Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/07/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]First of all, the ruling referred to, gives the right to use "reasonable force" in a citizen's arrest, to ~everyone~, including, obviously, security guards. And, as Jim quite rightly questions: "what is reasonable force?" In this particular case, the defendant taxi driver had been served at least 22 times with a Trespass Notice not to be at the Toronto Airport. When he was caught the 23rd time, he was arrested for Trespassing. He attempted to enter his cab, and a security guard stepped in his way, to prevent his entry into the cab. The defendant then pushed the guard (who had legally arrested him) out of the way, got into the cab, slammed the door into the guard, and then drove off. So, all the court said was that in putting himself between the legally arrested defendant and the taxi cab, the guard used "reasonable force". The court was only commenting on that particular case, and didn't articulate what else might constitute "reasonable force". Further jurisprudence will be required to "flesh out" what reasonable force means. That's my understanding of the ruling, anyway (with no comment as to whether I agree with it or not)... cheers, frank Jim Laurel wrote: > Great, rent-a-cops with authority... A term as vague as "reasonable force" > is bound to be abused by security guards. > - -- "I don't believe in God, but I do believe in pi" - Henri Cartier-Bresson - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html