Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Canada News

Canadian Teenager Arrested For Photographing Mall Takedown 770

Posted by Soulskill
from the i'm-sure-it-was-a-polite-takedown dept.
blackfrancis75 writes "An aspiring teenage journalist in B.C., Canada who witnessed a mall takedown and decided to photograph it (using a real-film camera), was told to 'delete' the photo by security guards. He (quite legally) refused to do so, and when local police arrived they assisted mall security in pushing him to the ground, handcuffing him, cutting off his backpack with a utility knife and searching it. 'He said the security guards held him, attempting to grab his camera, and he was pushed to the ground. He said he then tried to use his body to protect two cameras he carried in his bag. "They're just yelling and screaming, and just telling me to stop resisting," Markiewicz said.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canadian Teenager Arrested For Photographing Mall Takedown

Comments Filter:
  • lawsuit time? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bloodhawk (813939) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @07:08PM (#41792507)
    I don't much like the litigious nature that has invaded our society But... I hope he sues their arses off.
  • Re:I'm sorry but.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 27, 2012 @07:13PM (#41792555)

    ...you should never assume that capturing photons flying through public spaces is illegal. Ever.

  • by Alain Williams (2972) <addw@phcomp.co.uk> on Saturday October 27, 2012 @07:14PM (#41792565) Homepage

    They should be sued for assault and for damage to his property. This should be paid for by the individuals, not out of RCMP funds - several thousand $ is a lot to individual members of the RCMP, but not to the RCMP as an organisation. Unless there is a penalty for their actions they will not change.

    They should then be fired since it is plain that they are not fit to serve in the trusted role that RCMP is.

    Doug MacDougall needs to have it explained that someone does not have to do everything that their staff demand, their staff have limits on what they can ask someone to do.

  • Re:I'm sorry but.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 27, 2012 @07:14PM (#41792571)

    you shouldn't assault a kid when you are unsure of the legality of taking pictures

  • Re:I'm sorry but.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Swarley (1795754) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @07:14PM (#41792573)

    When legality is defined by whatever a mall security guard says then nobody can ever be sure about what is or is not legal. That's why we have laws codified by government and available for everybody to read. Security guards don't get to make it up as they go.

  • Re:I'm sorry but.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by _8553454222834292266 (2576047) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @07:17PM (#41792605)

    You, the security guards, and the police are the only idiots unsure of the legality of taking a picture. The rest of us aren't retarded.

  • Re:lawsuit time? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 27, 2012 @07:22PM (#41792649)

    Myself, I would like to see the mall security cameras footage (if available), or independent witnesses. There's the security personel's / RCMP story, the victim's story, and the truth.

  • Re:I'm sorry but.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 27, 2012 @07:25PM (#41792667)

    You're right. They can tell him not to take photos, and they can tell him to leave the premises, but that's it. They have no right to detain him or to search his person or his belongings because he took a photo.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 27, 2012 @07:33PM (#41792739)

    Private security folk do not have any right to man-handle people who are not are non-threatening in Canada. With no apparent theft, or abuse or danger imminent, their sole legal recourse should have been to contact the RCMP.

    The problem was the kid losing his cool. Now he'll probably get nowhere with what should have been a great lawsuit and a huge embarrassment to the mall.

    Instead his "causing a disturbance" gave the police cause to arrest him. After that, it was all normal. When you arrest someone you make sure they're no longer armed, if that requires cutting off their backpack (because they cuffed you for causing a disturbance) then that's normal too. I know it's rude, but it's practical. Get over it.

    I don't know if I could have done any better than this kid at 16. And I'm glad he stood up to them.

    If you can keep your cool, when you've snapped a great takedown pick and a mall-cop demands something of you, politely decline, and start dialling 911 as you explain why they have no right to it. If they proceed with initiating force to take things from you describe what is happening to you phone as it's happening. In most places these calls are recorded. Let them bring all the force and you “be the guy” who wanted the police involved and a non-violent solution from the beginning.

    If you can pull that off, when they explain themselves to the police and the judge, they're going to sound like the dickheads that they are.

  • Re:I'm sorry but.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fustakrakich (1673220) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @07:34PM (#41792747) Journal

    Corporations are not our government.

    Where have you been? Government is the proxy of corporate authority.

  • by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @07:47PM (#41792833)
    I have seen them do it in many clips on the internet by now: they assault an innocent victim, all the while chanting "Stop resisting!"

    Apparently the idea is to make it look like the person is resisting arrest, justifying their use of force.

    It's complete bullshit of course. Which is precisely why we need those cameras.
  • Re:I'm sorry but.. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by fm6 (162816) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @07:59PM (#41792915) Homepage Journal

    Slashdot users amaze me. They're experts not just on U.S. law but Canadian law as well!

  • Re:I'm sorry but.. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jklovanc (1603149) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @08:02PM (#41792943)

    The guard does not make the policy; management does. If the guard does not enforce the management policy they will be fired for cause. The guards were probably just doing as they were told and any blame should be put on the policy makers. Would you risk your job or follow policy? This is not an "I was just following orders" as used in the Munich trials; no one was killed.

    Does the policy need to be changed? Probably but thet is not the guard's call.

  • by fredprado (2569351) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @08:14PM (#41793055)
    When you are told to jump from a bridge, jump from a bridge, right? When you are told to delete something that can't be deleted (because it is within a chemical film) by people who don't have the right to ask you to do so, then do it, right?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 27, 2012 @08:22PM (#41793109)

    Deleting the photos is destruction of evidence and is illegal (at least in the USA) and so is not complying with reasonable requests by police officers. It doesn't matter what you do, only the moods of the officers matter.

    Just don't move unless they tell you to move, is it that hard?

    There used to be something called passive resistance. You'd sit down. freeze, and/or go limp and do absolutely nothing. Then they'd handcuff you, pick you up, and drag you to their car. Nowadays they call that resisting arrest and beat you for it until you can't comply, then beat you some more for not complying.

  • Re:lawsuit time? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wonkey_monkey (2592601) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @08:27PM (#41793153) Homepage

    I think it's fair to want people to resolve differences like reasonable adults.

    Differences like a mall security wanting some kid to delete his photos, and the kid refusing/being unable to do so? That should have been resolved in a reasonable manner, but it wasn't.

    But when it comes down to the decision to sue or not to sue, it should be based on what's in your best interests

    I'd say reminding the authorities of their responsibilities to the public is in everyone's personal interest. It's sad that dragging them to court seems to be the best way of doing that these days, but there we are.

  • Re:I'm sorry but.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Guru80 (1579277) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @08:43PM (#41793289)
    It's private property but you still can't be assaulted over taking a picture. You can tell someone to leave and not come back, refuse to serve someone, ect but nowhere does the law allow you to be physically retrained and your person property cut off from you for taking a photo. No free society should ever tolerate such completely and utter b.s.
  • Re:I'm sorry but.. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 27, 2012 @08:50PM (#41793315)

    This is not an "I was just following orders" as used in the Munich trials; no one was killed.

    Stop. Someone needn't be killed in order for that excuse to be bullshit. If you do something immoral, "I was just following orders" won't cut it.

  • Re:lawsuit time? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by myowntrueself (607117) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @08:53PM (#41793331)

    I think it's fair to want people to resolve differences like reasonable adults.

    Differences like a mall security wanting some kid to delete his photos, and the kid refusing/being unable to do so? That should have been resolved in a reasonable manner, but it wasn't.

    If someone tells you to delete the photos, you ask them "have I committed a crime by taking these photos?" If they say "yes" then you tell them "So you are asking me to destroy evidence of a crime?" if they say "yes" to that then you tell them "so you are asking me to commit another crime." All done in a level, reasonable tone of voice.

    If they say "no, you have not committed a crime by taking these photos." then you say "Then I am free to go. Thank you for your time." and walk away.

    *reasonable manner*

  • Re:I'm sorry but.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Scarletdown (886459) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @08:54PM (#41793337) Journal

    Slashdot users amaze me. They're experts not just on U.S. law but Canadian law as well!

    It's a thing called common sense. Try using it sometime and you will see how liberating it can be. This common sense stuff allows for discussions on any number of topics without having to be fully schooled in the subject and a practitioner in that field. It also allows you to go about your day to day life without having to appeal to some higher authority for permission to engage in most anything you feel like doing that is harmless to all.

  • Re:I'm sorry but.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AthanasiusKircher (1333179) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @09:02PM (#41793375)

    When legality is defined by whatever a mall security guard says then nobody can ever be sure about what is or is not legal.

    I can't speak to local statutes, but an owner of private property (e.g., a mall) can have restrictions on what constitutes acceptable behavior on that property. If you violate them, they can ask you to leave; if you don't, they can have the police arrest you for trespass.

    If you come into my house and do something I deem inappropriate, I have the right to ask you to leave. If you don't, I can call the police to force you to leave my property. The same thing is true of owners of malls.

    Mall security guards are generally assumed to have the authority of the owner to enforce and interpret the owner's policies.

    That's why we have laws codified by government and available for everybody to read. Security guards don't get to make it up as they go.

    Actually, they can "make it up" to some extent, as long as they have the support of the owner. There is no requirement that their actions even be consistent, as long as they do not violate other laws (physical assault, discrimination against a particular race or something, etc.).

    In this case, the security guards clearly had the right to request someone to leave after taking a photo, if they deemed it within the scope of what the owner of the property would consider inappropriate activity (and a mall owner might in fact not want photos or videos of his security personnel showing up on the internet).

    That said, they did not have the right to confiscate his property. If there was a posted warning that people who entered the property could not take photographs, they might be able to get the police to take legal action on their behalf, or perhaps sue the person in court to force compliance with the mall policy -- e.g., if the person posted video of the mall on the internet, the mall might be able to sue for damages if it clearly had a policy disallowing photography. It doesn't sound like there was any posted warning in this case, at least from the incomplete account in TFA.

    It sounds like it all went wrong when the police arrived, and they forced an arrest and confiscation of property, rather than simply forcing the person leave the premises, as was probably the appropriate legal remedy for the security guards here.

    The security guards may have been in error for overstepping their own bounds in their request, but in doing so they did not commit any crime (again, I'm relying on the account in TFA). But the real issue here is the police who assaulted a private citizen (and, it sounds like, authorized the mall security to assist in assaulting him) and confiscated property apparently without cause.

  • Re:lawsuit time? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kuroji (990107) <kuroji@gmail.com> on Saturday October 27, 2012 @09:10PM (#41793409)

    Because being reasonable EVER works in this situation?

  • Re:lawsuit time? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by PopeRatzo (965947) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @09:15PM (#41793447) Homepage Journal

    In a libertarian country, you would see people behaving in the same law-abiding manner as you do here.

    Are you referring to the "law-abiding manner" in which our business and financial communities have behaved?

    Libertarians seem to believe that without heavy regulation that free market fairy dust is going to make all the bankers be honest and all the drug companies put only the ingredients that are safe into their pills and the energy companies not destroy the environment out of the goodness of their hearts? That the two biggest companies in any given sector will not get together and fix prices once we finally get rid of the anti-trust regulations?

    Libertarians are childish and dangerous. Their beliefs are based entirely on the doctrine of "If only..."

  • by BadgerRush (2648589) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @09:27PM (#41793505)
    What the RCMP officers did VERY wrong was to blindly take sides in a dispute, helping an aggressor against his victim. They arrived to the scene where suspect A was assaulting, holding down and trying to destroy property of suspect B who was resisting the aggression and trying to protect his property. Then they proceeded to cuff suspect B (the victim), damage and confiscate his property, and arrest him; all while leaving suspect A (the aggressor) free.
  • by Tastecicles (1153671) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @09:33PM (#41793543)

    if you have a photo of a crime being committed the LAST THING YOU DO is comply with an UNLAWFUL ORDER to delete it! You would be arrested for destroying evidence!

  • Re:lawsuit time? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 27, 2012 @09:45PM (#41793617)

    Libertarians are childish and dangerous.

    So are republicans and democrats. Maybe you already thought that, but if not, grow a brain.

  • Re:lawsuit time? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 27, 2012 @09:50PM (#41793649)

    "Libertarians seem to believe that without heavy regulation that free market fairy dust is going to make all the bankers be honest"

    No, but without government intervention the free market fairy dust would have washed them away in 2008. Instead they were rewarded and nothing has changed, to the shock of many.

    "all the drug companies put only the ingredients that are safe into their pills"

    Like the one recently that gave people meningitis?

    "energy companies not destroy the environment out of the goodness of their hearts"

    No, they'd do it to avoid lawsuits.

  • by dgharmon (2564621) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @09:57PM (#41793685) Homepage

    > Myself, I would like to see the mall security cameras footage (if available) ..

    Inexplicably, the cameras were not working on the day ...

  • Re:lawsuit time? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheRealMindChild (743925) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @09:57PM (#41793691) Homepage Journal
    If someone is asserting that you delete anything in the first place, their motive is to cover their ass. If no one is watching, it ends up being your ass in the hospital and a he-said-she-said set of litigation
  • Re:I'm sorry but.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TubeSteak (669689) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @09:58PM (#41793697) Journal

    The guard does not make the policy; management does. If the guard does not enforce the management policy they will be fired for cause.

    More often than not, the people responsible for enforcing [policy] are undertrained and do not fully understand how they are supposed to be enforcing [policy].
    And sometimes, not even the management understands how a policy should be implemented within the bounds of the law.

    This is not an "I was just following orders" as used in the Munich trials; no one was killed.

    Is it okay to assault people as long as no one is killed?
    Is it okay to infringe upon their civil liberties, as long as no one is killed?
    WTF kind of specious argument is that?

  • Re:lawsuit time? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 27, 2012 @10:00PM (#41793707)

    >Are you referring to the "law-abiding manner" in which our business and financial communities have behaved?

    You mean the law-abiding manner in which they use and abuse your government to pass regulations that support their monopolies (or near monopolies)? Or the law-abiding manner in which they lobby for subsidies using your tax dollars?

    Both things which libertarianism abolishes, but current government supports in spades.

    >Libertarians seem to believe that without heavy regulation that free market fairy dust is going to make all the bankers be honest

    No, that has nothing to do with the free market. Is has to do with the idea that if the government is not permitted to pass regulatory law, then the banks can't buy themselves portions of the government because if they do, the law is struck down swiftly.

    You are confusing two important things:

    Libertarians believe the free market greases the wheels of ingenuity and capitalism. Libertarians believe the government greases the wheels of modern day corporatism, socialism, and cronyism. You're getting stuck on that last one. What we don't have today is real capitalism. We have cronyism--a state where laws are bought and sold to support the highest bidder.

    >Libertarians are childish and dangerous

    Those who support government are childish and dangerous, if not naive. Your beliefs are based on the doctrine of "Power doesn't corrupt".

  • Re:lawsuit time? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by bored_engineer (951004) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @10:12PM (#41793755)

    Nope. Wrong.

    Libertarians believe that bankers will behave when they're accountable to their customers, rather than to the regulators who have failed spectacularly for all of the 20th and this portion of the 21st century. We've gone from regional bank failures to national bank bailouts. No improvement there, I think.

    Libertarians believe that companies who "doctor" their drugs will fail by popular opinion. Instead, we in the USA rely on the FDA to protect us. It seems that they've been doing OK, but they've definitely been slower than their EU counterparts in approving therapies. Would we be better off without the FDA, or the semi-protected NBME?

    . . .And if the two biggest companies in a field colluded, in a Libertarian society, they wouldn't be able to collude for long. Number three would wipe its' arse with their remains, in very short order.

    As a libertarian, I don't assume that you're acting out of the goodness of your heart. In fact, I assume that you're a selfish bugger until you prove otherwise. Selfish doesn't necessarily equate to asshole, but I don't assume so.

    (By the way, I work a government. Too many of the people I work with are real shitheads for me to believe that the government works on the behalf of its citizens. I recall a recent significant reorganization to de-fang a minor long-lived shithead. . .)

  • Re:lawsuit time? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kergan (780543) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @10:13PM (#41793769)

    If you ever get beaten up and arrested by cops for no other reason than just standing there, and subsequently booted out of court when you press charges against them for assault, you'll probably hold a very different opinion.

  • Re:lawsuit time? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by erroneus (253617) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @10:36PM (#41793873) Homepage

    What I don't get is that here in this land of North America, we've got it pretty good. Why are so many trying to kill the goose which has been laying all these golden eggs? This prosperous society, far removed from places which are simply less fortunate and certainly less civilized, seems to be collapsing down from its enviable position.

    I guess they never got the memo talking about balance in society and knowing when you have enough wealth and power. Having too much wealth and power creates and unstable situation which invariably results in the masses seeking to restore stability.

    We're okay with insanely rich people... just so long as the majority of us aren't suffering because of it. Turns out, majorities are suffering... and becoming motivated.

  • Re:lawsuit time? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 0111 1110 (518466) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @10:44PM (#41793901)

    How are rich people responsible for thuggish, authoritarian cops and security guards? It sounds to me like governments ultimately have to be held responsible for it. The War Against Photography has little to do with any sort of rich vs poor class warfare.

  • Re:lawsuit time? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by skegg (666571) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @10:46PM (#41793917)

    Alternative scenario:

    You ask them "have I committed a crime by taking these photos?" They again ask you to delete them.

    You ask them again if you've committed a crime.

    Now you're face down on the ground and handcuffed by police.

  • Re:lawsuit time? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by naroom (1560139) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @11:02PM (#41793993)

    Libertarians believe that bankers will behave when they're accountable to their customers...

    This relies heavily on the customers making fully informed choices. But companies will not reveal any information to the customer they don't have to. Here's some places that could really hurt you:
    - Amusement park rides made by the lowest bidder that kill children years down the line.
    - Food sourced from China and imported.
    - Internet service providers "adjusting" your connection speed so that you can easily reach websites they're getting kickbacks from (net neutrality stuff).

    Also, if a company is ever caught in the act, it could simply change its name or disguise itself to hide from the bad press. People forget.

    And lastly, there is no incentive for companies to create infrastructure - why lay down fiber optics when we're making tons of money from wires? Heck, private interests will try to prevent progress where possible - just look at the Prop 6 "free bridge" fiasco.

  • Re:lawsuit time? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by artor3 (1344997) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @11:07PM (#41794017)

    Washed them away?? You're conflating the businesses with the human beings that run them.

    If we let the banks go bankrupt, we'd currently be in the Great Depression II, while the bankers would be living like kings off their ill-gotten gains.

    We had to bail the banks out for the good of everyone. Where we went wrong was not punishing the scumbags who created the problem, and not breaking up the too-big-to-fail banks. In other words, our problem wasn't too much government intervention, but too little.

  • Re:lawsuit time? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DeadCatX2 (950953) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @11:10PM (#41794047) Journal

    Libertarians believe that bankers will behave when they're accountable to their customers

    They're still accountable to their customers. We can choose to walk away with our money any time we want. Has customer accountability influenced their decisions at all? Well, we've got Goldman Sachs over there, selling Mortgage Backed Securities that are designed to fail to their customers, and then shorting those very same securities. And yet Goldman still has customers...

    Libertarians believe that companies who "doctor" their drugs will fail by popular opinion.

    After killing people, like the fungal meningitis outbreak. Note that compounding pharmacies are outside of FDA's authority. This allowed them to circumvent regulations that probably would have stopped this outbreak from spreading across half the nation. Yes, circumventing regulations resulted in lower prices, but I think more expensive drugs is worth the lower risk of death.

    Sure, this particular pharmacy is going to fail "by popular opinion". But without regulations, it's only a matter of time until the next pharmacy fails...and the next one...and the next one...and with each one comes another group of people who needlessly died.

    And if the two biggest companies in a field colluded, in a Libertarian society, they wouldn't be able to collude for long. Number three would wipe its' arse with their remains, in very short order.

    Sounds like wishful thinking. How exactly is a smaller company going to take down two bigger companies that are colluding? The two bigger companies can start selling their product at below cost to drive the smaller company out of business, using their cash reserves to out-live the smaller competitor.

    There are two problems with the libertarian philosophy. First, it assumes perfect knowledge of all markets, which just isn't happening ever. Without perfect knowledge, consumers lose significant power. Second, it has no solutions to the issue of corporations becoming more powerful than consumers.

  • Re:lawsuit time? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TWX (665546) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @11:23PM (#41794097)
    I think that when these stories come out, they need to publish the names of the aggressors, even moreso than the victims.
  • Re:I'm sorry but.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fuzznutz (789413) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @11:25PM (#41794107)
    Why don't you come over to my house and try to take a picture or exhibit some "other" behavior that I deem unacceptable in my home. See if you feel the same way when me and three other big guys throw you to the ground and forcibly take your property by cutting it off you back,

    I am surprised at how idiots think assault is "okay" when a corporation's representatives does it on their property just cause they decide they don't like your attitude.
  • Re:lawsuit time? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Microlith (54737) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @11:35PM (#41794141)

    Libertarians believe that bankers will behave when they're accountable to their customers, rather than to the regulators who have failed spectacularly for all of the 20th and this portion of the 21st century. We've gone from regional bank failures to national bank bailouts. No improvement there, I think.

    They're accountable now to their customers and shareholders, even with regulators. Remove the regulators and you'd get the exact same behavior. Worse, probably, because there's no one ever looking over their shoulder.

    Libertarians believe that companies who "doctor" their drugs will fail by popular opinion.

    Indeed. We'll just have to wait for people to die from adulterated drugs and pay when a loved one dies to determine if it's the fault of the drug.

    Would we be better off without the FDA

    No.

    And if the two biggest companies in a field colluded, in a Libertarian society, they wouldn't be able to collude for long. Number three would wipe its' arse with their remains, in very short order.

    Bull. In a Libertarian society, number 3 would never be able to appear.

    (By the way, I work a government. Too many of the people I work with are real shitheads for me to believe that the government works on the behalf of its citizens. I recall a recent significant reorganization to de-fang a minor long-lived shithead. . .)

    Indeed. Corporate law and governance is always better than government by the citizens.

  • Re:lawsuit time? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by advocate_one (662832) on Sunday October 28, 2012 @03:14AM (#41794825)
    but they want it all... and they're worried we might want to take it back, so they're setting up the police state to prevent us from taking it back...
  • Re:lawsuit time? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SgtChaireBourne (457691) on Sunday October 28, 2012 @03:48AM (#41794915) Homepage

    How 'bout zip ties? Faster to employ and easier to carry than cuffs. [staticflickr.com]

    They're also impossible to readjust and too easy to make too tight. They result in actual physical damage including nerve damage when left too tight. Only real assholes use them instead of cuffs.

  • Re:lawsuit time? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cyber-vandal (148830) on Sunday October 28, 2012 @04:29AM (#41795027) Homepage

    Companies who doctor their drugs will make massive profits, injure thousands if not millions and spend decades in court denying they did anything wrong. So zero change, apart from that the lives of people will not depend on a government agency that at least nominally works to ensure public safety but to a mere cost benefit analysis of whether the human misery caused and the expense of the lawsuits will be less than the profits to be made.

    Bankers are already accountable to their customers. They have so far failed to give a shit and under a Libertarian administration the customer would have lost all their money through the crime (under Libertarian thinking) of not knowing everything their bank was up to.

    What would happen to the third company if the two big companies worked together to drive it out of the market? Would it be able to compete if both companies were selling below cost because they had other sources of revenue?

    What we need is better government, not less government. I can see the attraction of sweeping the whole rotten edifice away but there are so many things that I wouldn't trust a corporate shark with without them being watched very closely that I can't agree with the Libertarian philosophy.

  • Re:lawsuit time? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gorshkov (932507) <admgorshkov&yahoo,com> on Sunday October 28, 2012 @04:44AM (#41795049)

    No one with a brain is interested in visiting a police state, even if it is the half-assed sort of mess typical of everything else Canadians do.

    Try living in an *actual* police state sometime - the old Soviet Union, Communist Romania, today's China, Cuba, or most middle-eastern/third world countries, most of Africa or Asia, and get back to me, k? Not trying to belittle what happened to the kid - it was wrong by any measure. But I really wish the hell people realized just how much difference there is between a western democracy and a REAL police state ........

  • Re:lawsuit time? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Raenex (947668) on Sunday October 28, 2012 @06:04AM (#41795243)

    Sigh..

    This is a signal for me to skip your post.

  • Re:lawsuit time? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by asdf7890 (1518587) on Sunday October 28, 2012 @06:31AM (#41795321)

    Only real assholes use them instead of cuffs.

    So, the sort of people this article about?

  • Re:lawsuit time? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dkleinsc (563838) on Sunday October 28, 2012 @08:19AM (#41795633) Homepage

    The reasons you think that way:
    1. Wealth distribution is a curve, not a line. That means the difference between the 50th percentile and the 10th percentile isn't as large as the difference between the 10th percentile and the 5th percentile which isn't close to as large as the difference between the 5% and the 1%. For example, the richest person in the world, Bill Gates, has something like $60 billion. There are approximately 400 billionaires in the US. There are about 5 million millionaire households. If you're something like the 60 millionth wealthiest American, you probably are holding something like $250K. And if you have a net worth above $50K, then you're richer than half of America.

    2. Most people with significant cash don't really see the lives of people much poorer than them. For example, a college roommate of mine thought he was from a typical American family with both parents making 6-figure incomes, or an income that was roughly 6 times that of an average American. The key thing to realize is that a life you would recognize as similar to your own, with a fairly spacious and comfortable house, good car, a 4-year degree or higher, working about 8-10 hours Mon-Fri at a desk in an office (or at home), and money socked away for the kids' college education and/or your retirement, is about as far away a dream to a working-class person as getting above $100 million is to you: It's not entirely out of reach, but it's highly unlikely.

Things are not as simple as they seems at first. - Edward Thorp

Working...