Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Canada News

Canadian Teenager Arrested For Photographing Mall Takedown 770

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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • Re:lawsuit time? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 27, 2012 @07:12PM (#41792549)

    You must be new to Canada, Vic Toews (Public Safety Minister) has empowered law enforcement to do as they please.

  • Re:I'm sorry but.. (Score:4, Informative)

    by Scarletdown ( 886459 ) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @07:14PM (#41792579) Journal

    You shouldn't take pictures if you are unsure of the legality of doing so.

    A mall is a pretty public space. So yeah, I think we can be fairly certain of the legality of his photography.

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

    by Scarletdown ( 886459 ) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @07:20PM (#41792635) Journal

    A mall is private property.

    It is private property that is open to the public unless you have been specifically banned from there. And for it to be illegal to take pictures inside a mall or any publically accessible but privately owned facility, there need to be signs posted at the entrances clearly stating such a prohibition.

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

    by Vinegar Joe ( 998110 ) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @07:28PM (#41792695)

    A site on Canadian law regarding photography:

    "If the property owner puts up signs or tells you not to do something (eg: no trespassing, no photography, keep off grass, etc), then disobeying the signs or verbal instructions is trespassing." []

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

    by compro01 ( 777531 ) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @07:40PM (#41792767)

    Wrong province. BC's law is broadly similar though. []

    They can tell him to stop photographing and/or leave the property. If he doesn't do so "as soon as practicable after receiving the direction", then it's trespassing and they can call the police and have him arrested. They ARE NOT allowed to seize his property nor order him to delete any pictures already taken.

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

    by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @07:45PM (#41792815)

    It many countries around the world, Canada included you're legally allowed to take pictures even on private land until you're asked to stop. More so no one can force you to delete them.

    Are you basically suggesting that no one should ever be allowed to take a picture without someone asking them to do it?

  • by compro01 ( 777531 ) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @07:47PM (#41792835)

    If you can keep your cool, when you've snapped a great takedown pick and a mall-cop demands something of you, politely decline.

    Actually, they CAN (in BC and Ontario, at least) legally tell you to stop taking pictures and/or leave the property. Failing to do so "as soon as practicable" then becomes trespassing and they can have you arrested.

    They cannot make you delete the pictures you've already taken nor can they detain you nor can they search or seize anything.

  • Re:FREEZE! (Score:5, Informative)

    by pla ( 258480 ) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @08:02PM (#41792945) Journal
    It's not about any of those things. It's about protection from foreign states. Made at a time when there wasn't a sufficient full time army.

    Uh, no. You fail history.

    We have a second amendment for the explicit purpose overthrowing an oppressive federal government.

    Read your Federalist Papers:

    "The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. [...] To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. [...] But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it." (#46, James Madison)

    You can make a reasonable argument for the second amendment referring to the National Guard (though that organization has become nothing more than one more branch of the Federal military, making such an argument moot); But they originally existed very clearly for the purpose of protecting the states from the federal government.
  • Re:lawsuit time? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Adambomb ( 118938 ) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @08:29PM (#41793167) Journal

    That only worked because the government thugs had arrived.

    Had it only been the mall cops they would have been sued out of existence, its illegal in BC for security workers to even carry handcuffs.

  • by Maow ( 620678 ) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @08:41PM (#41793273) Journal

    Contact Metrotown [] and tell them that, if you're nearby you may boycott them, if you're "away", you've now heard of them and it's not good what you've heard.

    General Inquiries

    For general shopping centre inquiries including requests for donations or mall participation in community events call 604.438.4715 or email us at: [mailto]

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

    by BadgerRush ( 2648589 ) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @09:13PM (#41793425)
    A mall is a privately owned public place. If you invite the public into your privately owned property it is a public place and there is a limit to the crap you can throw at them.
  • by JMZero ( 449047 ) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @09:28PM (#41793517) Homepage

    Stopping taking pictures on private property is one of the things the someone can be told to do.

    This wasn't about stopping taking pictures - the demand was to delete the pictures. Which he couldn't - it's a film camera. And it's not something they're legally entitled to under Canadian law. From the story:

    Lawyer Douglas King, of Pivot Legal in Vancouver, agrees, saying that private mall security guards and police have no right to try to seize someone’s camera or demand that photos be deleted — even on private property.

    The security guards made an illegal request that they thought they could get away with - and usually they would have because people are easily cowed. In this case, the kid couldn't comply, they didn't pay attention, and they escalated the situation for no reason. I'm hoping the mall gets sued.

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

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 27, 2012 @09:48PM (#41793635)

    The big problem with libertarianism is that not all the "heavy regulation of business" and "government dictating what people can do with their property" is bad. There are 2 big flaws with the libertarian model of human society as far as I can see, the first being dealing with "externalities" that is to say the downstream costs of industry the second being the cost of information.

    Externalities are a problem because the effects are either unnecessary or even economically impossible to mitigate. Some effects can be far away, hundreds of miles or across state borders such that retaliation, even if you permitted mob killings of businesses by non customer victims, is not possible or not within the resources of the victims... So why fix? Other effects can, with race to the bottom cost cutting, be impossible to fix and still keep a ruining business the local population would then be left with a choice of putting up with side effects such as asthma or low level poisoning etc. or losing all their jobs and starving to death en-mass (remember poor people starving to death happens even today in countries without government handouts)

    The cost of information may seem trivial but it is important, sensible decisions take information and this requires time and effort. This time and effort is approximated out of most modern market models simply by assuming it does not exist, but this is a flaw in those models not a truth. Everyone knows that people buy overpriced brands not because they are worth the price but because they will not be bad, and the extra cost is worth the time which would be spent finding a better value option. With heath and safety removed unrecognised brands have much less to lose if they take risks with their customers lives, even everyday decisions become life and death. The actually safe brands can at this point charge an even more ridiculous premium for that safety, your life is on the line after all. The rest of the brands will then require actual effort and study to find out just whether they are safe which does not exist now. This might seem a triviality but when every item of food water and hardware you buy from beans to your new car is a choice between an even more expensive premium brand, and a substantive amount of study to find the safe option you will quickly run out of both money and the time to find the best option and be left to gamble with your life on the line. This is not a good thing, it does not make people happier or safer or more prosperous. (This also ignores the distortion effects of marketing that can be brought by existing big players)

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

    by osu-neko ( 2604 ) on Saturday October 27, 2012 @09:58PM (#41793701)

    Canada? Is that north or south of Minnesota

    Depends on which part. In terms of land area, most of Canada is north of Minnesota. In terms of population, most of Canada is south of Minnesota (the most populated part of Canada being the part that dips down with the Great Lakes, placing Toronto further south than Minnesota's "Twin Cities").

  • Re:Not a journalist (Score:2, Informative)

    by the eric conspiracy ( 20178 ) on Sunday October 28, 2012 @12:22AM (#41794307)

    If the event is in public you absolutely DO have the right to record it an publicize it.

    It's called freedom of speech, and it is the First Amendment in the US Constitution.

    It's been upheld in court many times.

    Most recently Glik v Cunniffe (26 August 2011) the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that there is a First Amendment right to record police activity in public.

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

    by Zontar The Mindless ( 9002 ) <plasticfish DOT info AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday October 28, 2012 @12:53AM (#41794399) Homepage

    Crazy that the FDA blocked Thalidomide while the EU got squid babies. I'll take late over unsafe.

    What EU? You're talking about an entity that didn't yet exist--and wouldn't, for another 30 years or so (Treaty of Maasricht, 1993). In fact, Thalidomide was distributed widely in some European countries, and almost not at all in some others, depending on actions taken by various national health authorities.

    You also make it sound like there was never any Thalidomide distributed in the US, which is not exactly the case []:

    Although thalidomide was never approved for sale in the United States at the time, millions of tablets had been distributed to physicians during a clinical testing program. It was impossible to know how many pregnant women had been given the drug to help alleviate morning sickness or as a sedative.

    Yes, I'm quite glad that the US have an FDA, and that relatively few people were born without limbs there as a result in early 1960s (my brother and I not being among them, thank goodness!). Dr Kelsey [] certainly earned the award she later received for standing up to Big Pharma and blocking sale of the drug in the US.

    No, there is no reason to employ fuzzy thinking, inaccuracy, or hyperbole either to appreciate these things or to bring them to others' attention.

  • Re:Not a journalist (Score:4, Informative)

    by Galestar ( 1473827 ) on Sunday October 28, 2012 @01:17AM (#41794491) Homepage
    1. It was in a public space. He was legally allowed to take that picture.
    2. Media credentials do not have anything to do with legality. The state need not recognize you as a journalistic institution for you to have freedom of the press.
    3. I applaud him photographing the takedown. Clearly we have different opinions there.
  • Re:I'm sorry but.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by rahvin112 ( 446269 ) on Sunday October 28, 2012 @02:19AM (#41794649)

    Maybe? Apparently you are new here.

    I'll clarify the following as well, not only did the rent-a-cops detain and assualt the kid when he tried to leave even if the mall had posted signs that said no photo's under Canadian law the only thing they could do was ask him to leave which is what they assaulted him for trying to do. Also it was the real cops which cut the backpack off, handcuffed and arrested him for "disturbing the peace" which is apparently what you get charged with in Canada when you try to leave private property after refusing an illegal request.

  • by BeanThere ( 28381 ) on Sunday October 28, 2012 @02:50AM (#41794747)

    Those security guards had no authority except to ask you to leave

    This is a key point ... the only thing they could rightly do is ask him to leave, even if they have a 'no camera' rule in place.

    The equivalent is, say you have a party at your house, and one of your invited guests start behaving in a manner you don't like, but is otherwise legal. You don't suddenly get the right to assault them or take or destroy their property, even if you claim to have a "rule" in your house that allows you to do so. You can ask them to leave. Once you've asked, if they refuse to leave, only then are they trespassing. This doesn't seem to be what happened to the teen, because, according to the article, he was in fact trying to leave the mall of his own volition.

  • by sumdumass ( 711423 ) on Sunday October 28, 2012 @04:45AM (#41795055) Journal

    I was going to say something similar. If your going to film a cop or a security guard getting busy with someone, make sure you have someone documenting you. A go pro is relatively cheap (there are similar self contained bullet even cheaper) and will not attract too much attention.

    Then if something like this happens, put it on the evening news. Put it on the interweb, and put it in evidence for the court case to free whomever on the trumped up charge as well as helping sue the piss out of everyone.

  • Re:FREEZE! (Score:5, Informative)

    by VortexCortex ( 1117377 ) <VortexCortex&project-retrograde,com> on Sunday October 28, 2012 @07:38AM (#41795501)

    Damn, this is the third time this week I've had to post this:
    US Declaration of Independence: []

    Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

    And how exactly do you propose to take up our duty to overthrow such oppressive governments? Sticks and Stones? No. That's why the 2nd. exists... There is no clause: "The Guns and Militias must be federally approved, funded and employed."
    Also from the USDI -- This is the section near the end where the crimes against us is listed -- Things that should not be tolerated, and a revolution started instead.

    He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

    Laws reducing and limiting Copyright & Patent reform? Laws enabling photographing of police? Refused; while contrary laws benefiting corporate interests are passed with regularity.

    He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

    That's what corporations are allowed to do to us. See the Sony vs G.Hotz deal, they could have sued him where the alleged infringement was committed, but instead chose a court thousands of miles away.

    He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

    Who votes our federal Judges into power? Oh, that's right, they're appointed... []

    He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

    TSA, Homeland Security. Additionally, they don't eat out our substance by way of quartered troops, they do so via increased taxes.

    He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

    Just this past month the armed forces declared Julian Asange an enemy of the state. Protip: Only Congress is supposed to be able to do that.

    And on the issue of trying to peacefully right the wrongs:

    We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity.

    Ever tried to get a law changed? We have law making bodies, not law unmaking bodies. Jury Nullification is our defense -- The last jury I was on, the judge tossed all the potential jurors out to get a new batch because we all said we wouldn't be able to make our decision in accordance with the unjust law he quoted -- Thereby removing our only recourse against the unjust rule of law. I followed the case, it took 4 complete jury changes to get 12 people who would uphold that bogus law. Ever gone up against a cop in court? It's a mock trial at best. Very rarely when some truly heinous stuff goes down they'll get a slap on the wrist. Hell, two cops called a wrecker to tow my neighbor's car for being parked the wrong way. I video taped them DROPPING THE CAR on its side, totaling it. Later, the judge refused to ad

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

    by djmurdoch ( 306849 ) on Sunday October 28, 2012 @09:00AM (#41795767)

    Montreal and Ottawa are both south of the 49th. (Even Thunder Bay is.) Most of the population of Ontario, Quebec and all of the eastern provinces do live south of the 49th, and those six provinces represent about 70% of Canada, so it's actually quite accurate that the majority of Canada's population lives south of the 49th.

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

    by Vermonter ( 2683811 ) on Sunday October 28, 2012 @09:04AM (#41795785)
    We already have a monopoly. It's called the Federal Reserve. It sets the interest rates that all the banks follow.

The greatest productive force is human selfishness. -- Robert Heinlein