Identify this mystery item that was left on my balcony

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

Who needs a Telescopic rod when you can have a 9 milli? USA!

Who needs a 9 mili when you can have an RPG? Af-ghan-istan!

[Ducay]

Hey HockeyCop, mind me asking what the legal justification behind retail stores detaining you over seeing your receipt for purchase?
If I am in lawful possession of my items (owning them), and they have no sign posted indicated search, and have seen me commit no crime; can they lawfully detain me? I always get rubbed the wrong way when BestBuy employees demand to see my receipt. One guy he proclaimed he was detaining me when I wouldn't show him my receipt.

Originally Posted by algernon

Good one, Gordon. Was there a point, or were you being obnoxious for the sake of it?

So calling people out by their first name is you new trick of the week is it?

[amorak]

Originally Posted by Ducay

So calling people out by their first name is you new trick of the week is it?

We're all hoping Algernon's location becomes his user status.

[amorak]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Hey HockeyCop, mind me asking what the legal justification behind retail stores detaining you over seeing your receipt for purchase?
If I am in lawful possession of my items (owning them), and they have no sign posted indicated search, and have seen me commit no crime; can they lawfully detain me? I always get rubbed the wrong way when BestBuy employees demand to see my receipt. One guy he proclaimed he was detaining me when I wouldn't show him my receipt.

They have no legal right to detain you. That's why mall security etc are rarely told to arrest shop lifters unless its incontrovertible.

You could walk out of the Futureshop in Northland Mall, for example and be asked to show your receipt, but you have no legal requirement too. They can detain you, but any damages associated with the detainment (assuming there are) can be held against the store. Furthermore, criminal charges of unlawful detainment can be levied.

If you are stealing, they were jsutifieed in detaining you and the cops will charge you

if you aren't, and say they tackle you, you can sue for damages and the offending employee/guard could be charged with assault/unlawful confinement.

However, there is another side to the coin - if you say no, they do have the right to bar you from entry in the future, and charge you with trespassing after that if you come on their property.

[hockeycop]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Hey HockeyCop, mind me asking what the legal justification behind retail stores detaining you over seeing your receipt for purchase?
If I am in lawful possession of my items (owning them), and they have no sign posted indicated search, and have seen me commit no crime; can they lawfully detain me? I always get rubbed the wrong way when BestBuy employees demand to see my receipt. One guy he proclaimed he was detaining me when I wouldn't show him my receipt.




So calling people out by their first name is you new trick of the week is it?

Amorak is correct. They have zero authority. If they are just looking at reciepts, then play ball just out of courtesy. If they come after you and accuse you of stealing or want to search your bags, then tell them to pound sand and keep walking. If they push, then you hit them back in courts.

The "we have a sign up that means we can search you" crap is a myth. They can deny your entry to an event if you refuse search, but they can not hold you or stop you from leaving. Signs don't mean a thing.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by hockeycop

The "we have a sign up that means we can search you" crap is a myth. They can deny your entry to an event if you refuse search, but they can not hold you or stop you from leaving. Signs don't mean a thing.

Why can't they just say they "saw you doing suspicious activities on the video camera" and then implement your citizens arrest on the grounds of suspected theft?

[hockeycop]

Citizens Arrest has to be found committing. What that means is that they have to see a whole offence AND not lose sight of you. For a shoplifting offence, they have to see:

1 - Selection of product off of a shelf,
2 - Concelement,
3 - Avoiding any place to make a payment,
4 - Leaving the store (completing the offence)

Suspicious activities would be a good reason for the store security guard to watch you, but doesn't give him the right to do anything. A police Officer could search you based on grounds, but a citizen can not.

Originally Posted by hockeycop

Citizens Arrest has to be found committing. What that means is that they have to see a whole offence AND not lose sight of you. For a shoplifting offence, they have to see:

1 - Selection of product off of a shelf,
2 - Concelement,
3 - Avoiding any place to make a payment,
4 - Leaving the store (completing the offence)

Suspicious activities would be a good reason for the store security guard to watch you, but doesn't give him the right to do anything. A police Officer could search you based on grounds, but a citizen can not.

Points 3 and 4, have become the "norm" when it comes to theft (shoplifting) charges. These however are not necessary for the charge based on the Criminal Code. It may take a little more to articulate, but with 1 and 2 and additional mens rea, a charge could be laid.

Mere suspicion is not enough for a police officer to search you (with the exception of a "pat down" for safety reasons). Unless I misunderstood that statement.

[hockeycop]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Points 3 and 4, have become the "norm" when it comes to theft (shoplifting) charges. These however are not necessary for the charge based on the Criminal Code. It may take a little more to articulate, but with 1 and 2 and additional mens rea, a charge could be laid.

Mere suspicion is not enough for a police officer to search you (with the exception of a "pat down" for safety reasons). Unless I misunderstood that statement.

Mere suspicion would not constitute legal grounds for a more thorough frisk search, however the police are given more leeway in the courts in searching for reasons of Officer Safety.

You are correct about points 3 and 4, however it is best practice for the security guard to let those elements come into place. Security Guards are a liability to a prosecution when challenged to articulate anything.

[algernon]

Originally Posted by amorak

We're all hoping Algernon's location becomes his user status.

Guys, I was being sarcastic.

Originally Posted by hockeycop

Mere suspicion would not constitute legal grounds for a more thorough frisk search, however the police are given more leeway in the courts in searching for reasons of Officer Safety.

You are correct about points 3 and 4, however it is best practice for the security guard to let those elements come into place. Security Guards are a liability to a prosecution when challenged to articulate anything.

Although current detention and related search foundations are still evolving and case law is still be written and challenged, it is just as important to not write poor case law.

Police may be given more "leeway", but, at the same time, they are held to a much higher standard and as such judges are much more apt to throw out evidence yielded from a search from simple detention (not arrest) citing that the police know the law and were clearly searching for evidence (sorry, long sentence).

[hockeycop]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Although current detention and related search foundations are still evolving and case law is still be written and challenged, it is just as important to not write poor case law.

Police may be given more "leeway", but, at the same time, they are held to a much higher standard and as such judges are much more apt to throw out evidence yielded from a search from simple detention (not arrest) citing that the police know the law and were clearly searching for evidence (sorry, long sentence).

Yes, I am quite confident we are saying the same thing, in different ways.

[keratosis]

Power lines running by or near your balcony?
Could be a fuse.

[ricosuave]

^ no, its not a fuse.

Its a baton.

http://calgary.kijiji.ca/c-buy-and-s...dIdZ251752696#

[algernon]

Maybe it's a female baton.