B.C. teen arrested for photographing mall takedown

[FreeRights]

The kid was initially arrested (detained) by the security guards. What gave them the power to do that?

For more information, read up on Section 494 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

[36Drew]

For more information, read up on Section 494 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

I'm familiar with it and am attempting to point out to you that:

1 - The guards did, under the definition of law, "arrest" the teen
2 - The act of taking a photograph is not an indictable or criminal offence.
3 - The guards could therefore could not have met the requirements of s494, and therefore had no powers to arrest under that section.

So - what, specifically, gave those security guards the power to arrest the youth?

[FreeRights]

I'm familiar with it and am attempting to point out to you that:

1 - The guards did, under the definition of law, "arrest" the teen
2 - The act of taking a photograph is not an indictable or criminal offence.
3 - The guards could therefore could not have met the requirements of s494, and therefore had no powers to arrest under that section.

So - what, specifically, gave those security guards the power to arrest the youth?

Had the guards arrested the kid for taking a photograph, then I would agree. However, nothing in the article states that this was why he was arrested.

It refers causing a disturbance, which likely stemmed from his swearing and obnoxious behaviour. He took a second photo while attempting to leave, but we don't know if he was free to leave at all at that point.

[FreeRights]

no im for neither but if two or three guards r gonna do that to a young kid maybe 2 or 3 of my burly buddies should grab one of these gaurds and hold them down take there phone and id and cut there clothing off of them all on private proerty of course cuz that makes it better rite ..

Everything you say is so saturated in bias and illogical thought process that it's truly hilarious.

Take a step back, realize how subjective you sound, and try to use a little common sense when jumping to conclusions, because nobody said that anything goes on private property.

[theyeti]

u said it pal and u call yourself free rights ??

[FreeRights]

u said it pal and u call yourself free rights ??

I encourage you to show me the quote where I even suggested that. Because either it doesn't exist, or you have a gross inability to read English.

[36Drew]

It refers causing a disturbance, which likely stemmed from his swearing and obnoxious behaviour. He took a second photo while attempting to leave, but we don't know if he was free to leave at all at that point.

The article states that he started being obnoxious after they grabbed him. He is entitled to use the force necessary (and only that which is necessary and reasonable) to protect his property and to avoid unlawful detention.

The RCMP themselves arrested him for breach of the peace. I'm not referring to the RCMP's arrest - but the initial arrest by the security guards (who are no police officers and have no police powers).

[FreeRights]

The article states that he started being obnoxious after they grabbed him. He is entitled to use the force necessary (and only that which is necessary and reasonable) to protect his property and to avoid unlawful detention.

Just a note, if anything, it would be an unlawful arrest. Again, private citizens can not detain, and an activity that feels like an arrest or a detention has been proven to be an arrest in case law.

That being said, a private citizen can not use force in avoiding an unlawful arrest. I don't know if that is a popular myth or not, but it is a myth nonetheless. The "victim" of a potentially unlawful arrest is not the individual who will determine the legality of the arrest - the justice system is.

The RCMP themselves arrested him for breach of the peace. I'm not referring to the RCMP's arrest - but the initial arrest by the security guards (who are no police officers and have no police powers).

Correct. When a citizen makes an arrest, they must "deliver" the apprehended subject to a peace officer's custody. The peace officer would then conduct an arrest based on the activity that the private citizen arrested for - in this case, breach of the peace or causing a disturbance.

Based on how this process works, the article essentially says that the subject was arrested for breach of the peace.

[theyeti]

well who cares what the law says if u r so stupid to let someone who isnt even a cop arrest u .. wow r ppl really that dumb

[FreeRights]

well who cares what the law says if u r so stupid to let someone who isnt even a cop arrest u .. wow r ppl really that dumb

Yeah, who needs laws?

[36Drew]

Just a note, if anything, it would be an unlawful arrest. Again, private citizens can not detain, and an activity that feels like an arrest or a detention has been proven to be an arrest in case law.

You're getting warmer. Yes, it would be an unlawful arrest. I think I've said that a few times already. Any form of detention the leaves a person not feeling free is considered an arrest by the courts. There's plenty of law on the books to define what an arrest is. The current benchmark is:

"Arrest consists of the actual seizure or touching of a person’s body with a view to his detention. The mere pronouncing of words of arrest is not an arrest, unless the person sought to be arrested submits to the process and goes with the arresting officer." [R v Whitfield (1970)]

That being said, a private citizen can not use force in avoiding an unlawful arrest. I don't know if that is a popular myth or not, but it is a myth nonetheless.

...and this is where you go cold again. Guess what - the courts disagree with you. It's not a myth. A person better be damned sure the arrest is unlawful, but they're most certainly permitted to resist. (s 34(1) of the criminal code) You should read through Canlii. There's plenty of decisions affirming that.

[noneofyourbiz3]

Yup. Littigate.

[noneofyourbiz3]

Is there a definition of unlawful arrest?

[36Drew]

Is there a definition of unlawful arrest?

This is probably the easiest read for the layperson: http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/F/FalseArrest.aspx

In a nutshell: If the law does not permit a person to be arrested, yet they are, then they have been unlawfully arrested.

[noneofyourbiz3]

Well anyone paying attention knows this has been a big issue in the states. Though we know it shouldnt be. So its important when this happens the lines are drawn niiice and clearly for the abusers. Littigate.