| Tordan |
| quote: | Originally posted by LoCa
What do you know, that silly bitch had gone to my manager after I left for lunch (under the pretext that she couldn't stand the sight of me) and asked for all her money back and an official apology from myself and the shop otherwise she would sue the shop for the diffamation of the good American name. Apparently she had been extremely upset by my (in my eyes) anodine comment. |
Trust me... the "good American name" had nothing to do with it. It was all about the money. This cheap bitch just seized the opportunity to get her money back. I've worked retail here and overseas. This happens all the time. 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. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
The funny thing is that in the 3rd world "poor countries" people would never make a scandal over not being able to use a $1.00 off coupon for example. Ive had many instances of people freaking out because they cant combine a coupon with a discount. In many other countries, It would be a shame if this happened and people would look down on the complainer. The people behind the counter probably would have even laughed at the patheticnessof the person in their face!
Sadly here people expect to their ass to be kissed even when they are wrong. Its brutal to be honest with you.
Lets not even get me started on how oversensitive people are. The refreshing thing i found about england for example is how comical people were even at stores. They werent afraid to crack a joke much like loca's. Here you can't do it and if you do it's a risk. This is why we now have a society that is robotic and scripted especially when it comes to business. I personally dont care and i crack tasteful jokes with my customers all the time. If one day i get a complaint ill just deal with it. Id feel sorry for them though. |
|
|
|
|
