Metro fining cars at a Mall

[SkyWalker42]

Your scenario is totally out of the context of the debate. Firstly, my private residence is, well, private, and cops would need a court order to enter, unless they have received a complaint from neighbours regarding the nudity, noise, etc. In which case they can only investigate the complaint. A car parked at a shopping mall, is very different to a car standing on bricks at my residence (incidentally, the car that is standing there now, was transported on a trailer).

Dave S' response would be, "Please, Mr. Cops, can I see all of your valid Identifications and badge numbers, as well as your court order, please furnish me with the details of the authorising commander of your unit. Thank you, see you in court..."

Ok, the (scenario) scenery at the mall looks slightly different, but from a LEGAL VIEWPOINT they are identical. There are no shades of grey of private property. The mall is private property, full stop. A car parked at a shopping mall is on private property. This is a fact and a court deal only in facts, not opinions.
The cop has no business writing traffic tickets on private property, in fact the cop should not even be on privately property while on duty. His workplace is in the public space only, where he must do his job as dictated by the traffic rules and he doesn't get to make makeup his own law as he goes along, which is exactly what they did in this case.

Funny I was right about the car, I just made it up.
Regarding the pool party, I didn't say anything about noise.
So, tell us about that pool party...

[Dave S]

Like I said, the mall may be private property, but the 'mets' could have got permission from the management to be there, which makes it legal for them to be there. Would be interesting to know for sure what the extent of the "private property clause" would be as regards the parking lot?

Oh, you know, just a quiet party...

[SkyWalker42]

Yeah I'm really not sure how skywalker's argument is valid. The scenario is completely different to that of a shopping mall.

See above and point out where my argument is invalid or illegal.

Anyway, I'd rather have the cops walking around a shopping centre parking lot fining for license discs and tyres than have them set up a roadblock at the entrance/exit to a mall, which would probably be well within their rights, but would cause chaos of note.

I'd rather have them NOT walking around on private property writing tickets, because it is illegal.
That is definitely within their right if the road block is "on the public side".

Simple really: If you're driving a car, make sure it's licensed and roadworthy. Then there'll be no problems regardless of where you are?

Agreed is really simple: Make sure your car licensed and roadworthy. Then there'll be no problems ON THE PUBLIC ROADS, and there will be no problem on private property if the metro cops stops breaking the law.



Dave and Mark, I don't mind your opinion about what the cops can and cannot do to you, but I do have a problem when you say that they can infringe on my (and everyone else's) rights too.

[Dave S]

@skywalker42 were you, by any chance, one of the unfortunate ones that were ticketed in this manner? Sorry to ask, it just seems that you are pressing the point just a little too aggressively.

Understanding that the ticketing at shopping malls may/may not be legal, we still don't know for sure, would it not be infringing on others rights to safety if one of the cars with smooth tyres were to leave the shopping mall and risk killing someone in an accident due to a blown-out tyre or aqua-planing?

We all know that operating an un-roadworthy vehicle is dangerous and infringes on everyone's rights, if one is ticketted for such offence, whether it be at the mall or in a roadblock is of no consequence, if the vehicle is operated in this condition then it stands to reason, the ticket is legal.

[AndyD]

Not to sound harsh, but there's not really anything to worry about if you just have a valid license disc and keep your tyres roadworthy?

I don't really buy into the arguement that if you obey the law you have nothing to worry about even if the police are pushing their jurisdiction. Problem is this is how mission-creep occurs, I prefer to have the police and authorities on a very tight leash and a very clear line that they don't cross. The problem with turning a blind eye in one area is that it's only a short step for legislating it across the board. Take the Americans and their patriot act, one terrorist act on their home soil leads to a massive loss of rights for all citizens. The authorities there have extraordinary power as long as they can make some vague link with terrorism and it's amazing how all-encompassing that one word has become in the last few years.

A slight infringement here and there sets precidents and leads to larger and not necessarily wanted changes being implimented over time.

[Dave S]

I hear you Andy, the point that nobody has been able to answer yet is, "Was it legal for the cops to do this?" We know the mall is private property, but that in itself does not give anybody the right to disregard the law, cops included, or does it?

I, as much as anyone, want to see the cops on a tighter leash, but we must still allow them to protect our rights as well, surely? (This last bit was more tongue in cheek, I'm of the opinion that the cops don't give a hint for anyone's rights anyway).

[vieome]

I don't really buy into the arguement that if you obey the law you have nothing to worry about even if the police are pushing their jurisdiction. Problem is this is how mission-creep occurs, I prefer to have the police and authorities on a very tight leash and a very clear line that they don't cross. The problem with turning a blind eye in one area is that it's only a short step for legislating it across the board. Take the Americans and their patriot act, one terrorist act on their home soil leads to a massive loss of rights for all citizens. The authorities there have extraordinary power as long as they can make some vague link with terrorism and it's amazing how all-encompassing that one word has become in the last few years.

A slight infringement here and there sets precidents and leads to larger and not necessarily wanted changes being implimented over time.

I agree AndyD, a few months ago, was given a ticket for going threw an orange, copper says it was red, my word versus his, day in court paid half the fine. The problem is that when you have a few(perhaps)) bad apples in the force looking for bribes giving them access to the mall parkings allows them to spread their wings and increase their bribe takings.

[SkyWalker42]

@skywalker42 were you, by any chance, one of the unfortunate ones that were ticketed in this manner? Sorry to ask, it just seems that you are pressing the point just a little too aggressively.

No, I was not one of the unfortunate ones, unfortunately. I'm pressing the point because I value my rights and freedoms and I can see them being taken away bit by bit.

Understanding that the ticketing at shopping malls may/may not be legal, we still don't know for sure, would it not be infringing on others rights to safety if one of the cars with smooth tyres were to leave the shopping mall and risk killing someone in an accident due to a blown-out tyre or aqua-planing?

We all know that operating an un-roadworthy vehicle is dangerous and infringes on everyone's rights, if one is ticketted for such offence, whether it be at the mall or in a roadblock is of no consequence, if the vehicle is operated in this condition then it stands to reason, the ticket is legal.

I have made my point regarding the legality of the tickets. I think you are taking it a bit too far here. This is like arresting someone just in case they commit a crime. All woman are equipped to become prostitutes, so let's arrest them all in order to protect the community.
I'm actually sick of the government pretending to protect me. I'm no nanny state fan.

Also, please differentiate between lawful/unlawful(right/wrong in common law) and
legal/illegal (acts of parliament written by greedy and corrupt politicians - statutes. )

Have you noticed how in every act of parliament there is never an injured party and there is always money involved, payable by you to them. ( Criminal procedure act excluded )

In Common Law, if there is no injured party, there is no crime.

They can make eating fresh vegetables illegal, in order to "protect" you for whatever reason they like. They probably have already, I just haven't checked recently.

I think I've made my point.

[greasemonkey]

I vaguely remember my brother going through a similiar issue when he worked at Liberty life properties.I can't get hold of him to clarify but if I remember correctly , when a shopping mall or similiar is built , the developer has to have the parking area "zoned" as a public access area and as such the metro can patrol and enforce the laws. I stand under correction but it was something to that effect.

[Dave S]

I fully understand Skywalker and Andy's point, of course we don't want cops just doing as they please and making-up the law as they go. They should not be allowed to issue fines at a shopping mall for vehicular reasons, as the operator of said vehicle is not in attendance, and the vehicle is not (currently) being operated on a public road.

Where do you draw the line on what cops can do on private property? For instance, to use your paraphrasing, if a prostitute were to ply his/her trade in the shopping mall parking lot, would the cops then be allowed to bring him/her to book or would they have to wait for him/her to hook-up with a "customer" first?

Your "all women are equipped to become prostitutes" argument is of no regard here, by the same token all men are equipped to become rapists, the point is, not all of them do become prostitutes/rapists, but knowingly operating an un-roadworthy vehicle, means one HAS ALREADY committed a crime not just the potential to do so?

[Dave S]

I too hate having my freedom restricted by poorly written/applied laws, esp. those laws that are purely there to serve a corrupt gobblemunt.

While on a vehicular topic, the "seat belt" law is not enforced to protect any member of the public, it is purely to ensure that, in the event of an accident, the parties involved have a better chance of survival so that there will be someone to sue for damages... Yes, MONEY, is the driving force behind it. I'm pretty sure that there are a lot more of these laws out there.

[SkyWalker42]

I vaguely remember my brother going through a similiar issue when he worked at Liberty life properties.I can't get hold of him to clarify but if I remember correctly , when a shopping mall or similiar is built , the developer has to have the parking area "zoned" as a public access area and as such the metro can patrol and enforce the laws. I stand under correction but it was something to that effect.

This could be a game-changer. (for the future)
I went through the Road Traffic and AARTO acts and could not find anything that would help in this debate. The private property issue is not mentioned, but they refer to public roads all they time. But if re-zoning needs to be done to convert "private property" to "metro cop hot-spots" then my argument is valid (for older parking places), but not for new(er) ones.

I will try to speak to a mall manager next time I get a chance.

[wynn]

What would they do to this vehicle???

[SkyWalker42]

ANOTHER reason why we need to keep these thugs under control...

OUTRAGED bystanders watched yesterday as Metro Police forcefully removed a well-known blind busker from St George’s Mall, dragging him along the ground and breaking his guitar, while his daughter and wife wept. ..........

[pmbguy]

I will never shop there