Holy Smokes!!! This country is off it's collective head.

[BusaBob]

could you clarify as to what greater discretion, respect, or consideration could have been afforded the accused? other than the strip search, which, given that it was a weapons call, i believe it is standard procedure. . .

afaik, it was the accused that made this whole incident public, and took it to the media. just exactly who is supposed to exercise greater discretion?

dis·cre·tion/disˈkreSHən/

Noun:

The quality of behaving or speaking in such a way as to avoid causing offense or revealing private information. The freedom to decide what should be done in a particular situation.

"discretion" as in "judgement". it doesn't just mean "reveal too much private information."

As for what the police could have done differently, I can think of several:
1. did they have to arrest him? did they have to handcuff him in the school, in front of people? for an innocent person, i cannot imagine a more humiliating situation. The situation can hardly be described as a high risk take down. The police could have spoken to him, asked him to come down to the police station, under escort (no cuffs needed). They could have met him at his home.
2. this was not a gun call. No one ever accused him of having a gun on his person, only that he had a gun at his home and children were in danger. Yet he was strip searched (at the jail). A pat down at the school would have sufficed. For the police to say this is standard procedure for a "gun call" smacks of being willfully obtuse and disingenuous.
3. he was charged with possession of a firearm, even though no firearm was found on his person.
4. he was not told why he was being arrested, only that he would be kept overnight for a bail hearing the next morning
5. any investigating by the police happened after the fact, instead of before the heavy handed tactics were used. If some investigation had been done before, then the police may have realized the measures they used were unnecessary and excessive for the situation.

Before you continue with the "consider the children's safety at all costs" ideology, keep in mind that this guy works as a PSW, that means he already passed a police security check and is considered safe to work with vulnerable populations.

What is central to the outrage people are expressing is the fact that a 4 year old's drawing of her father holding a gun fighting off "monsters and bad guys" has been horrifically twisted to become a gun-in-the-home-child-safety-issue.

If the teacher wasn't such a hysterical anti-gun idiot this wouldn't have happened. But seeing as the teacher raised the alarm bell the way she had, yes, the police had to get involved, but the way they approached it made a misunderstanding even worse. All of this could have been avoided if such heavy handed techniques were not used by the police. Like I pointed out above, they could have handled it much better and came to the same result.

and now for them all to refuse to accept responsibility by hiding behind the transparent defence of "policy" is weak, as is your argument of "think of the children".

This was clearly not a safety issue, so the fact that an innocent family had been subjected to all of this grief indicates to me that there is something definitely wrong with the "policy and proceedure".

And that makes it news worthy. Bravo to the victim in this case, coming forward to share his experience.

 

[DaveOke]

My wife read this to me on our way to Toronto today and I didn't believe it for a second... It must of been some stupid onion article. But it appears real...

This is really scary. Especially coming from someone that has a PAL and owns a (real) gun. I really hope this dad takes these people to court and ensures this stupidity stops.

 

[ZX600]

dinosaurs ??? you lucky bastard. my place is filled with princesses , mermaids and butterflies.

His gf is only 16

 

[BusaBob]

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/...2237001/gun-drawn-with-a-crayon/1472203772001

extremely well said: http://www.torontosun.com/2012/02/24/possession-of-a-dangerous-crayon#.T0nFeHUQyL4.facebook

 

[fastar1]

Thing about Sun media is you can't trust a thing they say. They even contradict themselves in these two reports. And then to muddle things up even worse they liberally sprinkle opinion and dogmatic catch phrases into every story.

 

[psycho44]

This country takes guns seriously. A neighbour spotted a gun in the car with 3 of my girl friends in it so a whole swat team and helicopter arrived at 10 in the morning on a Saturday. Turned out to be a bb gun. But that's the usual response to a stranger calling in a possible gun. They don't bother doing background checks or investigations until after the facts.

With this man and his prior criminal history I can see why the cops did what they did but don't agree with the police's action and the taking away of the child. But with this era of post 9/11 and all the school shooting incidents in the States the police take everything seriously.

 

[afong56]

I was just following orders/protocol.. The oldest excuse in the books. In any case it's not like they didn't have the discretion to figure out what's really happening instead of taking the poor bastard through a ringer. Both the school administration and the cops could have resolved this with a simple phonecall.

again, we have sparse details as to what actually transpired in the school office. obviously, the police didn't get the answers they were looking for. don't necessarily agree that a phone call would be adequate when the potential for weapons and children are involved.

Buddy, try and follow the discussion for half a sec...

We start with the guy saying he wishes the cops had used more discretion. So far, nobody has to demonstrate anything about whether the cops were indiscreet, it's just a claim by the victim.

Next, you come along and suggest he's a hypocrite since he's the one who went and blew the incident up into the public eye. Again, neither you nor anyone else needs to demonstrate anything about the extent of the cop's indiscretion.

To explain why there's no hypocrisy, braveheart pointed out that the incident was already public as far as the victim was concerned, in which case the door was already opened and going to the press didn't expose his reputation to anymore harm than had already been done. Again, there is still no need to demonstrate anything about the actual level of indiscretion exercised by the cops.

I also added that any choice to reveal additional details about the event are entirely up to the victim and do not constitute indiscretion anyways, since it's his private life to reveal as he wishes and it's the media and the public's option to publish/read it.

At no point in any of these arguments does anyone need to show that the cops were in fact indiscreet. The victim merely claimed it and then gave his story to the media, which is entirely consistent with his claim that the incident had been made too public already.

i'm sorry, but if greater discretion is expected, then perhaps greater discretion on all sides including the accused, is called for. imho, that is completely hypocritical--in essence, it would be as if he's saying, "it's wrong for them to make this issue public to a few people, but it's okay for me to make it public to a few million people". . .read busa bob's citation on what discretion is. the fact of the matter is that discretion is judged by not just the individual, but by the audience. we do this every day. . .if someone starts talking about their sex life at work, we all consider that indiscreet, regardless of whether that person evaluates it as so. the same in this case.

"discretion" as in "judgement". it doesn't just mean "reveal too much private information."

As for what the police could have done differently, I can think of several:
1. did they have to arrest him? did they have to handcuff him in the school, in front of people? for an innocent person, i cannot imagine a more humiliating situation. The situation can hardly be described as a high risk take down. The police could have spoken to him, asked him to come down to the police station, under escort (no cuffs needed). They could have met him at his home.
2. this was not a gun call. No one ever accused him of having a gun on his person, only that he had a gun at his home and children were in danger. Yet he was strip searched (at the jail). A pat down at the school would have sufficed. For the police to say this is standard procedure for a "gun call" smacks of being willfully obtuse and disingenuous.
3. he was charged with possession of a firearm, even though no firearm was found on his person.
4. he was not told why he was being arrested, only that he would be kept overnight for a bail hearing the next morning
5. any investigating by the police happened after the fact, instead of before the heavy handed tactics were used. If some investigation had been done before, then the police may have realized the measures they used were unnecessary and excessive for the situation.

Before you continue with the "consider the children's safety at all costs" ideology, keep in mind that this guy works as a PSW, that means he already passed a police security check and is considered safe to work with vulnerable populations.

What is central to the outrage people are expressing is the fact that a 4 year old's drawing of her father holding a gun fighting off "monsters and bad guys" has been horrifically twisted to become a gun-in-the-home-child-safety-issue.

If the teacher wasn't such a hysterical anti-gun idiot this wouldn't have happened. But seeing as the teacher raised the alarm bell the way she had, yes, the police had to get involved, but the way they approached it made a misunderstanding even worse. All of this could have been avoided if such heavy handed techniques were not used by the police. Like I pointed out above, they could have handled it much better and came to the same result.

and now for them all to refuse to accept responsibility by hiding behind the transparent defence of "policy" is weak, as is your argument of "think of the children".

This was clearly not a safety issue, so the fact that an innocent family had been subjected to all of this grief indicates to me that there is something definitely wrong with the "policy and proceedure".

And that makes it news worthy. Bravo to the victim in this case, coming forward to share his experience.

1. if a firearm was suspected, and you had a choice between apprehending said individual at the home where the firearm supposedly is, or in an enclosed space where you have privacy, the element of surprise, and a far greater likelihood that the person will not be presently armed, what would you choose? also, what is potentially more discreet--sending the usual coterie of leo's to the person's home, which would clearly publicly identify him, or having a patrol car parked (again, we don't have all of the details, so we cannot assume that it was a high visibility arrest) next to a school, where no one can definitively associate the police with a particular individual? remember, none of us here have any details as to when the accused was escorted from the premises. half an hour after dismissal, schools are empty wastelands, and the sight of a squad car at a school is no longer worthy of intense scrutiny by the public--especially not worthy of hanging around for possibly hours to find out what's going on.

2. as i said before, i'm not a leo. if you are, are you saying that standard procedure for a weapons call doesn't include a strip search? if this is true, then yes, it was an overreaction. glad that a leo finally posted here to clarify. . .

4. well the original article from the waterloo record is extremely confusing then, because they clearly wrote: "He said he went to the school Wednesday afternoon to pick up his three children. He was summoned to the principal’s office where three police officers were waiting. They said he was being charged with possession of a firearm.He was escorted from the school, handcuffed and put in the back of a cruiser."

this led me to believe that he was informed of the charge, long before he even arrived at the station.

based upon what the articles stated, afaik, they conducted interviews with all of the people involved, and with his consent, conducted a search of his premises. not sure how much of this could have been done prior to the fact. again, we don't know what happened in the school office. perhaps he refused to answer questions, refused to provide an explanation. we don't know. we are all speculating. i'm trying to base my understanding on what was actually reported.

as i stated before, this response by the school is legally mandated, iirc. it has nothing to do with the teacher being a hysterical anti-gun nut. case in point, if he/she saw deep bruises on her arm that generated suspicious explanations from the girl, the teacher would have legally been obliged to report it to fcs/police through the principal. this, iirc, is the law. it has to be this way, because situations of abuse and harm are notoriously covered up or difficult to substantiate on the surface, especially if the potential victim is young (oh, perhaps in kindergarten?), and unable or afraid to effectively communicate the situation.

when i use, as you say, the "think of the children" argument, it's not my argument. it is the law. people charged with the duty of caring for children are tasked at a higher level of responsibility than the average joe walking the street. if this kid had shown this picture to a mother visiting the school, and had a similar chat with her, the law would not have her obligated to report it.

This country takes guns seriously. A neighbour spotted a gun in the car with 3 of my girl friends in it so a whole swat team and helicopter arrived at 10 in the morning on a Saturday. Turned out to be a bb gun. But that's the usual response to a stranger calling in a possible gun. They don't bother doing background checks or investigations until after the facts.

With this man and his prior criminal history I can see why the cops did what they did but don't agree with the police's action and the taking away of the child. But with this era of post 9/11 and all the school shooting incidents in the States the police take everything seriously.

thank you for appreciating the context

 

[FiReSTaRT]

again, we have sparse details as to what actually transpired in the school office. obviously, the police didn't get the answers they were looking for. don't necessarily agree that a phone call would be adequate when the potential for weapons and children are involved.

Oooooh potential for weapons and children :shock:
[video=youtube;Qh2sWSVRrmo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo[/video]

Newsflash #1:
-Canadians have owned guns for centuries and up until a couple of decades ago, it was perfectly fine for them to even learn how to safely handle firearms. Any kids that I may have will be getting .22's for their 5th birthday(s), along with safe handling lessons under close supervision until they're old enough to know better.

Newsflash #2:
-I'd be more worried about car accidents, electric sockets, falling off the stairs and a whole bunch of other stuff than whether there is a gun in a home with a child.

 

[afong56]

Oooooh potential for weapons and children :shock:
[video=youtube;Qh2sWSVRrmo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo[/video]

Newsflash #1:
-Canadians have owned guns for centuries and up until a couple of decades ago, it was perfectly fine for them to even learn how to safely handle firearms. Any kids that I may have will be getting .22's for their 5th birthday(s), along with safe handling lessons under close supervision until they're old enough to know better.

Newsflash #2:
-I'd be more worried about car accidents, electric sockets, falling off the stairs and a whole bunch of other stuff than whether there is a gun in a home with a child.

found it:

Professionals and officials have the same duty
as the rest of the public to report their suspicion
that a child is or may be in need of protection.
However, the Act recognizes that people working
closely with children have a special awareness
of the signs of child abuse and neglect, and a
particular responsibility to report their suspicions.
Any professional or official who fails to report a
suspicion is liable on conviction to a fine of up
to $1,000, if they obtained the information in the
course of their professional or official duties.
[CFSA s.72 (4), (6.2)]

source: http://www.children.gov.on.ca/htdoc...hildrensaid/Reportingchildabuseandneglect.pdf

as i said before, the argument is not mine. they face conviction under the cfs act if they fail to report suspicions. note that joe public does not. this is clearly a different standard. i'm not saying that this different standard is right, so if people so overwhelmingly disagree with it, then maybe they need to lobby their mpp to change the law.

 

[coyo]

Some posts were missed in the move, what happened?

 

[eastcoast_gsx]

Risen from the dead (along with a cleanup lol)

 

[Cat13]

Some posts were missed in the move, what happened?

Deleted by mods. Some people have a serious case of PMS. And the wonky weather isnt helping.
Soon folks we'll be back riding.

 

[Cat13]

This country takes guns seriously. A neighbour spotted a gun in the car with 3 of my girl friends in it so a whole swat team and helicopter arrived at 10 in the morning on a Saturday. Turned out to be a bb gun. But that's the usual response to a stranger calling in a possible gun. They don't bother doing background checks or investigations until after the facts.

With this man and his prior criminal history I can see why the cops did what they did but don't agree with the police's action and the taking away of the child. But with this era of post 9/11 and all the school shooting incidents in the States the police take everything seriously.

My moms tenant called the cops claiming my mom had a gun (long *** story). She got two cop cars and her home searched (they asked and she agreed so that they would have it on record that she doesnt have a gun).

 

[coyo]

Figured maybe that but didn't think that my post violated any rules.

Meh, got me to be a site supporter to see how it panned out!

Deleted by mods. Some people have a serious case of PMS. And the wonky weather isnt helping.
Soon folks we'll be back riding.

 

[Cat13]

Figured maybe that but didn't think that my post violated any rules.

Meh, got me to be a site supporter to see how it panned out!

Might have had an offending post quoted or just deleted as part of the cleanup. If you did something wrong the mod that deleted the post would have let you know. If not then it was cleanup.

 

[BusaBob]

again, we have sparse details as to what actually transpired in the school office. obviously, the police didn't get the answers they were looking for. don't necessarily agree that a phone call would be adequate when the potential for weapons and children are involved.

You're making as many assumptions and conjectures as you are accusing others of making. Don't you get a little tired of the espousing epistemological arguments that just go nowhere?

Again, the outrage surrounding the story is due to the idiocy required of suspecting that a firearm exists and presents a danger to a child based on a 4 year old's crayon doodle. The outrage other's are expressing at you is your failure to completely see this fact.

Sure some of what transpired can (and perhaps should) be justified provided that there was a legitimate concern. In the opinion of many, the crayon doodle never passed that litmus test. As a result, everything else that followed made this a complete fiasco.

i'm sorry, but if greater discretion is expected, then perhaps greater discretion on all sides including the accused, is called for. imho, that is completely hypocritical--in essence, it would be as if he's saying, "it's wrong for them to make this issue public to a few people, but it's okay for me to make it public to a few million people". . .read busa bob's citation on what discretion is. the fact of the matter is that discretion is judged by not just the individual, but by the audience. we do this every day. . .if someone starts talking about their sex life at work, we all consider that indiscreet, regardless of whether that person evaluates it as so. the same in this case.

Dude, let the "discretion" argument go. You mis-understood the word as I used it. I meant it as "judgement" as in a police officer's judgement on how to proceed. You took it as "discreet". So some people laughed at you as a result. Let it go. Don't be so obstinate.

1. if a firearm was suspected, and you had a choice between apprehending said individual at the home where the firearm supposedly is, or in an enclosed space where you have privacy, the element of surprise, and a far greater likelihood that the person will not be presently armed, what would you choose? also, what is potentially more discreet--sending the usual coterie of leo's to the person's home, which would clearly publicly identify him, or having a patrol car parked (again, we don't have all of the details, so we cannot assume that it was a high visibility arrest) next to a school, where no one can definitively associate the police with a particular individual? remember, none of us here have any details as to when the accused was escorted from the premises. half an hour after dismissal, schools are empty wastelands, and the sight of a squad car at a school is no longer worthy of intense scrutiny by the public--especially not worthy of hanging around for possibly hours to find out what's going on.

If they truly suspected a firearm, they should have taken him down with a "SWAT" force. As per my comment above, since there was no reason to suspect an actual firearm, everything that was done as a result of that belief was done in error.

They did send police cars to the guy's home as well as the school. Did you not read the story? (rhetorical question). Again, you are making a lot of assumptions yourself on how it went down. I have more reason to believe him than you. Why? You weren't there.

Again, get off the "discreet" soapbox. It's embarrassing...

2. as i said before, i'm not a leo. if you are, are you saying that standard procedure for a weapons call doesn't include a strip search? if this is true, then yes, it was an overreaction. glad that a leo finally posted here to clarify. . .

The police are saying that the standard procedure for a "weapons call" includes a strip search.

What everyone else is saying, and what you are being willfully obtuse to, is that this statement, used by the police in this situation, is ludicrous because there was no weapon (either on him, or at his home). It was not and could not have been a weapon call. For them to have labelled it as such is ridiculous. And they are being ridiculed for it, as are you.

Let me say this again: the police are justifying the strip search on the grounds of "officer safety", when we all know and they knew there was no weapon, and there was no reason to believe there was a weapon. The pat down that would have been done when he was handcuffed would have proven that.

People are outraged because no one should have been subjected to this, given the circumstances. If that's policy, then something is wrong with the policy.

Again, the police did not exercise good discretion (oop's, sorry, I mean "judgement") here.

4. well the original article from the waterloo record is extremely confusing then, because they clearly wrote: "He said he went to the school Wednesday afternoon to pick up his three children. He was summoned to the principal’s office where three police officers were waiting. They said he was being charged with possession of a firearm.He was escorted from the school, handcuffed and put in the back of a cruiser."

From the National Post:

At no point were they told why this was happening. It was not until officers had told Sansone that he’d be held in custody overnight before a bail hearing in the morning that his lawyer was finally able to tell Sansone that he had been arrested for possession of a firearm.

based upon what the articles stated, afaik, they conducted interviews with all of the people involved, and with his consent, conducted a search of his premises. not sure how much of this could have been done prior to the fact. again, we don't know what happened in the school office. perhaps he refused to answer questions, refused to provide an explanation. we don't know. we are all speculating. i'm trying to base my understanding on what was actually reported.

This statement seems to minimize the seriousness of what they did to him.
We know that he was held for several hours. The police "asked" for his permission to search his home after he stewed in a cell for several hours. Some would call that coercion.

If the police actually had credible reasons to believe they needed to search his home, they would have/should have got a warrant. We have a right in Canada against unreasonable search and seizure. No one is obligated to allow police to search their home, just to be polite. And refusal of any such "request" cannot and should not be held against you.

The interviews came after the fact (the arrest and strip search). There was no investigation prior. It was after the interviews they realized how big a screw-up they had committed.

You don't know what happened in the school or principle's office. You are speculating.

However, none of it matters, and that's because based on the drawing described, there should have been NO reason to believe there was a gun in the home.

as i stated before, this response by the school is legally mandated, iirc. it has nothing to do with the teacher being a hysterical anti-gun nut. case in point, if he/she saw deep bruises on her arm that generated suspicious explanations from the girl, the teacher would have legally been obliged to report it to fcs/police through the principal. this, iirc, is the law. it has to be this way, because situations of abuse and harm are notoriously covered up or difficult to substantiate on the surface, especially if the potential victim is young (oh, perhaps in kindergarten?), and unable or afraid to effectively communicate the situation.
When i use, as you say, the "think of the children" argument, it's not my argument. it is the law. people charged with the duty of caring for children are tasked at a higher level of responsibility than the average joe walking the street. if this kid had shown this picture to a mother visiting the school, and had a similar chat with her, the law would not have her obligated to report it.

You're comparing a crayon drawing of a gun (in which her father is depicted as a "hero") to a child showing up with bruises on her arm??? Really??? You're saying that the two should generate comparable level of suspicion???

C'mon!

Of course a response is required by law if the teacher suspects abuse or endangerment. However, we're talking about a crayon drawing with daddy depicted as the hero fighting off monsters and bad guys. That's hardly in the same league as a kid with bruises.

The fact that it was a crayon drawing of a gun that made the teacher suspicious of endangerment is what makes me conclude that the teacher is a hysterical anti-gun nut, and what has upset so many people.

 

[RockerGuy]

Your kids pasted this stage a long long time ago mate so I stand by my original statement. Would you like to see my 6 year old's toy gun collection? He has 6 nerf guns and he loves each and everyone. His kid sister who's 4 also loves playing with them.

I had to replace some burned out lights in the bathroom with 3 different shades of the white energy saving light bulbs and today my 6 year old boy started screaming "Mommy Mommy, come quick!" He wanted to show off his "Rainbow Penis" as his pee stream was casting 3 different shadows because of the light. He plans on drawing me a picture cause I missed it. That should only land me about 25 years in jail.

Ooooo, Oh!
They're coming for u. Better have the pants down and lube at your disposal

 

[afong56]

You're making as many assumptions and conjectures as you are accusing others of making. Don't you get a little tired of the espousing epistemological arguments that just go nowhere?

Again, the outrage surrounding the story is due to the idiocy required of suspecting that a firearm exists and presents a danger to a child based on a 4 year old's crayon doodle. The outrage other's are expressing at you is your failure to completely see this fact.

Sure some of what transpired can (and perhaps should) be justified provided that there was a legitimate concern. In the opinion of many, the crayon doodle never passed that litmus test. As a result, everything else that followed made this a complete fiasco.




Dude, let the "discretion" argument go. You mis-understood the word as I used it. I meant it as "judgement" as in a police officer's judgement on how to proceed. You took it as "discreet". So some people laughed at you as a result. Let it go. Don't be so obstinate.




If they truly suspected a firearm, they should have taken him down with a "SWAT" force. As per my comment above, since there was no reason to suspect an actual firearm, everything that was done as a result of that belief was done in error.

They did send police cars to the guy's home as well as the school. Did you not read the story? (rhetorical question). Again, you are making a lot of assumptions yourself on how it went down. I have more reason to believe him than you. Why? You weren't there.

Again, get off the "discreet" soapbox. It's embarrassing...




The police are saying that the standard procedure for a "weapons call" includes a strip search.

What everyone else is saying, and what you are being willfully obtuse to, is that this statement, used by the police in this situation, is ludicrous because there was no weapon (either on him, or at his home). It was not and could not have been a weapon call. For them to have labelled it as such is ridiculous. And they are being ridiculed for it, as are you.

Let me say this again: the police are justifying the strip search on the grounds of "officer safety", when we all know and they knew there was no weapon, and there was no reason to believe there was a weapon. The pat down that would have been done when he was handcuffed would have proven that.

People are outraged because no one should have been subjected to this, given the circumstances. If that's policy, then something is wrong with the policy.

Again, the police did not exercise good discretion (oop's, sorry, I mean "judgement") here.




From the National Post:





This statement seems to minimize the seriousness of what they did to him.
We know that he was held for several hours. The police "asked" for his permission to search his home after he stewed in a cell for several hours. Some would call that coercion.

If the police actually had credible reasons to believe they needed to search his home, they would have/should have got a warrant. We have a right in Canada against unreasonable search and seizure. No one is obligated to allow police to search their home, just to be polite. And refusal of any such "request" cannot and should not be held against you.

The interviews came after the fact (the arrest and strip search). There was no investigation prior. It was after the interviews they realized how big a screw-up they had committed.

You don't know what happened in the school or principle's office. You are speculating.

However, none of it matters, and that's because based on the drawing described, there should have been NO reason to believe there was a gun in the home.




You're comparing a crayon drawing of a gun (in which her father is depicted as a "hero") to a child showing up with bruises on her arm??? Really??? You're saying that the two should generate comparable level of suspicion???

C'mon!

Of course a response is required by law if the teacher suspects abuse or endangerment. However, we're talking about a crayon drawing with daddy depicted as the hero fighting off monsters and bad guys. That's hardly in the same league as a kid with bruises.

The fact that it was a crayon drawing of a gun that made the teacher suspicious of endangerment is what makes me conclude that the teacher is a hysterical anti-gun nut, and what has upset so many people.

first, a lot of the version that you are presenting has not been reported. i freely admitted that i wrote conjecture. however, i think you and others are guilty of taking an opinion piece and equating it with fact--an opinion piece that contradicts an actual news story. there's a reason why op-ed pieces are not part of general news reporting, because one has a standard for factual basis, and the other does not. not sure how my version is in any way less valid than yours.

second, however you choose to define discretion, i have addressed it. the law, which i have cited, is very prescriptive. if you want it to be changed, then blame the legislators, not the ones tasked and legally responsible for enforcing it, as they have less discretion available to them than the average joe walking in the street. and as has been repeated time and again, making a simplistic argument that this path was based solely on a drawing is completely disingenuous. this fact has been clearly reported, again and again.

and yes, they should have gone to a judge to get a warrant. never disputed that. however, he consented when he had the right to refuse, which arguably, he should have.

and yes, maybe there is something wrong with the standard policy that requires a strip search on a suspected weapons call. but that's a totally different issue. people are reacting as though he was treated unfairly--well, by objective standards, he was not, and no one here has shown otherwise. by subjective standards, perhaps yes. but that's not what people are saying.

the law should be black and white, and while obviously sometimes there will be times where we wish it wasn't, the opposite would be much worse--a system where the law is not blind, and where the application of the law is mutable and subject to personal interpretation and bias. i don't think any of us wants that.

was he treated badly? perhaps. was his treatment unfair? nope. the process was followed.

this is what i've been writing from the beginning. if everyone is so outraged by his treatment, go change the system and the legislation, and stop blaming the people tasked to uphold it.

 

[BusaBob]

first, a lot of the version that you are presenting has not been reported. i freely admitted that i wrote conjecture. however, i think you and others are guilty of taking an opinion piece and equating it with fact--an opinion piece that contradicts an actual news story. there's a reason why op-ed pieces are not part of general news reporting, because one has a standard for factual basis, and the other does not. not sure how my version is in any way less valid than yours.

second, however you choose to define discretion, i have addressed it. the law, which i have cited, is very prescriptive. if you want it to be changed, then blame the legislators, not the ones tasked and legally responsible for enforcing it, as they have less discretion available to them than the average joe walking in the street. and as has been repeated time and again, making a simplistic argument that this path was based solely on a drawing is completely disingenuous. this fact has been clearly reported, again and again.

and yes, they should have gone to a judge to get a warrant. never disputed that. however, he consented when he had the right to refuse, which arguably, he should have.

and yes, maybe there is something wrong with the standard policy that requires a strip search on a suspected weapons call. but that's a totally different issue. people are reacting as though he was treated unfairly--well, by objective standards, he was not, and no one here has shown otherwise. by subjective standards, perhaps yes. but that's not what people are saying.

the law should be black and white, and while obviously sometimes there will be times where we wish it wasn't, the opposite would be much worse--a system where the law is not blind, and where the application of the law is mutable and subject to personal interpretation and bias. i don't think any of us wants that.

was he treated badly? perhaps. was his treatment unfair? nope. the process was followed.

this is what i've been writing from the beginning. if everyone is so outraged by his treatment, go change the system and the legislation, and stop blaming the people tasked to uphold it.

everything i've presented has been from news articles, not opinion pieces.

for the last time, give the "discretion" argument a rest. you misunderstood what i was talking about so get over it.

there is nothing disingenuous about the stating the FACT that this fiasco was based solely on the hysterical and idiotic reaction of a school teacher to a crayon doodle. that IS what happened.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, 'cause you just aren't getting it, there are several places where better discretion ("judgement" for you) could and should have been exercised. FIRST with the teacher, second with the principle, third with the child welfare agency and forth with the police.

if you want to stick your head in the sand and be obstinate about it, go ahead.

and grassroots outrage IS how legislation gets changed. not that it was the legislation that was at fault here. the legislation is fine, it's the complete lack of judgement exercised by all agencies involved that was the problem

YOUR type of simplistic "it's just policy" and "think of the children" arguments will have us sacrificing all kinds of rights and freedoms, and THAT sir, is what I truly disagree with.

I'm done with repeating myself. someone else take over

 

[afong56]

everything i've presented has been from news articles, not opinion pieces.

for the last time, give the "discretion" argument a rest. you misunderstood what i was talking about so get over it.

there is nothing disingenuous about the stating the FACT that this fiasco was based solely on the hysterical and idiotic reaction of a school teacher to a crayon doodle. that IS what happened.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, 'cause you just aren't getting it, there are several places where better discretion ("judgement" for you) could and should have been exercised. FIRST with the teacher, second with the principle, third with the child welfare agency and forth with the police.

if you want to stick your head in the sand and be obstinate about it, go ahead.

and grassroots outrage IS how legislation gets changed. not that it was the legislation that was at fault here. the legislation is fine, it's the complete lack of judgement exercised by all agencies involved that was the problem

YOUR type of simplistic "it's just policy" and "think of the children" arguments that will have us sacrificing all kinds of rights and freedoms. and THAT sir, is what I truly disagree with.

I'm done with repeating myself. someone else take over

first, you really need to go back and read your 'sources'. . .both the national post "full comment" article and the sun-news opinion piece you later hotlinked to are both clearly opinion pieces. please get your facts straight. as far as i can tell, the waterloo record is the only news-based article, and the other sources (the star, for example) were just taking the record's article off the wire and editing it. this is the source i'm sticking with. not opinion pieces.

second, the fact that the law clearly states that teachers are placed at a higher standard, and therefore have less discretion to not act (as you choose to define it), is a fact that you willfully choose to ignore. i say again, if you don't like that, if you would like teachers and professionals to have the same standard, then go after the law makers, and don't blame the people who are following the law. this is the part i have the greatest issue with. this is just shooting the messengers, to a degree. and yes, i do think that there shouldn't be a different standard. but guess what, there is. somehow in your version of events, this has become my 'argument', when it's not--i'm just clearly stating reality, and that you are misplacing your anger--the policy, as you put it, is the issue--not my statement or the people who are tasked to enforce it.

and finally, you again reduce this to a teacher's reaction to a drawing, when the news story clearly states it was more than that. why are you choosing to ignore the facts and instead repeating (erroneously) that it was? you make it seem that no questions were asked, that no attempt at investigation was made, when the truth is opposite to your simplistic representation of events.