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

[valo403]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

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

Huh? What does that have to do with innocent until proven guilty?

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

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

Exactly.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

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.

Again, I don't care what the theme of thread is. He's responsible for his own statements. I'm not countering posts by puckluck, I'm addressing his words.

Originally Posted by valo403

Again, I don't care what the theme of thread is. He's responsible for his own statements. I'm not countering posts by puckluck, I'm addressing his words.

Hah... this is gold... you may not care what the theme is, but when someone makes a remark on the theme, and you chose to ignore that remark, I am not sure you are in a position to judge anyones posts.

I love the interweb forum responsibility speech... nice touch.

My opinion is he is not a victim. My general sense from reading this thread is that the guards and their actions are being judged based on some set a preconceived ideas.

Clearer?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Hah... this is gold.

I love the interweb forum responsibility speech... nice touch.

My opinion is he is not a victim. My general sense from reading this thread is that the guards and their actions are being judged based on some set a preconceived ideas.

Clearer?

Based upon what evidence?

And the "forum responsibility speech" seems necessary since you want to try to pretend that somehow direct quotes aren't applicable to you because of the 'tone' of a thread.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

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

That makes no sense but keep stirring the pot, someone is bound to take your spoon away.

[Winnie]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Hah... this is gold... you may not care what the theme is, but when someone makes a remark on the theme, and you chose to ignore that remark, I am not sure you are in a position to judge anyones posts.

I love the interweb forum responsibility speech... nice touch.

My opinion is he is not a victim. My general sense from reading this thread is that the guards and their actions are being judged based on some set a preconceived ideas.

Clearer?

It's OK to judge security guards, cops, etc. by preconceived notions. God forbid you judge a neck tattooed skid getting into fights with mall security.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

That makes no sense but keep stirring the pot, someone is bound to take your spoon away.

Should I take that as praise from the top pot stirrer........

[Flacker]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Hah... this is gold... you may not care what the theme is, but when someone makes a remark on the theme, and you chose to ignore that remark, I am not sure you are in a position to judge anyones posts.

I love the interweb forum responsibility speech... nice touch.

My opinion is he is not a victim. My general sense from reading this thread is that the guards and their actions are being judged based on some set a preconceived ideas.

Clearer?

And one of the guards was FIRED based on these preconceived notions?

Come on man, give your head a shake.

You are pretty clearly skewed by bias, are you a security guard perhaps?

It is very clear that the actions of at least one guard was deemed "wrong", not sure why you feel it necessary to defend them. They look like knuckle dragging fools in that video (primarily the worst offender), I don't think it is a judgement of security personel in general.

Chin up, sport!

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

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.

Probably closer to anti-punching-a-man-while-he-already-has-3-men-on-him. Not many people seems to think the mall-patron is that paradigm of an upstanding citizen. But being a ###### isn't an excuse for the unprofessionalism shown by whichever guard was screaming he was "going to #### him up" and depending on the exact circumstances probably didn't warrant the kidney shots.

What probably should have been an argument between 2 ######s ended up into this fiasco because one of the ######s happen to wear a uniform he felt made him special. That's my opinion at least.

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Can someone make a meme please?

Like a Bad Luck Brian one? Goes on first date hoping to get invited to her place for some weed and stay the night - get's beat up by knuckle dragging, unintelligent, knuckle-dragger instead?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

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.

Trespassing.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Trespassing.

Thanks, that helps.

Trespass is an offence that grounds a citizen's arrest both under provincial legislation and s. 494(2) of the Criminal Code.

Notice has to be given to a trespasser first of course, but they can be arrested by the owner or his/her agent if they refuse to leave. On that basis there is arguably a lawful basis for the arrest, which just leaves the question of whether the force was excessive.

In one case it clearly was; for the others I'd say we just don't have enough information.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Thanks, that helps.

Trespass is an offence that grounds a citizen's arrest both under provincial legislation and s. 494(2) of the Criminal Code.

Notice has to be given to a trespasser first of course, but they can be arrested by the owner or his/her agent if they refuse to leave. On that basis there is arguably a lawful basis for the arrest, which just leaves the question of whether the force was excessive.

In one case it clearly was; for the others I'd say we just don't have enough information.

So was the Trespassing from this incident or from a prior incident?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

So was the Trespassing from this incident or from a prior incident?

I don't know. Though I don't think it has to be a prior incident for a citizen's arrest to be lawful. However, he does have to actually be trespassing, which in this case requires first being asked to leave and then refusing to do so. I have no idea whether either thing happened here.

[Ped]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I don't know. Though I don't think it has to be a prior incident for a citizen's arrest to be lawful. However, he does have to actually be trespassing, which in this case requires first being asked to leave and then refusing to do so. I have no idea whether either thing happened here.

Unless its changed since 2009 (I don't know, just most recent thing I found), he doesn't have to be asked to leave and then refuse, to be considered trespassing.

If he previously received notice that he couldn't come there, and then he showed up while that was still in effect, then he's guilty of trespassing whether or not they ask him to leave again.

Apologies if I'm wrong.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Ped

Unless its changed since 2009 (I don't know, just most recent thing I found), he doesn't have to be asked to leave and then refuse, to be considered trespassing.

If he previously received notice that he couldn't come there, and then he showed up while that was still in effect, then he's guilty of trespassing whether or not they ask him to leave again.

Apologies if I'm wrong.

I suspect that's right, but there isn't any indication that this is what happened is there?

[CofR]

I'm not sure if they have them at Chinook, but if they have signs posted staying "No Trespassing" then that counts as notice as well.

[CofR]

Originally Posted by Ped

Unless its changed since 2009 (I don't know, just most recent thing I found)

I'm pretty sure that 2009 was the last time that the TPA was changed.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CofR

I'm not sure if they have them at Chinook, but if they have signs posted staying "No Trespassing" then that counts as notice as well.

Well then anyone who enters into the mall would be trespassing. You'd have to be informed that you are not allowed on the premises, either at a previous time or by a request to leave to be a trespasser.

[Ped]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I suspect that's right, but there isn't any indication that this is what happened is there?

Wouldn't the fact that he received a summons indicate that either previously or during this incident he was asked to leave and refused?

Again not sure, not as far as Albert provincial law goes.