Guy detained at Chinook

[dewytrain]

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/crime-and-justice/Quit+smashing+face+Chinook+Centre+staff+deeply/8115756/story.html

http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/598855/video-calgary-man-detained-at-chinook-centre-wants-to-pursue-charges-against-security-guards/

Anyone read, or seen the video on this? Thoughts?

[Tik-Tok]

Seriously excessive considering they're mall-cops. Even if the guy didn't punch of them, continually beating him, while he's pinned to the ground is unjustified.

I also love how in all these video's, the "authorities" (real or rent-a-cop), demand the suspect take their arms out from under them, when there's usually 3-4 guys putting hundreds of lbs on their body. Like how is a guy even suppose to move like that?

[Modelexis]

At least these employees have a chance of loosing their job unlike the police that get away with this stuff on a regular basis.

I doubt Chinook will put these employees on paid desk duties until they're exonerated.

When have criminal charges ever been laid against police officers that act in this manner?

[03ozwhip]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok

I also love how in all these video's, the "authorities" (real or rent-a-cop), demand the suspect take their arms out from under them, when there's usually 3-4 guys putting hundreds of lbs on their body. Like how is a guy even suppose to move like that?

agreed, its happened to me, i went through something very similar a few years ago. anyways, there is a beyonder that works there, dont know if he can shed some light on this or not based on it being in the hands of the police, but would love to hear the story on their side.

[FullFledgedYYC]

The way I see it... either he punched someone or he didn't. If he did, the cops should have been called. If he didn't, their use of force is completely ridiculous. So either way, they did the wrong thing.

I also agree with Modelexis, they will likely be fired, a cop would be put on paid desk duty or suspension with pay.... OH NO!

:rolleyes:

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by FullFledgedYYC
The way I see it... either he punched someone or he didn't. If he did, the cops should have been called. If he didn't, their use of force is completely ridiculous. So either way, they did the wrong thing.

I also agree with Modelexis, they will likely be fired, a cop would be put on paid desk duty or suspension with pay.... OH NO!

:rolleyes:

I'm not defending or attacking the security guards, but maybe cops were already called and they're trying to detain him until he does show?

I have no idea what the person did, but 3+ guys to keep him down seems like a lot.

[03ozwhip]

^^ya but the police are unionized, no? that helps them alot with the non firing issue, but not these guys, they can be fired for anything that anyone else could be fired for that isnt unionized.

i have to agree that a couple of them definitely werent as professional as they could be, even if the guy punched one of them, the right thing to do(for your job to stay in tact) is to detain him and thats it. might be forceful at first, but once hes down, hes down.

[Modelexis]

The general public has the ball in their court when these things happen.

People could instantly and easily boycott chinook until these employees are fired.

Chinook could literally become empty over a period of 24 hours if enough people wanted to send a message, you can vote out the officers simply directing your money to another outlet.

It would require no lawyers, no charges laid and no government regulations, no investigation, people could simply stop funding the mall until the people involved are fired.
That's true voting power.

[DENZILDON]

There may be something more to it........

Doussept said the incident began when he sat down on an escalator, a security guard told him to stand up, and a verbal argument ensued in a mall vestibule. Doussept said he then went outside, threw away a coffee cup, and waved goodbye to the guards, who were “about five or six feet” away from him. “I put my hand up just to wave goodbye, and they charged me,” he said. “They didn’t say we think you’re threatening us, or anything. They just came at me.”

He sits at the escalator feeling like gangster...
Security sees it and asks him to get to avoid any accidents..
He still plays the gangster role and I bet he threw the coffee cup at security and waived a finger
Security closes in him to detain him for littering
and he tries to get away or something hitting one of the guards
GF videos only the part when he is being detained for the real cops to arrive.

[revelations]

I've seen a lot worse - not saying its justified however - but the video only shows the aftermath, what was the retard doing before he got jumped by mall cops?

[DENZILDON]

Let's ask Traffic Cop..

Can Mall security detain an individual?

And how much physical force can they use under these circumstances?

[spikerS]

anyone can detain anyone for any reason, it is called a citizens arrest.

If after the police arrive and sort things out, if there was no good reason for the arrest, the citizen making the arrest can be brought up on charges.

Citizen's arrests are pretty rare by the general public as most of them don't know they have that power. Mall security, or retail security are in effect making a citizens arrest and detaining a suspect for the police. Nothing illegal about it at all. But they also made damn sure their case is air tight with lots of supporting evidence.

as for what transpired here, I see no issue with what happened. As for the few swings I saw, that is meant to losen the guy up and to change the position of the guys arms so they can gain control. I don't believe those were anywhere near full swing punches at all. I have witnessed so much worse.

[thetransporter]

Originally posted by Modelexis

People could instantly and easily boycott chinook until these employees are fired.

Chinook could literally become empty over a period of 24 hours if enough people wanted to send a message, you can vote out the officers simply directing your money to another outlet.


best post yet. I agree.

[Stephen81]

That escalated quickly

[FraserB]

Originally posted by DENZILDON
Let's ask Traffic Cop..

Can Mall security detain an individual?

And how much physical force can they use under these circumstances?

Yes.

They can use whatever physical force is reasonable in the situation. The crown prosecutor's office determines what is reasonable based on the evidence.

With no legal training and only watching the video, and assuming that he has told the entire truth, the two furthest from the camera should probably be fired/charged.

[LollerBrader]

Originally posted by spikers
anyone can detain anyone for any reason, it is called a citizens arrest.



I hereby place you under citizen's arrest for giving excessively vague and incorrect legal advice.

[fiveowed]

OcQ6tF4Gc5Q

Would like to know what the guy did. I am sure this will hit the news.

[kambo.king]

What idiots hitting the guy n there not cops

[WhippWhapp]

Fucking mall cops...

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by spikers


as for what transpired here, I see no issue with what happened. As for the few swings I saw, that is meant to losen the guy up and to change the position of the guys arms so they can gain control. I don't believe those were anywhere near full swing punches at all. I have witnessed so much worse.

I don't know about you, but when someone punches me, I sure as he'll don't "loosen up", quite the opposite.

[Disoblige]

Originally posted by spikers
anyone can detain anyone for any reason, it is called a citizens arrest.
Haha, if that was true, can I put the person trying to put me under citizen's arrest, under citizen's arrest for trying to put me under citizen's arrest?

[Maxx Mazda]

Yea that was a little excessive...

[UndrgroundRider]

Originally posted by DENZILDON

He sits at the escalator feeling like gangster...
Security sees it and asks him to get to avoid any accidents..
He still plays the gangster role and I bet he threw the coffee cup at security and waived a finger
Security closes in him to detain him for littering
and he tries to get away or something hitting one of the guards
GF videos only the part when he is being detained for the real cops to arrive.

Even if that's the case they have no authority to detain or arrest him. Littering is a city bylaw, not an indictable criminal offence. Giving someone the finger is a form of speech protected by section 2 of the charter.


Originally posted by spikers
anyone can detain anyone for any reason, it is called a citizens arrest.

No, a normal citizen can only arrest someone if they see or have strong reason to believe that person committed an indictable offence.

[swak]

Originally posted by Disoblige

Haha, if that was true, can I put the person trying to put me under citizen's arrest, under citizen's arrest for trying to put me under citizen's arrest?

:rofl: :rofl:
I guess so

[Dalking]

Isn't Shlade here work as security at chinook? Hopefully he wasn't giving that beatdown :rofl:

[ZenOps]

Don't taze me bro.

[Destinova403]

Originally posted by UndrgroundRider


Even if that's the case they have no authority to detain or arrest him. Littering is a city bylaw, not an indictable criminal offence. Giving someone the finger is a form of speech protected by section 2 of the charter.

No, a normal citizen can only arrest someone if they see or have strong reason to believe that person committed an indictable offence.

You guys are forgetting one small detail. The mall is private property not public property. The guy has already been charged with Trespassing, on top of whatever comes out of this incident. The mall cops wouldnt call for backup and stuff unless they had a real reason to take this guy down. They do go through a fair amount of training as far as i know.

[Nitro5]

Ever notice that in the history of the net that every person ever being arrested has a shoulder injury so they can't put their arms behind their back?

[spikerS]

Originally posted by UndrgroundRider




No, a normal citizen can only arrest someone if they see or have strong reason to believe that person committed an indictable offence.

That is exactly what I said...


for the rest of you:



A citizen's arrest is an arrest made by a person who is not acting as a sworn law-enforcement official.[1] In common law jurisdictions, the practice dates back to medieval Britain and the English common law, in which sheriffs encouraged ordinary citizens to help apprehend law breakers.

Canada
[edit]Federal
Canada's blanket arrest authorities for violations of federal statutes are found in the Criminal Code. In Canada, a criminal offence is any offence that is created by a federal statute. Criminal offences are divided into three groups: Indictable, Dual Procedure, and Summary Conviction. For the purposes of arrest, dual procedure offences are considered to be indictable.
CRIMINAL CODE[9]
Arrest without warrant by any person
494. (1) Any one may arrest without warrant
(a) a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence; or
(b) a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes
(i) has committed a criminal offence, and
(ii) is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person.

Arrest by owner, etc., of property
(2) Any one who is
(a) the owner or a person in lawful possession of property, or
(b) a person authorized by the owner or by a person in lawful possession of property,
may arrest without warrant a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property.

Delivery to peace officer
(3) Any one other than a peace officer who arrests a person without warrant shall forthwith deliver the person to a peace officer.
[edit]Provincial
There are several arrest authorities found through the various provincial statutes. The most notable citizen's arrest authority in Ontario is found in the Trespass to Property Act, but there are others found in the Highway Traffic Act, the Liquor Licence Act, and many others.
TRESPASS TO PROPERTY ACT[10]
Arrest without warrant on premises
9. (1) A police officer, or the occupier of premises, or a person authorized by the occupier may arrest without warrant any person he or she believes on reasonable and probable grounds to be on the premises in contravention of section 2.

Delivery to police officer
(2) Where the person who makes an arrest under subsection (1) is not a police officer, he or she shall promptly call for the assistance of a police officer and give the person arrested into the custody of the police officer.

[UndrgroundRider]

Originally posted by spikers


That is exactly what I said...


for the rest of you:



:rofl:

There's a pretty big difference between this:


Originally posted by spikers
anyone can detain anyone for any reason, it is called a citizens arrest.


and this:

Originally posted by UndrgroundRider
a normal citizen can only arrest someone if they see or have strong reason to believe that person committed an indictable offence.

[spikerS]

Originally posted by UndrgroundRider


:rofl:





There's a pretty big difference between this:

Originally posted by spikers
anyone can detain anyone for any reason, it is called a citizens arrest.



and this:
Originally posted by UndrgroundRider
a normal citizen can only arrest someone if they see or have strong reason to believe that person committed an indictable offence.


Well, if you guys are going to be all selective quoting about it...here, let me show you...


Originally posted by spikers
anyone can detain anyone for any reason, it is called a citizens arrest.

If after the police arrive and sort things out, if there was no good reason for the arrest, the citizen making the arrest can be brought up on charges.

[UndrgroundRider]

Originally posted by Destinova403


You guys are forgetting one small detail. The mall is private property not public property. The guy has already been charged with Trespassing, on top of whatever comes out of this incident. The mall cops wouldnt call for backup and stuff unless they had a real reason to take this guy down. They do go through a fair amount of training as far as i know.

I think the trespassing charge was what came of this incident, and isn't a separate incident as you are implying. Nobody is forgetting about the trespassing charge, I think the issue is that regardless of the validity of the arrest, the force used was clearly excessive.

Obviously it's hard for anyone who wasn't there to say whether they were justified or not in conducting an arrest. That's for the courts to sort out.

[UndrgroundRider]

Originally posted by spikers


Well, if you guys are going to be all selective quoting about it...here, let me show you...

If you can't understand the difference between the two you should probably stop giving legal advice. :rofl:

[spikerS]

dude, not sure what you are trying to say, but there is nothing wrong with what I have stated...

[Dalking]

Originally posted by UndrgroundRider


If you can't understand the difference between the two you should probably stop giving legal advice. :rofl: :werd:

[rx7boi]

Originally posted by UndrgroundRider


If you can't understand the difference between the two you should probably stop giving legal advice. :rofl:

:rofl:

Shoot first, ask later.

or

Be sure, and then shoot.

[Kona9]

It came out on the news tonight that he was smoking a joint at some point prior to his Mall Cop smack down, and they were on to him from smelling it.

[A790]

Originally posted by Destinova403


You guys are forgetting one small detail. The mall is private property not public property. The guy has already been charged with Trespassing, on top of whatever comes out of this incident. The mall cops wouldnt call for backup and stuff unless they had a real reason to take this guy down. They do go through a fair amount of training as far as i know. I've had verbal exchanged with Chinook Centre mall cops before (had my feet up on a chair if I recall correctly). I find them to be quick to accuse and escalate situations.

In my situation I wasn't asked to change my behavior, I was threatened to. Had he asked me I would have complied quickly, but given his attitude I told him to go fuck himself. Then he got in my face and the rest is ridiculous, but the point is that the overall attitude was very confrontational to begin with.

Dane, you know me. I don't go out trying to cause problems, but my experience with the CCPD has been that they do.

[Traffic_Cop]

Originally posted by DENZILDON
Let's ask Traffic Cop..

Can Mall security detain an individual?

And how much physical force can they use under these circumstances?

Yes they can.

And under the Criminal Code, they can use as much force as is reasonably necessary.

The law has also just recently changed in this area too :-


http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/03/11/new_citizens_arrest_powers_come_into_effect_in_canada.html#

[Destinova403]

Originally posted by A790
I've had verbal exchanged with Chinook Centre mall cops before (had my feet up on a chair if I recall correctly). I find them to be quick to accuse and escalate situations.

In my situation I wasn't asked to change my behavior, I was threatened to. Had he asked me I would have complied quickly, but given his attitude I told him to go fuck himself. Then he got in my face and the rest is ridiculous, but the point is that the overall attitude was very confrontational to begin with.

Dane, you know me. I don't go out trying to cause problems, but my experience with the CCPD has been that they do.

Im not defending the mall cops or the pothead. In fact I believe that there are 3 sides to this story of course, as in any incident.

All im pointing out is that the confrontation must have gone on for a while as there were 6 mall cops there. (They don't usually walk around in groups of 6 so they must have called for assistance, which takes time to get there).

My Girlfriend works for CF and the whole company is pretty shook up over the whole incident. Im sure that the truth will come out somewhere in the wash and if I know the company at all they will definitely take action if it is found that the guards were acting irresponsibly.

Those guards are fairly well trained and well paid, they are rational individuals and there is definitely more to this story than what was captured in that short clip. A lot of those guys are trying to gain experience to join the police force, and I'm sure none of them would throw away their potential future career in order to prove that they are tough by beating up some random guy.

It just frustrates me that (it seems) like this guy is trying to use this incident to cash in. Im all for justice being served, but lets just wait for the whole truth to come out before we call for the guards to be lynched.

[Xtrema]

Given the location, I assume dude was smoking pot sitting on the escalator to the theatre?

Escalator that is always shut down and have only enough room for 1 up and 1 down? And he's blocking one of them?

If he was asked to leave and being a bad sport about it, he probably got it coming.

I think all cops should have personal cams like our dash cams. So the other side story can be shown.

[JustGo]

Originally posted by Nitro5
Ever notice that in the history of the net that every person ever being arrested has a shoulder injury so they can't put their arms behind their back? Truth.

[IggyB]

This is what I got back from Cadillac Fairview who run the mall..


Hello XXX,

Thank you for contacting us regarding your concerns. As you know, on March 16 our Chinook Centre security team apprehended a male patron and detained the individual prior to the arrival of the Calgary Police Service.

We were troubled by the behaviours depicted in the video footage and as a result we are looking into the details of the situation and will take disciplinary action as required. Given that the matter is now under investigation by the Calgary Police Service we cannot provide further comment.

We want you to know that we take this matter very seriously and that our priority is to ensure the safety of all patrons, tenants and staff.

Once again, thank you for your concern and contacting us.

Stacie

[euro_racer]

a reliable source told me the guy was drunk, was high, and had scissors in his pocket that he was trying to stab the arresting staff with...there is definitely two..err three sides to this story, more then what the video shows at least...

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by euro_racer
a reliable source told me the guy was drunk, was high, and had scissors in his pocket that he was trying to stab the arresting staff with...there is definitely two..err three sides to this story, more then what the video shows at least...

No doubt. I hate to jump on cop bashing bandwagons when evidence shown is_less than half of the full picture.

People tends to overreact when its the cops, worse for mall cops.

[shakalaka]

FYI, it doesn't have to be an indictable offence. It can be a summary offence as well.

[71/454]

I heard the guy on the ground drives an S4 and the attackers weren't mall cops just 89coupe and his homeboys.

[UndrgroundRider]

Originally posted by shakalaka



FYI, it doesn't have to be an indictable offence. It can be a summary offence as well.

EDIT: I see that you edited your post before I was able to respond. I'll leave this here in case anyone else is confused.

No, actually it does have to be an indictable offence (this includes hybrid offences).

Spikers already quoted the criminal code section, but I guess you missed it:


494. (1) Any one may arrest without warrant

(a) a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence; or

(b) a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes

(i) has committed a criminal offence, and

(ii) is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person.

[shakalaka]

Refer to s.30 of the Code.

Also, s.494(b)(i) states that it is a criminal offence. So that implies it can be either summary, indictable or hybrid.

I accidentally edited the wrong post, I changed it back. Plus s.30 allows any person to interfere if they witness a breach of peace.

It is common sense really, a layperson or a citizen, which is what we are talking about here, wouldn't know the type's of offence anyway. Either way, the cumulative effect of the two sections is that if you see someone doing a crime, you can interfere.

[UndrgroundRider]

Originally posted by shakalaka
Refer to s.30 of the Code.


Also, s.494(b)(i) states that it is a criminal offence. So that implies it can be either summary, indictable or hybrid.

:rofl:

494(b)(i) does not confer a broader interpretation of 494(a). It's a special case that allows a person to affect an arrest if they see someone who is fleeing arrest AND being pursed by someone who has the authority to arrest that person. In other words, if the cops are chasing someone down the street who is running away you have authority to arrest that person even though you did not actually see that person commit the offence.

[shakalaka]

I see, yea I misread that. I go through the Code day in and day out, but have never had to refer to these provisions. I guess it's not every day you hear about citizen's arresting each other lol.

Either way, s.30 would still hold, albeit it only allows you to detain the person. Which is how this whole issue arose anyway as the mall security detained the guy and didn't necessarily arrest him. Although there's a thin line between the two.

"Every one who witnesses a breach of the peace is justified in interfering to prevent the continuance or renewal thereof and may detain any person who commits or is about to join in or to renew the breach of the peace, for the purpose of giving him into the custody of a peace officer, if he uses no more force than is reasonably necessary to prevent the continuance or renewal of the breach of the peace or than is reasonably proportioned to the danger to be apprehended from the continuance or renewal of the breach of the peace."

[Maxt]

Originally posted by Destinova403


Im not defending the mall cops or the pothead. In fact I believe that there are 3 sides to this story of course, as in any incident.

All im pointing out is that the confrontation must have gone on for a while as there were 6 mall cops there. (They don't usually walk around in groups of 6 so they must have called for assistance, which takes time to get there).

My Girlfriend works for CF and the whole company is pretty shook up over the whole incident. Im sure that the truth will come out somewhere in the wash and if I know the company at all they will definitely take action if it is found that the guards were acting irresponsibly.

Those guards are fairly well trained and well paid, they are rational individuals and there is definitely more to this story than what was captured in that short clip. A lot of those guys are trying to gain experience to join the police force, and I'm sure none of them would throw away their potential future career in order to prove that they are tough by beating up some random guy.

It just frustrates me that (it seems) like this guy is trying to use this incident to cash in. Im all for justice being served, but lets just wait for the whole truth to come out before we call for the guards to be lynched.
Things must have changed drastically at CF, back in the day when I worked for CF, the company did little to train anybody, was one of the worst paying companies per position, and generally dealt with staff issues very poorly.
Being a "mall cop" is actually a pretty tough gig.. I wasn't a mall cop but had to help them on a regular basis.. You get dickhead kids who put on big attitude shows and push your buttons trying to goad you on, then play victim... Its hard to control oneself, when a confrontation becomes physical, its tough to hold back, all the past agro comes out and one tends to take it out on the one person who finally crosses the line and tries to land a punch.. Saw it many times, was part of it many times.
A mall cop and I made a citizens arrest on a guy and the ensuing fight was pretty bad, we never got charged with anything, we actually got plaques from the police for it instead.

[sabad66]

Originally posted by shakalaka
I see, yea I misread that. I go through the Code day in and day out, but have never had to refer to these provisions. I guess it's not every day you hear about citizen's arresting each other lol.

Either way, s.30 would still hold, albeit it only allows you to detain the person. Which is how this whole issue arose anyway as the mall security detained the guy and didn't necessarily arrest him. Although there's a thin line between the two.

"Every one who witnesses a breach of the peace is justified in interfering to prevent the continuance or renewal thereof and may detain any person who commits or is about to join in or to renew the breach of the peace, for the purpose of giving him into the custody of a peace officer, if he uses no more force than is reasonably necessary to prevent the continuance or renewal of the breach of the peace or than is reasonably proportioned to the danger to be apprehended from the continuance or renewal of the breach of the peace."
Aren't you a lawyer? I vaguely remember you talking about law school

[UndrgroundRider]

Originally posted by shakalaka
I see, yea I misread that. I go through the Code day in and day out, but have never had to refer to these provisions. I guess it's not every day you hear about citizen's arresting each other lol.

Either way, s.30 would still hold, albeit it only allows you to detain the person. Which is how this whole issue arose anyway as the mall security detained the guy and didn't necessarily arrest him. Although there's a thin line between the two.

"Every one who witnesses a breach of the peace is justified in interfering to prevent the continuance or renewal thereof and may detain any person who commits or is about to join in or to renew the breach of the peace, for the purpose of giving him into the custody of a peace officer, if he uses no more force than is reasonably necessary to prevent the continuance or renewal of the breach of the peace or than is reasonably proportioned to the danger to be apprehended from the continuance or renewal of the breach of the peace."

You are definitely misinterpreting "beach of peace." It's a common law term used to describe things such as rioting. The point of that section is provide powers to police (and citizens who would help them) to prevent escalation of violence during demonstrations.

Although I will admit the term has often been interpreted in a broader sense, usually such an act by a person would be covered by some other section of the criminal code. For example, the House of Lords defined "breach of the peace" as this in it's landmark R v Howell decision:


We are emboldened to say that there is a breach of the peace whenever harm is actually done or is likely to be done to a person or in his presence to his property or a person is in fear of being so harmed through an assault, an affray, a riot, unlawful assembly or other disturbance. It is for this breach of the peace when done in his presence or the reasonable apprehension of it taking place that a constable, or anyone else, may arrest an offender without warrant.

Such violence would clearly be covered under many other sections of the criminal code. So I think the number of cases where a citizen would otherwise not have the power to arrest under 494(a) but would under 30 are extremely limited.

[shakalaka]

I am articling for a couple more months, so technically still a student. Basically equivalent of what residency is for medicine. And yea we mostly do criminal defence, which kinda doesn't bode too well on me that I would misread a provision of the code like that lol. I guess after doing 13 hours of work, my quality starts lacking.

[shakalaka]

Originally posted by UndrgroundRider


You are definitely misinterpreting "beach of peace." It's a common law term used to describe things such as rioting. The point of that section is provide powers to police (and citizens who would help them) to prevent escalation of violence during demonstrations.

Although I will admit the term has often been interpreted in a broader sense, usually such an act by a person would be covered by some other section of the criminal code. For example, the House of Lords defined "breach of the peace" as this in it's landmark R v Howell decision:



Such violence would clearly be covered under many other sections of the criminal code. So I think the number of cases where a citizen would otherwise not have the power to arrest under 494(a) but would under 30 are extremely limited.

When someone enters into a recognizance, the very first condition 100% of the time is 'keep the peace and be of good behaviour'. Are you suggesting that the only way a police officer can charge a person with breaching a condition is if they are found rioting in that case? No, something even as little as careless driving (TSA offence) can be and is construed as a breach of peace. In practice it is always interpreted that broadly. That's why the Code doesn't provide any definition of the phrase.

And you're confusing the two now. S. 30 allows detention and the other talks about arrest. So the end effect of this whole thing is that, if you ever see someone committing a criminal offence (you don't need to know the classification), you can most definitely interfere and detain them at the very least until the police arrives as long as the force used is reasonable.

[K3RMiTdot]

a bit much, with the description of the male, i think 2 security guards were more than enough. especially if hes already pinned to the ground

[UndrgroundRider]

Originally posted by shakalaka


When someone enters into a recognizance, the very first condition 100% of the time is keep the peace and be of good behaviour. Are you suggesting that a police officer can only charge a person with breach of condition if they are found rioting in that case? In practice it is always interpreted that broadly. That's why the Code doesn't provide any definition of the phrase.

And you're confusing the two now. S. 30 allows detention and the other talks about arrest. So the end effect of this whole thing is that, if you ever see someone committing a criminal offence (you don't need to know the classification), you can most definitely interfere and detain them at the very least until the police arrives.

That's not what I'm suggesting at all, which is why I provided the interpretation from the House of Lords. What I am suggesting to you is summarized in the last line of my post, "So I think the number of cases where a citizen would otherwise not have the power to arrest under 494(a) but would under 30 are extremely limited."

I was careful to not mix up arrest and detention, as you did earlier many times. I suppose you could infer I had mixed up the two in the last line of my post (even though I was just being concise). But if we're being technical then what I said is still 100% accurate. Obviously 30 does not convey any power to arrest, which falls within the scope of "extremely limited." Even though I realized you had made the very mistake you're now chastising me for, I didn't bother to correct you because in the context of the situation they are similar enough that it's merely a legal exercise to differentiate between the two.

To be perfectly blunt I'm not going to be spending much more time on this debate. I find it to be an exercise in monotony at this point. Originally I was responding to DENZILDON who was suggesting the guy was arrested for littering (a Calgary bylaw). I simply pointed out that the offence had to be indictable for the citizen's arrest to be valid. I didn't intend on getting into a technical debate, which you admit, started over your erroneous interpretation of the statute. Further adding to the monotony is that the vast majority of offences in the criminal code fall into the indictable or hybrid category. So really we're arguing about the power to arrest/detain over a handful of statutes which cover things like harbouring a deserter. I highly doubt any of these offences fall into the scope of "breach of the peace," so I return to my original statement, which is that I think the cases where 494 doesn't provide the power to arrest/detain, but 30 does are extremely limited.

Honestly, if you want to talk about how things would play out "in practice," I'm 99% certain that if you start detaining people for charges you know are not indictable, you're going to find yourself at the business end of a charge that absolutely is indictable.

[JfuckinC]

Law & Order:
Beyond.ca

[cam_wmh]

Originally posted by UndrgroundRider


That's not what I'm suggesting at all, which is why I provided the interpretation from the House of Lords. What I am suggesting to you is summarized in the last line of my post, "So I think the number of cases where a citizen would otherwise not have the power to arrest under 494(a) but would under 30 are extremely limited."

I was careful to not mix up arrest and detention, as you did earlier many times. I suppose you could infer I had mixed up the two in the last line of my post (even though I was just being concise). But if we're being technical then what I said is still 100% accurate. Obviously 30 does not convey any power to arrest, which falls within the scope of "extremely limited." Even though I realized you had made the very mistake you're now chastising me for, I didn't bother to correct you because in the context of the situation they are similar enough that it's merely a legal exercise to differentiate between the two.

To be perfectly blunt I'm not going to be spending much more time on this debate. I find it to be an exercise in monotony at this point. Originally I was responding to DENZILDON who was suggesting the guy was arrested for littering (a Calgary bylaw). I simply pointed out that the offence had to be indictable for the citizen's arrest to be valid. I didn't intend on getting into a technical debate, which you admit, started over your erroneous interpretation of the statute. Further adding to the monotony is that the vast majority of offences in the criminal code fall into the indictable or hybrid category. So really we're arguing about the power to arrest/detain over a handful of statutes which cover things like harbouring a deserter. I highly doubt any of these offences fall into the scope of "breach of the peace," so I return to my original statement, which is that I think the cases where 494 doesn't provide the power to arrest/detain, but 30 does are extremely limited.

Honestly, if you want to talk about how things would play out "in practice," I'm 99% certain that if you start detaining people for charges you know are not indictable, you're going to find yourself at the business end of a charge that absolutely is indictable.

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view5/3130349/wiserhood-o.gif

[shakalaka]

Without it being technical or monotonous, if you as a citizen witness a criminal offence, you are in your right to interfere and use reasonable amount of force to prevent its commission or detain the person. You'd be surprised with what kinds of things can be construed as 'breach of peace' by the police in practice.

By the same token, you obviously can't start detaining random people, just because they looked at you the wrong way and so on. This is what I've been saying all along, even when I misread the section. This whole debate started when you made it sound like the only time a citizen can take a certain action is when there is an indictable offence and that is simply not true. That was the only thing I was trying to clarify and not saying what you said about 'citizen's arrest' per se was incorrect, which I admitted right away. But yea, I agree that this debate is not going anywhere now, so I am done.

[kvg]

Like I've been saying, north of Glenmore :dunno:

[black13]

I've seen worse beat downs by bar bouncers really. Just cause they're mall cops doesn't make it less dangerous. I've also seen a couple piss drunk guys at the theater late night being escorted out.

Just from that little info and the video you can't judge everything but it seems if that guy simply complied and put his arms out he probably wouldn't have been forced down.

[UndrgroundRider]

Originally posted by shakalaka
Without it being technical or monotonous, if you as a citizen witness a criminal offence, you are in your right to interfere and use reasonable amount of force to prevent its commission or detain the person. You'd be surprised with what kinds of things can be construed as 'breach of peace' by the police in practice.

...

This whole debate started when you made it sound like the only time a citizen can take a certain action is when there is an indictable offence and that is simply not true.

I'm sure you know, but it's not the police who decide the breadth of "breach of [the] peace," but the judiciary. I can't find any examples of s. 30 ever being used as you described, nor can I find any examples of this broader interpretation of "breach of the peace."

I can find hundreds of examples of it being used exactly as I described though. Almost always used in a riot/group assembly/demonstration scenario, and sometimes in a situation where a single person was ultimately trying to establish that riot/group assembly/demonstration.

Since "breach of the peace" is a common law concept, and all cases I can find support my interpretation, why don't you provide some cases that support yours? Obviously that is the definition of common law, so it should not be hard.

[Traffic_Cop]

Originally posted by UndrgroundRider


I'm sure you know, but it's not the police who decide the breadth of "breach of [the] peace," but the judiciary. I can't find any examples of s. 30 ever being used as you described, nor can I find any examples of this broader interpretation of "breach of the peace."

I can find hundreds of examples of it being used exactly as I described though. Almost always used in a riot/group assembly/demonstration scenario, and sometimes in a situation where a single person was ultimately trying to establish that riot/group assembly/demonstration.

Since "breach of the peace" is a common law concept, and all cases I can find support my interpretation, why don't you provide some cases that support yours? Obviously that is the definition of common law, so it should not be hard.

Why breach of the peace?? Cause a disturbance would be much more fitting.

[shakalaka]

The concept of breach of the peace is not statutorily defined. It does include a situation where an actual assault is committed or an individual or public alarm or excitement is caused: Frey v.Fedoruk. It also includes an act or actions that result in actual or threatened harm to another person: Brown v.Durham (Regional Municipality) Police Force. So no such strict interpretation limited to rioting/public demonstrations as you're saying. That's just a part of it.

Have a look at R v Hummel, it's a good one.

Jowitt’s Dictionary of English Law;

A violation of that quiet, peace and security to which a person is entitled under law. Breaches of the peace are offences against public order. They are commonly divided into actual, constructive and apprehended.

Actual breaches of the peace include riotous and unlawful assemblies, riots, affrays, forcible entry and detainer, etc...

Constructive breaches of the peace include the offences of sending challenges and provoking to fight, going armed in public without lawful occasion in such a manner as to alarm the public, etc...

An apprehended breach of the peace is where one man threatens another with bodily injury, or with injury to his wife or children, or where a man goes about with unusual weapons or attendance, to the terror of the people, or publishes an aggravated libel of another.

I found several cases including SCC that support this interpretation. While it does encompass public rioting and demonstrations etc, that is not the only thing as you're making it sound like, which is what I've been saying all along.

[403Gemini]

I always love hearing "I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING" ... then how did you get put into that situation? :rofl:

I've never been put in a situation where 5 guys have their knees in my back, but it's cause I didn't do anything, can't imagine the same truth for the 'victim' in this video.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by K3RMiTdot
a bit much, with the description of the male, i think 2 security guards were more than enough. especially if hes already pinned to the ground

Not if weapons and drugs are involved. I know, it's only pot but still.

[Manhattan]

Kinda irrelevant but saw this story on the news last night and the guy detained said he was on a first date. :love:

:rofl:

[benyl]

Originally posted by Manhattan
Kinda irrelevant but saw this story on the news last night and the guy detained said he was on a first date. :love:

:rofl:

Must have made a good first impression. :rofl:

[lilmira]

He probably smelled like Axe and the security guards liked it a lot.

[schocker]

Originally posted by benyl


Must have made a good first impression. :rofl:
Lets take the escalator.
Aren't you going to stand?
No, I will take a seat
:rofl:

[ga16i]

Originally posted by schocker

Lets take the escalator.
Aren't you going to stand?
No, I will take a seat
:rofl:

Haha, yup, such a rebel.
The Man forces you to stand man, but not me, I'm my own man, man.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by ga16i


Haha, yup, such a rebel.
The Man forces you to stand man, but not me, I'm my own man, man.

Sign, sign, everywhere a sign
Blockin' out the scenery, breakin' my mind
Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign?

[sputnik]

Just noticed that the guy who shot the video was a former co-worker of mine.

[Kritafo]

Chinook Centre fires one employee after security altercation; further discipline possible

Chinook Centre has fired one employee and further disciplinary action could follow in the wake of a widely circulated video that shows a violent struggle between a man and several security guards outside Chinook Centre on Saturday.

The video — posted on YouTube over the weekend — seems to show a security guard punching a man that was pinned to the ground by several other officers. The incident happened March 16 as security guards from the mall apprehended the man, who identifies himself as Dan Doussept, 31.

“As you know, we are actively investigating the security incident that occurred on March 16th. We wish to advise that disciplinary action was taken as of Sunday, March 17. Disciplinary action included the dismissal of one individual and we will take further actions as more details emerge from our investigation,” said Peggy Lim, marketing director of Chinook Centre, in an email to the Herald on Tuesday.

On Monday, a spokeswoman for the Calgary Police Service said the situation is being investigated “in its entirety,” from what led to the altercation to the struggle itself. Doussept received a trespassing summons from the Calgary Police Service, the spokeswoman confirmed.

The video begins with Doussept pinned to the ground by four security guards. A guard yells at him to stop fighting while Doussept yells that he didn’t do anything. He yells “quit smashing my face!” and another security guard approaches. That guard appears to throw three punches in Doussept’s direction and then holds him down, as well.

Doussept, who is 5-10 and says he weighs 135 pounds, is pinned to the ground and blocked from view by the guards.

Doussept was detained before the Calgary Police Service arrived. No charges were laid that night.

Doussept said Monday he hadn’t decided yet whether to lodge a complaint or seek to press charges.

Officials with Alberta Justice and Solicitor General said they are aware of 16 complaints of excessive force by the province’s 17,000-plus security guards since tighter rules for the industry were instituted two years ago



Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/Chinook+Centre+fires+employee+after+security+altercation+further+discipline+possible/8122039/story.html#ixzz2O1hrOEBn

[lilmira]

5'10" and 135lb? I think his date might be able to take him down on her own.

[cherpintow]

It was probably either the guy throwing the punches or the one who came over and said something right in the guys face and was pulled away.

If these security guards are doing such a good job they should wear cameras so they can show their side of the story as well. Anytime 5 guys are on one skinny pot smoker with no weapons, there's something wrong...

[fiveowed]

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/video?binId=1.1201914

The security was excessive with the use of force. What is this goof thinking, 31 years old and fucking around on the escalator like a teenager. Nice face tattoo:rofl:

[Xtrema]

lol dude is 31 and sounds like a preteen.

[schocker]

They didn't like his provocative style :rofl:

[Modelexis]

So we have an incident happen with private security guards using excessive force.

24 hours later you have at least one guard fired.

That's justice, just imagine how different things would be if our police forces were held to this standard of accountability.

[Supa Dexta]

# did not read thread - but saw this twat on the news. He looks hard as fuck! :rofl:

He has that look, like you'd want to punch him for no reason at all, so I can only imagine they had justification the moment he opened his dick lickers..

[rage2]

Originally posted by Supa Dexta
He has that look, like you'd want to punch him for no reason at all
Ginger?

[baygirl]

I probably deal with Chinook security more than anyone else on here, and my first thought on hearing this was "Holy shit, security actually got involved?!?!".

[schocker]

Originally posted by rage2

Ginger?
I had thought this is just called, Punchable Face :dunno:

[sputnik]

Originally posted by Xtrema
lol dude is 31 and sounds like a preteen.

Dresses like one too.

He deserved to get a beating... it just should of been from his Dad for getting neck tattoos and dressing like a high school student at the age of 31.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by rage2

Ginger?

No. Worse.

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/4841/8117437bin.jpg

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by sputnik


Dresses like one too.

He deserved to get a beating... it just should of been from his Dad for getting neck tattoos and dressing like a high school student at the age of 31.

Tell us how you really feel about people who are different from you. :nut:

[sputnik]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok


Tell us how you really feel about people who are different from you. :nut:

Seriously?

Someone in their 30s should be smart enough to know not wear a toque and Marilyn Manson t-shirt when they are going to be interviewed by the evening news about their plight at the hands of some mall cops.

Based on this I really wonder what happened prior to being beaten down by Paul Blart and his buddies.

[Kloubek]

It's hard to know exactly what caused the security to take issue - but there is no doubt it is about time this guy grows up. Not many people are going to side with him when he has an interview looking like that.

But the bottom line is that the guard did use excessive force, and Chinook dealt with that appropriately. I am not sure why so many guards were needed in the first place to subdue a 135 pound guy.

[schocker]

Originally posted by sputnik
Seriously?

Someone in their 30s should be smart enough to know not wear a toque and Marilyn Manson t-shirt when they are going to be interviewed by the evening news about their plight at the hands of some mall cops.

He could have also tidied up a bit around the house before the cameras got there :rofl:

[DENZILDON]

Originally posted by Kloubek
It's hard to know exactly what caused the security to take issue - but there is no doubt it is about time this guy grows up. Not many people are going to side with him when he has an interview looking like that.

But the bottom line is that the guard did use excessive force, and Chinook dealt with that appropriately. I am not sure why so many guards were needed in the first place to subdue a 135 pound guy.

From what I heard from one of the security supervisor there (was not there when incident happened). The guy was on drugs, threatened the guards with scissors and punched one of the security guards.

And it looks like the one that got fired is only security who was doing the punching.

[Tik-Tok]

Lol, I love the statement "He was on drugggzzz!".

You mean he was smoking weed, and had a little pair of scissors for cutting his weed up? I somehow doubt he whipped those out for the "threat" until he himself was physically threatened.

But who knows, I wasn't there.

[lilmira]

He's a chilled guy.

http://cdnl.complex.com/m.php/CHANNEL_IMAGES/POP_CULTURE/2012/07/pinkman.jpg

[spikerS]

^^ His parents are so proud!

[phil98z24]

I find it interesting that many have said, in the same breath, they don't know what may have provoked this/what the real story is/etc, and then say the force was excessive.

So in the interest of further discussion, how can you make an educated assessment of the force used, when you admittedly don't even know the entirety of the situation? I would say there is a lot of subjective opinion being thrown around, and I would like to hear someone say on an objective basis why they believe this was excessive.

And for the record, I don't have an opinion on this. I don't know enough about this particular set of circumstances, and even when I've been part of what may look like a similar arrest, they aren't always the same.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by phil98z24
I would like to hear someone say on an objective basis why they believe this was excessive.


Because there were 3 guys pinning him to the ground already. They could have held him like that until the real police arrived. The 4th didn't need to come over and punch him in the head.

I'm 190lbs, and 3 people could easily hold me down, even if I was squirming. Let alone this little dude.

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok


Because there were 3 guys pinning him to the ground already. They could have held him like that until the real police arrived. The 4th didn't need to come over and punch him in the head.

I'm 190lbs, and 3 people could easily hold me down, even if I was squirming. Let alone this little dude.

That isn't objective basis for believing that to be excessive force. You subjectively believe it because you think three people could easily hold you down, but have you ever actively resisted, assaultive, or incredibly motivated in a situation where you are being held down by three people and you want to get out of it? Have you experienced what it is like to hold someone down who is exhibiting those behaviours? Do you know what was still happening, or what led to the confrontation, or what was still being said that may have made this arrest risky?

In my eyes, this is a personal opinion and not a reasonable inference, because you can't possibly know enough to arrive at a fully educated conclusion about what took place.

[Moonracer]

Originally posted by phil98z24
I find it interesting that many have said, in the same breath, they don't know what may have provoked this/what the real story is/etc, and then say the force was excessive.

So in the interest of further discussion, how can you make an educated assessment of the force used, when you admittedly don't even know the entirety of the situation? I would say there is a lot of subjective opinion being thrown around, and I would like to hear someone say on an objective basis why they believe this was excessive.

And for the record, I don't have an opinion on this. I don't know enough about this particular set of circumstances, and even when I've been part of what may look like a similar arrest, they aren't always the same.

Now THIS is the most sensible statement in this thread so far.