B.C. teen arrested for photographing mall takedown

[Captain Awesome]

If I'm not mistaken, Metrotown doesn't allow cameras inside the mall. Security might have had a problem with the camera simply because of that - with the drama that followed.

[twobits]

If I'm not mistaken, Metrotown doesn't allow cameras inside the mall. Security might have had a problem with the camera simply because of that - with the drama that followed.

With virtually every phone being a camera these days, i'd like to see them enforce that. Besides, I don't think they can legally stop people from snapping pics in a mall. While it may be private property, it is also considered a public area and rights to privacy are very well documented when one is in a place considered to be public. The mall parking lot is also private property. Do you think you could stop someone from taking your picture there? Not a chance. The only places where you have a legal right to object are those places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy such as a bathroom or change room or any place that is not open to the general public. Exception would be the protection of artistic content or copright as in a theater.

If you were in your own front yard with a view of the street you couldn't stop me from taking your pic.....you are considered to be in public view. In a fenced back yard, different story....there exists a reasonable expectation of privacy.

[keith1612]

i was wrong the police recommended charges and the crown decided it was acceptable.

You still seem to have trouble with people in authority...as you are throwing stones at the RCMP for doing their job. Search in the criminal code "Murder" you will find it was far from it.

well sorry to me strangling then tying someone up in alot of places would be considered murder.
just because he is a sterio salesman in his place of work doesnt make him trained for physical altercations.
and its not a problem with authority, i just dont think we should be expected to believe or agree with everything one in power does.
even those in power need to be accountable sometimes.

[keith1612]

If I'm not mistaken, Metrotown doesn't allow cameras inside the mall. Security might have had a problem with the camera simply because of that - with the drama that followed.

hmmm i am pretty sure if you enter the mall this christmas season you will see many camera's out taking pictures.
the real issue appears to be the mall cops didnt want evidence of their actions being public and the police backed them up on that.
that gives the appearance of a cover up and if no rules were broken would make the situation appear worse.

[FreeRights]

With virtually every phone being a camera these days, i'd like to see them enforce that. Besides, I don't think they can legally stop people from snapping pics in a mall. While it may be private property, it is also considered a public area and rights to privacy are very well documented when one is in a place considered to be public. The mall parking lot is also private property. Do you think you could stop someone from taking your picture there? Not a chance. The only places where you have a legal right to object are those places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy such as a bathroom or change room or any place that is not open to the general public. Exception would be the protection of artistic content or copright as in a theater.

If you were in your own front yard with a view of the street you couldn't stop me from taking your pic.....you are considered to be in public view. In a fenced back yard, different story....there exists a reasonable expectation of privacy.

No, Metrotown is still private property and can enforce a no photographs policy. Same with casinos, retail establishments, and concert venues.

well sorry to me strangling then tying someone up in alot of places would be considered murder.
just because he is a sterio salesman in his place of work doesnt make him trained for physical altercations.
and its not a problem with authority, i just dont think we should be expected to believe or agree with everything one in power does.
even those in power need to be accountable sometimes.

On the flip side, we shouldn't believe the opposite when we have such a lack of evidence or facts.

Different degrees of murder require varying levels of intent to commit; I have no idea how you would be able to argue that, during a legal citizens arrest, the intent to murder the shoplifter was there.

hmmm i am pretty sure if you enter the mall this christmas season you will see many camera's out taking pictures.
the real issue appears to be the mall cops didnt want evidence of their actions being public and the police backed them up on that.
that gives the appearance of a cover up and if no rules were broken would make the situation appear worse.

I don't understand this point. Even based on the photos and the article, the original arrest appeared legal - there is no complaint from that individual that I am aware of, so it is reasonable to suspect that the arrest was proper.

Metrotown does have a no photography policy. This is not about mall security covering anything up and all about enforcing policy. Ignoring whether or not it was handled properly, mall security would have actually failed at their job if they did not approach this individual because he was in breach of site policy.

[keith1612]

yes i agree if the mall has a no photo rule then he is in the wrong.
now how far the police and security took it surprised me,

[steelrules]

No photo policy or not the gauards did in fact commit an assault against this teen, at best all gaurds could have done legally was to escort the teen off of the property, in fact they didn't even have the right to ask the persons name or to show ID.

A mall is a public place "there is no expectation of privacy"

Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides everyone in Canada with protection against unreasonable search and seizure. This right provides Canadians with their primary source of constitutionally enforced privacy rights against unreasonable intrusion from the state. Typically, this protects personal information that can be obtained through searching someone in pat-down, entering someone's property or surveillance.

Under the heading of legal rights, section 8 states:

“ 8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. ”

Some on this forum shill for corporations and police but this is the law, the shills are just trying to make you believe your rights are fungible.

I'll be happy to see the size of the damages awarded this teen and charges brought against the gaurds.

[Madhue]

Some on this forum shill for corporations and police but this is the law, the shills are just trying to make you believe your rights are fungible.

I'll be happy to see the size of the damages awarded this teen and charges brought against the gaurds.

Absolute perfection in your post. At no point does one advocate their rights of search and seizure in this case unless the individual. But I'll take this ball one step further, for a Police Officer to Search and make a Lawful Arrest an individual there must be "reasonable suspicion" objective and factual events or evidence that a crime has been committed. Not a Rule of the Mall... an actual crime.

What was this young mans crime? Furthermore what were the objective events that necessitated this minor being held against his will and searched?
We have a judicial process for civil court that is the mall wanted those photos for to use, circumventing that and using arms of the criminal justice system is an absurd response to this matter.

[Captain Awesome]

With virtually every phone being a camera these days, i'd like to see them enforce that.

Well, they don't, but they can.

Besides, I don't think they can legally stop people from snapping pics in a mall. While it may be private property, it is also considered a public area and rights to privacy are very well documented when one is in a place considered to be public.

No, the mall is private property and can enforce all the rules they can come up with - unless they're against the law. They can tell you what you can and what you can not wear, they can tell you whether or not you're allowed to photograph, they can tell you what behavior is unwelcome, and they can flat out ban you from the properties. This is not public property.

[castakelowna]

With virtually every phone being a camera these days, i'd like to see them enforce that.

Well, they don't, but they can.

Besides, I don't think they can legally stop people from snapping pics in a mall. While it may be private property, it is also considered a public area and rights to privacy are very well documented when one is in a place considered to be public.

No, the mall is private property and can enforce all the rules they can come up with - unless they're against the law. They can tell you what you can and what you can not wear, they can tell you whether or not you're allowed to photograph, they can tell you what behavior is unwelcome, and they can flat out ban you from the properties. This is not public property.

ya, they can tell you whatever the heck they want, whether you listen is your choice! If you dont, they can ask you to leave. If you dont leave, they can remove you, or call the cops. I worked as a bouncer in a bar for a few years, we had the same right. But, what I could not do, is tackle someone to the ground for taking a picture and then try to take their camera! I also could not force them to delete the picture. That is assault and attempted robbery!

The mall security should have asked him to leave which was all they were permitted by law to do! They were lucky it was a 16 yr. old minor and not me! I am capable of defending myself!

I hope the boy and his parents sue and get a huge amount of $$$ from the mall and make sure everyone hears about it. Pathetic wanna be cops violating peoples rights disgust me

[castakelowna]

No photo policy or not the gauards did in fact commit an assault against this teen, at best all gaurds could have done legally was to escort the teen off of the property, in fact they didn't even have the right to ask the persons name or to show ID.

A mall is a public place "there is no expectation of privacy"

Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides everyone in Canada with protection against unreasonable search and seizure. This right provides Canadians with their primary source of constitutionally enforced privacy rights against unreasonable intrusion from the state. Typically, this protects personal information that can be obtained through searching someone in pat-down, entering someone's property or surveillance.

Under the heading of legal rights, section 8 states:

“ 8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. ”

Some on this forum shill for corporations and police but this is the law, the shills are just trying to make you believe your rights are fungible.

I'll be happy to see the size of the damages awarded this teen and charges brought against the gaurds.

now if we can just get the cops and wannabies to understand this...

[castakelowna]

Pretty black and white here as far as I am concerned. The security guards are guilty of assault. If they tried to physically take the camera from him , it borders on attempted robbery. Metrotown's lawyers should probably advise them to repeal the 6 month ban , issue an official apology , and maybe a gift certificate in hopes that there would be no hard feelings. A lawsuit (even if frivolous , could cost 10's of thousands of $$$ )

agreed!

[castakelowna]

The constant abuse of the Charter is beyond comprehension to me. Sad part is people keep taking it in the azz and think its the norm!

and the more we allow them to trample our rights the more it will happen! We need to stand up for what is right

[castakelowna]

The constant abuse of the Charter is beyond comprehension to me. Sad part is people keep taking it in the azz and think its the norm!

Not quite sure it's that black and white. Metrotown is not a public space. It's private property and the owners of that property can control what happens on their property. They can say that no photographs are allowed to be taken on their property without their consent and that doesn't infringe on anybody's Charter rights.

I think he also crossed the line when he took the second photograph AFTER he was told not to.

ya they can make their rules, they are not laws.... and if you dont follow the rules they can ask you to leave. Unless you refuse to leave, they have no right to touch you. trying to take the camera is plain robbery if you ask me!

[castakelowna]

actually i dont think he can really demand photo's are not taken unless that rule is openly posted and enforced for every person who enters the mall.
even if there was a sign they still have no legal rights to assault a child and the police again without even investigating take a mickey mouse security mall cops word over a kid with pictures.
in kelowna a Andre's employee murdered a shoplifter and the police called it acceptable use of force.
go figure.
protecting a $20 cable from a shoplifter is worth a life.

Two things.

One, yes. A private property can and legally do enforce rules that may not be strictly posted.

Second, Metrotown does have that specific rule posted.

I think one factor we are not really spending enough time on is that we only have one side of the story. The police likely have a lot more information than we do, and Metrotown has surveillance cameras that may show the actions at that time. So far, we have the police and Metrotown essentially saying that this person was not assaulted, against this person who claims he was assaulted.

We have a news story broadcasting that one person's perspective of the event, and everybody supports it completely. I am not saying that it is incorrect or inaccurate, but I am saying that we do not have as much information as any other party in this event to make a conclusion on whether it was handled appropriately or not.

Exactly, they do have their own video! Why do you think we are not seeing it?! If this kid was lying, that would be slander and defamation, his parents could be held liable. Come on, they would be all over this if they did nothing wrong!