Chinook Centre's Security - Highly Aggressive? You decide.

[Captain_Obvious]

Seems to me like this guy was a mouthy little skid who probably got what was coming to him from a bunch of unintelligent mall cop brutes who will probably be rightfully fired for their lack of restraint and tap-out demeanor.

Why does everything have to be a big whiny self righteous argument with people so keen on immediately picking sides?

The world is full of terrible dim-whited people.

Sounds like the stupid train went full circle in this one. Angst-y anti-authority marilyn manson t-shirt guy gets roughed up and neanderthal mouth breathing mall cops will get fired over it.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Yeah, but the thing is nobody is even claiming he did anything other than what we've heard already. The real police let him go, the mall fired one of the guards.

If he actually did something like punched a mall cop or was waving around his reefer scissors, then tough break pal, you got a little roughed up and you probably deserved it for taking a swing or acting crazy.

If all he did was mouth off as he was leaving the mall (which is the story that nobody seems to be disputing), then mall cops don't have the right to whip his ass, "active resistance" or not. They shouldn't even be touching the guy to give him a chance to resist.

True but only after he was given a summons....now it comes down to what, if any, actions were appropriate in the guards dealing with what he was charged with.

It does appear that one guy went over the top, and now the rest of the guards will be reviewed independently to see where their actions fall on the "appropriate response" scale.

Just a gut feeling on this one, but once all the story is told via CCTV and eyewitness accounts....this guy will be the only one charged with anything sans the one guard who was dismissed, who rightfully should be persued criminally if what the video shows was way over the line behaviour.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by troutman

"I didn't do nothing" is a double negative, so he did do something.

Didn't the Oxford Congress on English rule that it can either constitute a positive or a doubly strong desire to negate?

[LIP MAN]

Originally Posted by Reaper

Didn't the Oxford Congress on English rule that it can either constitute a positive or a doubly strong desire to negate?

Perhaps Chinook Centre deployed them as part of a new initiative? Like an overly agressive "Grammar Task Force". To be fair, they probably did miss the big GSP fight, and decided to implement his infamous takedowns/ground-and-pound to enforce the Harper's proposed "Protecting Calgary consumers from smug looks at the bottom's of escalator's by blue-collar workers and poor sentence structure as well as improper punctuation" Act.

Clearly, I need my path free of this element while I'm going to see the latest classics such as Wrath of the Titans or That's My Boy.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by transplant99

True but only after he was given a summons....now it comes down to what, if any, actions were appropriate in the guards dealing with what he was charged with..

I wouldn't read anything into the summons. They are routinely issued in these situations even where the only evidence is a single witness statement, such as the statement by the guard. It will be much more telling to see whether the Crown elects to pursue a conviction. They would likely not do so if there was not sufficient evidence to make a conviction a likely prospect.

The problem is that the video as we have seen it contains no such evidence, though it does contain sufficient evidence in my view to make an assault conviction likely for at least one of the guards. There is likely some additional context that will eventually emerge, but it is hard to imagine that it will be of much help to the guard throwing the punches.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Trust me, you don't come across as a know-it-all.

Did you even comprehend that use of force continuum?

He admitted to being an active resistor. He continued to "actively" resist and not cooperate. Should they have just asked hom nicely and bought him some flowers.

How about this, you and 4 or 5 friends can try an arrest me while im actively resisting. Are you going to roll around with me on the pavement and just try and free my arm from underneath me with your hand? Good luck. Are they authorized to use strikes for such resistance? Yup.

Are you authorized as a private citizen? Yup.

The kicker is the word "reasonable" and is based on the totality of circumstances including everything from subject behaviour, to subject background to environmental conditions to ones own personal abilities and EVERYTHING in between.

It makes no difference if YOU think the authority for arrest exists or doesn't. If you are arrested by a cop or someone in a lawful position to make arrests, I would suggest being cooperative and reasonable before spouting off and throwing your coffee.

This guy is NOT a victim. It seems everyone is simply condemning the actions of the security guards simply due to their own personal biases about "$10 doolar rent-a-cops".

And it seems like you have invested in a jump to conclusions mat

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by valo403

And it seems like you have invested in a jump to conclusions mat

I'm really surprised by Bent Wookies comments in this thread, actually.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I wouldn't read anything into the summons. They are routinely issued in these situations even where the only evidence is a single witness statement, such as the statement by the guard. It will be much more telling to see whether the Crown elects to pursue a conviction. They would likely not do so if there was not sufficient evidence to make a conviction a likely prospect.

The problem is that the video as we have seen it contains no such evidence, though it does contain sufficient evidence in my view to make an assault conviction likely for at least one of the guards. There is likely some additional context that will eventually emerge, but it is hard to imagine that it will be of much help to the guard throwing the punches.

Well no kidding...the video has nothing to do with why he was issued a summons as all that stuff occurred prior to the guards attempting to detain him...which I assume is why the summons has been issued to begin with.

Something occurred to set off the chain of events that ended up with the guy being pinned to the ground by 5 others...just what that was is what is being investigated by all parties right now and whether or not the response was adequate or over the line.

Again, and its merely my guess, is that he did something overtly against mall policy and when asked to stop became beligerent and non conforming to the guards request...at which time everything escalated to where things are now.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Well no kidding...the video has nothing to do with why he was issued a summons as all that stuff occurred prior to the guards attempting to detain him...which I assume is why the summons has been issued to begin with.

Something occurred to set off the chain of events that ended up with the guy being pinned to the ground by 5 others...just what that was is what is being investigated by all parties right now and whether or not the response was adequate or over the line.

Again, and its merely my guess, is that he did something overtly against mall policy and when asked to stop became beligerent and non conforming to the guards request...at which time everything escalated to where things are now.

My point was just that the issuance of a summons doesn't mean anything on its own. It doesn't, for instance, reflect that the police actually believed he was guilty of an offence, or even that there was any evidence other than the word of the guards.

In any case the summons was for littering, wasn't it? I could be wrong about that, but if it was then it is totally unhelpful to the guards. Even real cops don't have the authority to treat someone that way on the basis of observing a bylaw offence.

Originally Posted by valo403

And it seems like you have invested in a jump to conclusions mat

You have read the entire thread haven't you?

The common theme is that the security guards are knuckle dragging, unintelligent, knuckle-draggers who make minimum wage.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

You have read the entire thread haven't you?

The common theme is that the security guards are knuckle dragging, unintelligent, knuckle-draggers who make minimum wage.

A few people have said some version of that but it's hardly the "common theme." The common theme is that the actions of these guards are very likely way over the line. That appears to be true since at least one of them has been fired. It remains to be seen whether one or more of the guards will face criminal charges; I wouldn't be in the least surprised.

Lastly, a civil action may lie against the guards, and it's even possible that Paladin or Chinook may be vicariously liable depending on how far outside their authority the guards acted. It's hard to judge, but this has the potential to get very ugly for those guards.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

You have read the entire thread haven't you?

The common theme is that the security guards are knuckle dragging, unintelligent, knuckle-draggers who make minimum wage.

If you only read puckluck sure. I think most people understand that the qualifications for being a security guard are very low, people can use it as a stepping stone to a more reputable career in law enforcement but having worked as a security guard there is their fare share of unintelligent people.

Although I did laugh at the use of the term knuckle dragger... being used twice.

Edit: Regardless about what pucklucks views on an entire group of people are - this one guy still appeared to have done wrong and assaulted someone in the course of making a potentially lawful arrest...

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

You have read the entire thread haven't you?

The common theme is that the security guards are knuckle dragging, unintelligent, knuckle-draggers who make minimum wage.

I don't care what the theme of others posts are, you're responsible for your own post and what you said shows an incredible amount of conclusion jumping to fit the narrative you want to create. You know nothing more than anyone else here, yet you're making proclamations. That's ridiculous.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

This guy is NOT a victim. It seems everyone is simply condemning the actions of the security guards simply due to their own personal biases about "$10 doolar rent-a-cops".

Aren't you involved in law enforcement somehow? I'm not, but I am pretty sure "innocent until proven guilty" plays a part in it somehow.

Originally Posted by flameswin

I'm really surprised by Bent Wookies comments in this thread, actually.

And why would that be?

The guards noticed the scissors when he was on the ground “in the fetal position” during the struggle, he said. He was clenching onto his jacket as guards were trying to rip it off of him, he said.

“When the cop ripped my hand away he was like ‘He has something! He has something in his hand!’” Doussept said.

“And then he was like, ‘He’s got scissors!’ Well, I wasn’t even holding onto my scissors. I was holding onto my toothbrush, actually.”

Can someone make a meme please?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Aren't you involved in law enforcement somehow? I'm not, but I am pretty sure "innocent until proven guilty" plays a part in it somehow.

Not from the comments I have read. They are all about rent-a-cop this and loser cop wanna be that.

Originally Posted by valo403

I don't care what the theme of others posts are, you're responsible for your own post and what you said shows an incredible amount of conclusion jumping to fit the narrative you want to create. You know nothing more than anyone else here, yet you're making proclamations. That's ridiculous.

What are you talking about? I was making a statement about the theme of the thread.

The narrative I want to create?

Proclamations?

Tell me, is it jumping to conclusions that that the common theme is condemnation based solely on the fact that they are $10 dollar rent-a-cops? Really? I was trying to fit a narrative?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

What are you talking about? I was making a statement about the theme of the thread.

The narrative I want to create?

Proclamations?

You were not making a statement about the theme of the thread, you were making statements about what happened without knowing the facts any better than anyone else. You were jumping to conclusions and casting judgment. Go ahead and pretend you weren't, but everyone else sees it clear as day.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by valo403

I don't care what the theme of others posts are, you're responsible for your own post and what you said shows an incredible amount of conclusion jumping to fit the narrative you want to create. You know nothing more than anyone else here, yet you're making proclamations. That's ridiculous.

To be fair to him, that is the theme of this thread. His appeared to be pro-security guard, and many others have been pro-mall patron.