B.C. teen arrested for photographing mall takedown

[noneofyourbiz3]

Causing a disturbance is a summary offence. Private individuals cannot arrest for that.

But they can arrest for any dual or hybrid offense, which is a summary that may be tried as an indictable.

The same rights are extended to you and I.

[noneofyourbiz3]

and I guess in your mistaking you could arrest him if you do more than a summary offence he could then arrest you.

Do a little research instead of just jumping on the bandwagon of what other people say.

Many summary offenses can be tried as indictable offenses - these are called dual, or hybrid offenses.

Citizen's arrest applies to indictable and dual/hybrid offenses.

The citizen does not have to determine what the offense would be tried as, as long as it applies to a summary or hybrid offense.

Taking a picture isnt a hybrid or indictable offence. Assault likely is in varying or maybe all degrees. They didnt have the lawful authority to detain or manhandle him for a summary offence. He does now have that right if he is being assaulted to arrest them as they are now commiting indictable one upon him. Like I said. The mall doesnt waive my rights. I do when I subject myself willingly to their charge.

[FreeRights]

Taking a picture isnt a hybrid or indictable offence. Assault likely is in varying or maybe all degrees. They didnt have the lawful authority to detain or manhandle him for a summary offence. He does now have that right if he is being assaulted to arrest them as they are now commiting indictable one upon him. Like I said. The mall doesnt waive my rights. I do when I subject myself willingly to their charge.

Nothing in any article or any statement that we are aware of suggests that the individual was arrested for taking photographs. The police arrested him for breach of peace, and it suggests everywhere that he was arrested for his reaction to being advised he cannot take photographs.

You cannot be legally arrested for taking a photograph. You can, however, be legally arrested for causing a disturbance or breach of peace.

[noneofyourbiz3]

Taking a picture isnt a hybrid or indictable offence. Assault likely is in varying or maybe all degrees. They didnt have the lawful authority to detain or manhandle him for a summary offence. He does now have that right if he is being assaulted to arrest them as they are now commiting indictable one upon him. Like I said. The mall doesnt waive my rights. I do when I subject myself willingly to their charge.

Nothing in any article or any statement that we are aware of suggests that the individual was arrested for taking photographs. The police arrested him for breach of peace, and it suggests everywhere that he was arrested for his reaction to being advised he cannot take photographs.

You cannot be legally arrested for taking a photograph. You can, however, be legally arrested for causing a disturbance or breach of peace.

Why would you attach what Ive said to something not relevent? Everything up there is reference to mall security. Not the police. Please go back and read.

[noneofyourbiz3]

but you know that.

[FreeRights]

Why would you attach what Ive said to something not relevent? Everything up there is reference to mall security. Not the police. Please go back and read.

It is relevant. It doesn't say what mall security arrested them for, but it did describe his actions and stated what the police arrested him for. It's very reasonable to determine that mall security would have arrested him for a similar offense.

[36Drew]

It is relevant. It doesn't say what mall security arrested them for, but it did describe his actions and stated what the police arrested him for. It's very reasonable to determine that mall security would have arrested him for a similar offense.

It's also quite reasonable to deduce, based on the accounts stated in the media, that the mall security in fact were the cause for the disturbance. They grabbed the youth after he took a photo, he resisted. The media accounts state the events in this order

1 - he took a photo of the other mall takedown
2 - the mall security "turned on him" (not sure what that means) and demanded he delete the photo
3 - he turned to leave, saw the police arriving, took another photo as he was leaving
4 - the mall security grabbed him (which is now an arrest). He started swearing at them.

Based purely on the media accounts, the mall security had no legal justification for arresting the youth at that point. He apparently did not start swearing until after he was grabbed. Based on that order of events, it would be the mall security themselves that caused the disturbance by way of their assault.

Obviously I'm not the only one who holds that opinion. The Minister of Justice has decided to investigate further. Should that be, in fact, the order of events then those mall guards should be stripped of their license and criminally charged.