Proving that the photo (film etc) was taken in order to illicit personal information for the purpose of carrying out acts of terrorism might be hard, no?
Terror Law To Make Photographing Police Illegal
- Thread starter Stretch
- Start date
In the 12-18 months (or whatever the time frame) it might take to eventually
prove yourself not guilty of taking a picture or video for the purpose of carrying
out acts of terrorism might get you back your camera with a blank video card
after a bit of a switcheroo....even if its a matter of retrieving your confiscated
camera the next day, with no pictures on it, once it's out of your possession.
Wasn't that part of the attempt with this whole Vancouver Airport thing before
the camera's owner threw money at a Lawyer and put the video on Youtube?
It may never be proven that anyone takes a picture of law enforcement for the
purpose of carrying out acts of terrorism, but your camera and your pictures
could still end up out of your possession, and you might never get them back.
Just playing Devils Advocate here.
Except that wasn't what was before the judge and so impossible to do.
What is bull**** is that the people brought to court never sued for malicious prosecution. If they were charged with an offense without any proof at all, how would the DA who is in charge of what is prosecuted bring this before a judge? Did the prosecuting attorney when asked for the evidence stand up and ask "Evidence"? You can't just arrest someone, charge them with a crime and then say we just wanted them out of the way for a few hours.
People have rights but if they don't bother to use them then it's a lot like not having rights.
roflmao
Well, stun me to death with tasers.
Lookee what I have in my pics folder:
That's 12 counts of the infraction, isn't it?
Well, stun me to death with tasers.
Lookee what I have in my pics folder:
That's 12 counts of the infraction, isn't it?
They are not "working horses" like the dogs are working dogs. The horses are just part of the musical ride. Why would the horses count? You can only be on the "ride" for 2 years and then go back to regular police work (unless you are a 4 legged horse) but I can't see where the pics would not be allowed. Tourists have been taking pics of the ride for years. The ride goes out of the country as well as far as I know. Why would you have that picture on file? Seems an odd choice.:-|
Your post makes it appear that these new laws (if they come into existence in Canada) will be for the whole of Canada. Upon reading the article, it is clear that only the Montreal Police are asking for such a law. I quote this from your article:
Meanwhile, in Montreal Canada, Montreal police are asking the city to outlaw bad or insulting language used against police officers, making it illegal for members of the public to call cops profanity-laced nicknames, or lob jeers, such as “pig” and “doughnut-eater.”
I think the post does a dis-service to the police in the rest of Canada giving people more opportunity to make even more critical statements about the police then they already do in these forums. The open hatred for police here is higher then I have ever seen before or have ever heard in my life. I thought the hatred and intolerance for both religion and political parties was the worst there could be on the other forums I was on, but, hatred for the law is alive and well here. :-(Upon reading the article, it is clear that only the Montreal Police are asking for such a law.
That is funny. When I lived in Montreal they were the most brutal force in Canada. they loved to bash heads and were known to start riots just so they could. I could tell you lots of horror stories about those buggers but there is no room.
That is funny. When I lived in Montreal they were the most brutal force in Canada. they loved to bash heads and were known to start riots just so they could. I could tell you lots of horror stories about those buggers but there is no room.
You haven't lived there for about 40 years though have you? Isn't there a chance things have changed?
I lived there 4 yrs ago and no they have not changed. The SPVM are still stormtroopers with a badge
what happened to the old adage " sticks an' stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me"?
well, sadly islandpacific, today we are guilty till proven innocent and treated accordingly. I have a very good friend who left the police force because the up and coming young recruits scared the crap out of him.....he said all they wanted was the uniform, the gun and the fast car and he said they had no respect for the general public.
The following is an example of tasteful police photography. Notice officers' faces are concealed or turned away from the camera lens. Yet, the photograph still evokes the charm of police keeping our democracy safe and free!
Why Can't We Take Pictures of Policemen?
'Andrew Carter, a plumber from Bedminster, near Bristol, took a photograph of an officer who had ignored a no-entry road sign while driving a police van. This might have appeared a somewhat petulant thing to do, but taking a photograph in a public place is not a crime. Yet the policeman smashed the camera from Mr Carter's hand, handcuffed him, put him in the back of the van and took him to the police station, where he was kept for five hours.
When he returned to answer bail the following week, he was kept at the station for another five hours. He was released without charge, despite an attempt by the police to claim some spurious offence of "assault with a camera".'
Why can't we take pictures of policemen? - Telegraph
'Andrew Carter, a plumber from Bedminster, near Bristol, took a photograph of an officer who had ignored a no-entry road sign while driving a police van. This might have appeared a somewhat petulant thing to do, but taking a photograph in a public place is not a crime. Yet the policeman smashed the camera from Mr Carter's hand, handcuffed him, put him in the back of the van and took him to the police station, where he was kept for five hours.
When he returned to answer bail the following week, he was kept at the station for another five hours. He was released without charge, despite an attempt by the police to claim some spurious offence of "assault with a camera".'
Why can't we take pictures of policemen? - Telegraph
Why Can't We Take Pictures of Policemen?
'Andrew Carter, a plumber from Bedminster, near Bristol, took a photograph of an officer who had ignored a no-entry road sign while driving a police van. This might have appeared a somewhat petulant thing to do, but taking a photograph in a public place is not a crime. Yet the policeman smashed the camera from Mr Carter's hand, handcuffed him, put him in the back of the van and took him to the police station, where he was kept for five hours.
When he returned to answer bail the following week, he was kept at the station for another five hours. He was released without charge, despite an attempt by the police to claim some spurious offence of "assault with a camera".'
Why can't we take pictures of policemen? - Telegraph
'Andrew Carter, a plumber from Bedminster, near Bristol, took a photograph of an officer who had ignored a no-entry road sign while driving a police van. This might have appeared a somewhat petulant thing to do, but taking a photograph in a public place is not a crime. Yet the policeman smashed the camera from Mr Carter's hand, handcuffed him, put him in the back of the van and took him to the police station, where he was kept for five hours.
When he returned to answer bail the following week, he was kept at the station for another five hours. He was released without charge, despite an attempt by the police to claim some spurious offence of "assault with a camera".'
Why can't we take pictures of policemen? - Telegraph