 |
|
|
UER Store
|
|
order your copy of Access All Areas today!
|
|
|
 Air
      
Location: Canada
 |  | Re: Changes in the Security Industry
<Reply # 20 on 8/24/2007 2:47 PM >
|  | | | Posted by micro
Paragraph 153.1 (1) (a) or (b)
Sexual exploitation of person with disability
Yikes.
|
You would not believe how common this actually is. I've volunteered with several disabled organizations and its a common issue. Its more prevalent then statistics will tell you because many people are alone, have trouble communicating in the first place and unless someone else addresses the issue (like a family member or other caregiver), it goes unnoticed.
It seems to be a mix of aids being paid very poorly, and there basically being hardly any attraction to this job, other then abuse and defrauding of the disabled, and the few people who have a real calling to assist the disabled.
But that's the cynic in me.
I find this one interesting : Paragraph 396 (1) (a) or (b)
Offences related to mines.
[last edit 8/24/2007 2:48 PM by Air - edited 1 times]
"The extraordinary beauty of things that fail." - Heinrich von Kleist |
|
NoSuchPerson
   
Stop, or I'll ask you again!
| | Re: Changes in the Security Industry
<Reply # 21 on 8/24/2007 5:01 PM >
| | | | Posted by Air 33
I find this one interesting : Paragraph 396 (1) (a) or (b)
Offences related to mines.
|
396. (1) Every one who
(a) adds anything to or removes anything from any existing or prospective mine, mining claim or oil well with a fraudulent intent to affect the result of an assay, a test or a valuation that has been made or is to be made with respect to the mine, mining claim or oil well, or
(b) adds anything to, removes anything from or tampers with a sample or material that has been taken or is being or is about to be taken from any existing or prospective mine, mining claim or oil well for the purpose of being assayed, tested or otherwise valued, with a fraudulent intent to affect the result of the assay, test or valuation,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
Unit calling radio say again? |
|
oddspot
Location: Small Town Alberta
Gender: Male
| | Re: Changes in the Security Industry
<Reply # 22 on 8/24/2007 5:48 PM >
| | | | Posted by ExKa|iBuR
396. (1) Every one who
(a) adds anything to or removes anything from any existing or prospective mine, mining claim or oil well with a fraudulent intent to affect the result of an assay, a test or a valuation that has been made or is to be made with respect to the mine, mining claim or oil well, or
(b) adds anything to, removes anything from or tampers with a sample or material that has been taken or is being or is about to be taken from any existing or prospective mine, mining claim or oil well for the purpose of being assayed, tested or otherwise valued, with a fraudulent intent to affect the result of the assay, test or valuation,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
|
Bre-X ?
Even A Genius Has Questions!?!
I do things because I choose to, not because I have to. My Life, My Rules - No Exceptions! |
|
yokes
Location: Toronto
Gender: Male
I aim to misbehave
| |  |  | Re: Changes in the Security Industry
<Reply # 23 on 8/24/2007 5:50 PM >
| | | | Sweet. Sexual abuse of a corpse isn't on that list.
*note to self: new career time*
"Great architecture has only two natural enemies: water and stupid men." - Richard Nickel |
|
NoSuchPerson
Stop, or I'll ask you again!
| | Re: Changes in the Security Industry
<Reply # 24 on 8/24/2007 5:51 PM >
| | | | Well, I don't think de Guzman has to worry about not getting a security guard license...
Unit calling radio say again? |
|
Swamp Thing
Location: Elsewhere
Not a real user.
| | Re: Changes in the Security Industry
<Reply # 25 on 8/24/2007 7:06 PM >
| | | | "Paragraph 406 (a) or (b)
Forging trade-mark"
Somehow, writing DKNY on your hoodie doesn't strike me as the kind of thing they should be so concerned with.
As for a security professional's power of arrest, isn't it really ordinary "citizen's arrest" (essentially "detain and summon a peace officer"), but with the application of force+1 added to it?
As I went walking, I saw a sign there,
And on the sign it said “No Trespassing.”
But on the other side it didn’t say nothing, That side was made for you and me. - Woody Guthrie, "This Land Is Your Land" |
|
NoSuchPerson
Stop, or I'll ask you again!
| | Re: Changes in the Security Industry
<Reply # 26 on 8/24/2007 7:26 PM >
|  | | | Everyone can use force +1. But, an arrest by a guard can carry more power than that of a citizen. You can be charged with resisting arrest if you try to flee.. That doesn't apply to regular citizen arrests.
Unit calling radio say again? |
|
blackhawk
This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.
Location: Mission Control
UER newbie
| | | Re: Changes in the Security Industry
<Reply # 27 on 8/25/2007 7:47 AM >
| | | | Posted by ExKa|iBuR
Everyone can use force +1. But, an arrest by a guard can carry more power than that of a citizen. You can be charged with resisting arrest if you try to flee.. That doesn't apply to regular citizen arrests.
|
Interesting point.
Just when I thought I was out... they pulled me back in.
|
|
NoSuchPerson
Stop, or I'll ask you again!
| | Re: Changes in the Security Industry
<Reply # 28 on 8/25/2007 2:11 PM >
| | | | But to add to that, if a guard is going to use force, he/she had better make damn sure it's necessary and warranted or else they can be in some pretty hot water. That's the whole reason these changes were made in the first place.
Unit calling radio say again? |
|
Swamp Thing
Location: Elsewhere
Not a real user.
| | Re: Changes in the Security Industry
<Reply # 29 on 8/27/2007 3:14 PM >
| | | | Posted by ExKa|iBuR
But to add to that, if a guard is going to use force, he/she had better make damn sure it's necessary and warranted or else they can be in some pretty hot water. That's the whole reason these changes were made in the first place.
|
Yeah, that was going to be my point. And thanks for the tidbit about resist arrest.
As I went walking, I saw a sign there,
And on the sign it said “No Trespassing.”
But on the other side it didn’t say nothing, That side was made for you and me. - Woody Guthrie, "This Land Is Your Land" |
|
blackhawk
This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.
Location: Mission Control
UER newbie
| | | Re: Changes in the Security Industry
<Reply # 30 on 8/27/2007 6:18 PM >
| | | | Posted by ExKa|iBuR
But to add to that, if a guard is going to use force, he/she had better make damn sure it's necessary and warranted or else they can be in some pretty hot water. That's the whole reason these changes were made in the first place.
|
What if they assault the security guard in the process of making a lawful arrest?
Is that a new charge an elevated one above that of assault on a ordinary citizen?
Just when I thought I was out... they pulled me back in.
|
|
NoSuchPerson
Stop, or I'll ask you again!
| | Re: Changes in the Security Industry
<Reply # 31 on 8/27/2007 7:21 PM >
| | | | Resisting Arrest causing bodily harm is the term I believe. It is the same charge you would get if you beat up a cop while being arrested. Assault Police is a serious charge, but this one is just as bad to get nailed with.
Unit calling radio say again? |
|
bushwackercracker
Location: Muskoka-Parry Sound
Gender: Male
| | Re: Changes in the Security Industry
<Reply # 32 on 9/2/2007 3:27 PM >
| | | | Posted by ExKa|iBuR
According to the use of force continnum, you are allowed to use "Force +1". So, if I arrest someone and they kick me, I'm full well allowed to use a baton upside their kidney, and such force would be justified.
|
Im not sure how long ago you did your Use of force but I can gaurantee you that force +1 is not on the continuum and most definately is a tort suit as well as CCC charge in your end of the field ... sec.494 of the criminal code in all aspects as well as anything effecting arrest (i.e TPA) is sacnctioned for "as much force as reasonably necissary" to affect the arrest ... Force +1 is not and has not been utilized in years. Not is standards to the Ontario Use of Force Continuum or the National Use of Force (which by the way superceded any and all) but none the less is the same as the Ontario because it was adopted by Ontario.
You also dont have to be a Security Guard to make arrest, as stated earlier sec.494 allows anyone to (Citizens Powers) now it does get triucky and you should know before you act.
To be honest any Security Guard has it tougher than 'average Joe' b/c they are held more accountable and deemed to 'know mor or be more informed' so you are better to be caught and arrested by a 'renta' then you are by a citizen.
|
|
bushwackercracker
Location: Muskoka-Parry Sound
Gender: Male
| | Re: Changes in the Security Industry
<Reply # 33 on 9/2/2007 3:34 PM >
| | | | Appologies on the second post in such a short time I just read the 'flee' and 'resist' parts.
A security guard is not by definition a 'Peace Officer' and there for cannot have any extra status (i.e Assualt vs. Assualt Peace Officer) and as for fleeing and resistance of arrest, most likley because the criteria doesnt include a security guard you wouldnt need to worry about the escape custody, unlawfull at large or such the same as you would with a 'peace officer' or 'real cop' ... 'disarm police officer' kinda charge ... but
...doesnt mean if the security has it good with the local police they wouldnt work with them to stick more paper than necissary to you and let it sort in court.
Otherwise when youre out and about 'splorin' just be smart, safe and otherwise if you arnt either or slip up ... BE QUICK!
|
|
NoSuchPerson
Stop, or I'll ask you again!
| | Re: Changes in the Security Industry
<Reply # 34 on 9/2/2007 3:50 PM >
| | | | Posted by bushwackercracker
Im not sure how long ago you did your Use of force but I can gaurantee you that force +1 is not on the continuum and most definately is a tort suit as well as CCC charge in your end of the field... |
How's 3 weeks ago sound?
If someone is coming after me with a baseball bat, I'm allowed to equal the threat and increase one "level".
So, if you are in a situation where a suspect is presenting "soft" force such as pushing me away, I'm damn well justified by going up one force option to "empty hand defence", IE giving him a shot to the arm. This is providing that you have tried all lower levels of force first. If someone is presenting themselves with a knife, I'm not justified in going for my weapon straight away. I must try every use of force option available to me on an increasing scale. Only until all options are exhausted can I elevate it to the next degree of force.
Remember, that when someone is acting within the law to make a lawful arrest, even if it's just a citizen, they are afforded the same rights as a Police Officer to affect that arrest. So that means if somebody is trying to escape lawful custody (citizen arrest for example), you are fully justified in doing whatever you have to in order to get that person to "comply".
What this means is that if a Security Guard *does* arrest you, and you try to run...he/she can do whatever he/she deems necessary to prevent your flight. If the guard is half your size or feels physically intimidated, well, they would be justified in using a signifigant amount of force, compared to someone who is of equal size and aptitude.
Unit calling radio say again? |
|
bushwackercracker
Location: Muskoka-Parry Sound
Gender: Male
| | Re: Changes in the Security Industry
<Reply # 35 on 9/3/2007 8:58 PM >
| | | | Ok I dont dispute the fact that you can escalate through the continuum, taking aspects of terrain, environment, suspect numbers, lighting and all that stuff in consideration, perhaps it just the wording force +1 that had me. My last time doing use of force and the times previous including via OPC instructors were indicitive of not using the term 'force +1'. Please dont think im tryiong to harp here, suppose its just personal preference and appologies for any inference to lack of knowledge or other.
"Remember, that when someone is acting within the law to make a lawful arrest, even if it's just a citizen, they are afforded the same rights as a Police Officer to affect that arrest. So that means if somebody is trying to escape lawful custody (citizen arrest for example), you are fully justified in doing whatever you have to in order to get that person to "comply"." as you wrote ...
I agree on the aspect of this, however the police get there powers in the same place as we do not the otherway around, they have the Police Services Act and other legislatures to give a few more 'powers' ... none the less my point in the previous wasnt to this argument but to the fact of charges for escaping custody or assualt peace officer not to affecting the arrest with means necissary.
"What this means is that if a Security Guard *does* arrest you, and you try to run...he/she can do whatever he/she deems necessary to prevent your flight. If the guard is half your size or feels physically intimidated, well, they would be justified in using a signifigant amount of force, compared to someone who is of equal size and aptitude." as you wrote ....
I do not dispute as mentioned before with the continuum (subjects, terrain, abilities of subjects vs. officers, etc)
Otherwise all good on this end, not looking for a pi##ing match and best of luck in your endevours and explorations.
|
|
NoSuchPerson
Stop, or I'll ask you again!
| | Re: Changes in the Security Industry
<Reply # 36 on 9/4/2007 4:25 AM >
| | | | Posted by bushwackercracker
I agree on the aspect of this, however the police get there powers in the same place as we do not the otherway around, they have the Police Services Act and other legislatures to give a few more 'powers' ... none the less my point in the previous wasnt to this argument but to the fact of charges for escaping custody or assualt peace officer not to affecting the arrest with means necissary.
|
I probably worded that wrong. What my point was is that regular citizens/security guards don't have the "same" powers as a Police Officer to cause an arrest, however when an arrest is done by a citizen/security guard, it is held to the same standard and subject to the same regulations as that of a Police Officer - IE, you cannot search just "because", but you can search for possible means of escape (IE, take away their car keys) and for officer safety.
Unit calling radio say again? |
|
Ares
Location: Vaughan, On
Gender: Male
| | Re: Changes in the Security Industry
<Reply # 37 on 9/4/2007 10:53 PM >
| | | | Posted by ExKa|iBuR
Resisting Arrest causing bodily harm is the term I believe. It is the same charge you would get if you beat up a cop while being arrested. Assault Police is a serious charge, but this one is just as bad to get nailed with.
|
assault with intent to resist.
|
|
NoSuchPerson
Stop, or I'll ask you again!
| | Re: Changes in the Security Industry
<Reply # 38 on 9/5/2007 4:40 AM >
| | | | "ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO RESIST ARREST S.270(1)( CC"
270. (1) Every one commits an offence who
(a) assaults a public officer or peace officer engaged in the execution of his duty or a person acting in aid of such an officer;
(b) assaults a person with intent to resist or prevent the lawful arrest or detention of himself or another person; or
(c) assaults a person
(i) who is engaged in the lawful execution of a process against lands or goods or in making a lawful distress or seizure, or
(ii) with intent to rescue anything taken under lawful process, distress or seizure.
Punishment
(2) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
|
If you read that, you'll see that a person who assaults to prevent/resist arrest is guilty of the *exact same charge* as assaulting a Police Officer. Subsection a is for Police, subsection b is for everybody else. In the Short Form Wordings, section 270 (any of the subsections) will get you a charge of "Assaulting a peace officer" on your criminal record, regardless of whether it was a Police Officers or a regular citizen/security guard that you assaulted. Police aren't going to know that, they're going to see an Assault Peace Officer charge and are going to think you're a cop beater.
Bad news.
Unit calling radio say again? |
|
NoSuchPerson
Stop, or I'll ask you again!
| | Re: Changes in the Security Industry
<Reply # 39 on 9/5/2007 4:43 AM >
| | | | Not that it's related, but I recent had a guy arrested and charged with the following:
ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO RESIST ARREST
DANGEROUS DRIVING CAUSING BODILY HARM
FLIGHT FROM POLICE OFFICER
IMPARED DRIVING CAUSING BODILY HARM
FAIL TO PROVIDE BREATH SAMPLE
Any one of those charges alone carry a maximum penalty of 10 years in jail. Imagine what 5 of them combined is going to do. I go to court next week with this, so I'll let you know how f*cked buddy is.
Unit calling radio say again? |
|
|
|
All content and images copyright © 2002-2024 UER.CA and respective creators. Graphical Design by Crossfire.
To contact webmaster, or click to email with problems or other questions about this site:
UER CONTACT
View Terms of Service |
View Privacy Policy |
Server colocation provided by Beanfield
This page was generated for you in 140 milliseconds. Since June 23, 2002, a total of 741832392 pages have been generated.
|
|
