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

[psycho44]

Sadly another school shooting resulting in one student dead several injured.

From what I read the father attended every parent teach interview, parent workshops at the school, etc... was really involved in his kids' school so the principal and teachers knew him well. It must hurt to lose that trust he built with the school.

 

[BusaBob]

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.

Sorry, you've got the facts all wrong. On all accounts. And please try to actually read what I've posted without your "think of the children!" optics.

Let's put this as simply as possible: would anything have happened if the teacher did not react to the drawing? No. It would not have.

Given the description of the drawing, there was absolutely not reason to believe there was a gun in the house. Period. If the teacher (and you) weren't such an anti-gun nut, the teacher (and you) would have seen that.

The teacher made a judgement call there that was fully erroneous which got the whole ball of fail rolling.

 

[Scuba Steve]

This thing was a cluster F but the teacher did the right thing if my sources are right. The kid told the teacher dad has a gun and it scares me she had to report that. The police and CAS made it bigger than it had to be but given the guy's criminal record were not about to take chances. IMHO the right thing to do would have been grab the guy, drive him home and make him explain the story while keeping him contained in a police car. They could have then verified his story while he waited in the police car. If everything checked out it would have just been an inconvience.

 

[afong56]

This thing was a cluster F but the teacher did the right thing if my sources are right. The kid told the teacher dad has a gun and it scares me she had to report that. The police and CAS made it bigger than it had to be but given the guy's criminal record were not about to take chances. IMHO the right thing to do would have been grab the guy, drive him home and make him explain the story while keeping him contained in a police car. They could have then verified his story while he waited in the police car. If everything checked out it would have just been an inconvience.

thank you for appreciating the context.

Sorry, you've got the facts all wrong. On all accounts. And please try to actually read what I've posted without your "think of the children!" optics.

Let's put this as simply as possible: would anything have happened if the teacher did not react to the drawing? No. It would not have.

Given the description of the drawing, there was absolutely not reason to believe there was a gun in the house. Period. If the teacher (and you) weren't such an anti-gun nut, the teacher (and you) would have seen that.

The teacher made a judgement call there that was fully erroneous which got the whole ball of fail rolling.

you have one part of it correct, in that the picture was the thing that got the ball rolling. what you seem to fail to appreciate is that the law obligated the teacher to act, which led to further investigation, questioning, and eventually calling in the authorities. once that ball starts rolling, due diligence has to take place. in hindsight, the suspicions (thankfully) proved to be wrong. but the law would have had a very dim view of the teacher ignoring their legal responsibility, and if it had been proven (tragically) correct, you can bet legal liability would have been attached.

if there was no additional legal responsibility on the part of the professionals, then maybe they could be as laissez faire as you suggest they should be.

as for the facts, i'm the one citing news reports and the law, and you're the one claiming opinion pieces are 'news articles'. . .

. . .and again, stop blaming the teacher because you have a problem with the required procedures.

 

[mmmnaked]

If the drawing had proven to be "tragically correct" lol so what? The guy has a gun? So do 3+ million other Canadians.

You're missing the point that the authorities along every step of the way completely mishandled the situation. The principal could've talked with the dad on his own. The cops could've just talked to the man instead of arresting him. They could've talked to him instead of stomping all over his freedom and his dignity; remember, this man is innocent just like you and me. They didn't need to strip search him, they didn't need to take his children away, they didn't need to humiliate him. It was all absurdly beyond necessity. The officers showed incredibly poor judgement and complete lack of common sense and discretion, and that's the crux of the problem.

And now what recourse does this poor man have? None. He was treated like a POS criminal low life, his kids were traumatized and taken away from the family, and his dignity was robbed. Who is accountable? Nobody. Justice.

 

[afong56]

If the drawing had proven to be "tragically correct" lol so what? The guy has a gun? So do 3+ million other Canadians.

You're missing the point that the authorities along every step of the way completely mishandled the situation. The principal could've talked with the dad on his own. The cops could've just talked to the man instead of arresting him. They could've talked to him instead of stomping all over his freedom and his dignity; remember, this man is innocent just like you and me. They didn't need to strip search him, they didn't need to take his children away, they didn't need to humiliate him. It was all absurdly beyond necessity. The officers showed incredibly poor judgement and complete lack of common sense and discretion, and that's the crux of the problem.

And now what recourse does this poor man have? None. He was treated like a POS criminal low life, his kids were traumatized and taken away from the family, and his dignity was robbed. Who is accountable? Nobody. Justice.

no, simple ownership of a gun is not what i was getting at. obviously, after questioning the child, they got answers that suggested she was potentially at risk of harm. that required additional investigation to rule out the possibility.

yes, there is a very emotional response to his treatment.

but was he really treated unfairly? did he receive treatment that was different than what anyone else in the same situation would have received? were the officers, teachers, and professionals permitted the 'discretion' that you and others seem to think they have, or does the law prescribe their actions?

imho, it's pretty hard to criticize people for lack of judgement and common sense, when they are expected to follow procedure and the law obligates them to a higher standard.

and i really don't see how any of the actions suggest there was a presumption of guilt. absolutely we are innocent until proven guilty, and i fail to see how that wasn't the case in his treatment. they conducted interviews, took him into custody, fcs conducted interviews with the children. this is, afaik, standard procedure for this sort of case.

if there were legitimate violations of his charter rights, i'd like to know what those were. i have railed long and hard for upholding civil liberties, and those who read the g20 thread will remember my posts there. i would be first in line arguing against abuse and mistreatment if i thought this guy suffered unfairly. but my radar against injustice is just not pinging here.

his specific plight was an unfortunate product of our system and our laws. and unfortunately, it probably has happened and will happen again. just that this guy chose to make his story public, and a couple of op-editorialists decided to get up on their soapboxes about it.

 

[TwistedKestrel]

and i really don't see how any of the actions suggest there was a presumption of guilt. absolutely we are innocent until proven guilty, and i fail to see how that wasn't the case in his treatment. they conducted interviews, took him into custody, fcs conducted interviews with the children. this is, afaik, standard procedure for this sort of case.

Answer this, yes or no. I think this will solve the debate currently going on here: Do you think there is any reasonable progression from a young child drawing a picture of a gun, to one of their parents ending up in police custody? With no gun?

 

[OpenGambit]

if there were legitimate violations of his charter rights, i'd like to know what those were. i have railed long and hard for upholding civil liberties, and those who read the g20 thread will remember my posts there. i would be first in line arguing against abuse and mistreatment if i thought this guy suffered unfairly. but my radar against injustice is just not pinging here.

No 10 a or 10 b. That seems very apparent to me upon a first reading.

Section 8 is also engaged because of the search.. If their grounds were so good as you say, that consent would not be at all necessary.

 

[afong56]

Answer this, yes or no. I think this will solve the debate currently going on here: Do you think there is any reasonable progression from a young child drawing a picture of a gun, to one of their parents ending up in police custody? With no gun?

given the limited information that has been reported (let's face it, most people here are running with the accused's version of events, more or less), there are a lot of possible, reasonable 'progressions'. . .what we know is that there was more involved than simply a sketch of a gun that led to his detainment.

No 10 a or 10 b. That seems very apparent to me upon a first reading.

Section 8 is also engaged because of the search.. If their grounds were so good as you say, that consent would not be at all necessary.

in regards to 10a, based on the original news report by the waterloo record (not the subsequent opinion articles), it appears that he was informed at the school office of the charge:
"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."

in regards to 10b, again based on the news report, he had legal representation at the police station, where he spoke to a lawyer, and while he claims many things, he does not suggest he was denied the right to a lawyer, or access to representation. we do not have full details of what transpired in the principal's office, so we cannot assume that he responded to questions without a lawyer present. in fact, he probably refused to answer questions, asked for a lawyer, and then was taken into custody. by his own admission he had two somewhat recent convictions, i would guess that he knew enough to ask for a lawyer and not to submit to questioning by police officers without one.

in regards to section 8, i think his reasonable expectation of privacy was vitiated when according to the waterloo record, he consented to have his home searched, when he knew he was not obligated to.

as i have written before, imho, there are not enough details to definitively suggest he was treated unfairly.

 

[afong56]

Section 8 is also engaged because of the search.. If their grounds were so good as you say, that consent would not be at all necessary.

also, i have never suggested that the grounds were 'so good'.

i think the professionals acted in good faith, based upon established procedures and expectations outlined in law and policy.

but it's an imperfect system. i have admitted as much before. what i have a problem with is the vilifying of the people tasked with upholding the standards that have been set for them.

btw, since you are a lawyer, can you tell us whether he would be prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm, and if not prohibited or not permanently prohibited, under what circumstances could he apply for those rights to be reinstated?

 

[killerkeith]

Answer this, yes or no. I think this will solve the debate currently going on here: Do you think there is any reasonable progression from a young child drawing a picture of a gun, to one of their parents ending up in police custody? With no gun?

given the limited information that has been reported (let's face it, most people here are running with the accused's version of events, more or less), there are a lot of possible, reasonable 'progressions'. . .what we know is that there was more involved than simply a sketch of a gun that led to his detainment.

Running for office? Answer the question. Yes or No.

 

[afong56]

Running for office? Answer the question. Yes or No.

simply put, yes.

given the limited information that has been reported (let's face it, most people here are running with the accused's version of events, more or less), there are a lot of possible, reasonable 'progressions'.

 

[OpenGambit]

given the limited information that has been reported (let's face it, most people here are running with the accused's version of events, more or less), there are a lot of possible, reasonable 'progressions'. . .what we know is that there was more involved than simply a sketch of a gun that led to his detainment.



in regards to 10a, based on the original news report by the waterloo record (not the subsequent opinion articles), it appears that he was informed at the school office of the charge:
"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."

in regards to 10b, again based on the news report, he had legal representation at the police station, where he spoke to a lawyer, and while he claims many things, he does not suggest he was denied the right to a lawyer, or access to representation. we do not have full details of what transpired in the principal's office, so we cannot assume that he responded to questions without a lawyer present. in fact, he probably refused to answer questions, asked for a lawyer, and then was taken into custody. by his own admission he had two somewhat recent convictions, i would guess that he knew enough to ask for a lawyer and not to submit to questioning by police officers without one.

in regards to section 8, i think his reasonable expectation of privacy was vitiated when according to the waterloo record, he consented to have his home searched, when he knew he was not obligated to.

as i have written before, imho, there are not enough details to definitively suggest he was treated unfairly.

The version I read indicated he was not informed of the charge until his lawyer told him at his cell at the station. that to me is a violation of 10a

10b has to be given forthwith, so he should have had right to counsel pretty much at the school unless they were a really good reason he was not ( i saw nothing to indicate those circumstances) - the fact that a lawyer spoke to him at his cell suggested he wasn't given 10b right away, unless he spoke to duty counsel twice which is unlikely in most circumstances.

and I generally consider the cops getting people to "consent" to searches that are otherwise illegal to be improper because most people feel compelled to consent regardless. One should always be suspicious of consent given in situations of a lack of balance of power, thats why one party being in a position of power is very relevent in cases of sexual assault.

They asked for the consent after they let him go, that to me is an admission that they had no grounds to arrest or search. Getting "consent" in these situations in my opinion is essentially an end run on the Charter and I don't see why that should be viewed favourably

 

[OpenGambit]

also, i have never suggested that the grounds were 'so good'.

i think the professionals acted in good faith, based upon established procedures and expectations outlined in law and policy.

but it's an imperfect system. i have admitted as much before. what i have a problem with is the vilifying of the people tasked with upholding the standards that have been set for them.

btw, since you are a lawyer, can you tell us whether he would be prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm, and if not prohibited or not permanently prohibited, under what circumstances could he apply for those rights to be reinstated?

A criminal record would probably prevent you from getting a PAL. But I doubt he was actually prohibited unless he had one to begin with. But thats just me thinking aloud. I don't know the facts of the case other than the one line i read in the paper.

 

[BusaBob]

This thing was a cluster F but the teacher did the right thing if my sources are right. The kid told the teacher dad has a gun and it scares me she had to report that. The police and CAS made it bigger than it had to be but given the guy's criminal record were not about to take chances. IMHO the right thing to do would have been grab the guy, drive him home and make him explain the story while keeping him contained in a police car. They could have then verified his story while he waited in the police car. If everything checked out it would have just been an inconvience.

thank you for appreciating the context.

Yo afong! There's your police "discretion" right there.

Thanks for agreeing!

you have one part of it correct, in that the picture was the thing that got the ball rolling. what you seem to fail to appreciate is that the law obligated the teacher to act...

PLEASE, for the love of GOD, please show me where in our laws does it say to call the police if a 4 year old draws a gun with crayons!

 

[BusaBob]

no, simple ownership of a gun is not what i was getting at. obviously, after questioning the child, they got answers that suggested she was potentially at risk of harm.
.
.
.
but was he really treated unfairly? did he receive treatment that was different than what anyone else in the same situation would have received?
.
.
.
his specific plight was an unfortunate product of our system and our laws. and unfortunately, it probably has happened and will happen again. just that this guy chose to make his story public, and a couple of op-editorialists decided to get up on their soapboxes about it.

The FACT that they even questioned the kid, based on the drawing described is what is ludicrous. The FACT that the teacher drew the conclusion that the kid was in danger because of answers she gave to the teacher's questions (which I have no doubt were framed in a way as to achieve the answers the teacher desired) proves the teacher was an IDIOT about this situation.

The law only states that the teacher is obligated to contact child welfare if she SUSPECTS that the child's safety was in danger. The situation should never have risen to the level of suspicion. One can only hope that other, more well balanced teachers, would have been reasonable enough to not become suspicious of such a thing.

However, YOU compared a crayon doodle by a 4 year old (which by all accounts depicted her dad as a hero fighting off monsters and bad guys) to a battered child showing up with bruises. Do you honestly believe those two situations are comparable?!

REALLY?!

You made the comparison. Let's hear it: do you really, really think those two situations warrant the same concern? Do you really think they are comparable?

The teacher was a FOOL to call child protection on this. You're saying you would have done the same thing, eh?

My 4 year old nephew is afraid of hot mugs of liquids and the stove. My sister specifically trained him that way so he wouldn't get hurt. Should child protection be called on her now because, OMG, there's a working OVEN in her home???

As for the later highlighted portions of your quote: can't you get it through your head that THAT is exactly the problem here that everyone is presenting you with?? If this injustice could have happened to him, then it CAN happen to ANYONE. And if the law allows agencies to stand behind the banner of "policy and procedure" without admitting their mistake, without accountability, then there IS a problem. As this is a matter of civil liberties, rights and freedoms, people are RIGHTLY upset.

Does that finally make sense to you now, or do I have to draw it out in crayon for you?

 

[BusaBob]

They asked for the consent after they let him go, that to me is an admission that they had no grounds to arrest or search. Getting "consent" in these situations in my opinion is essentially an end run on the Charter and I don't see why that should be viewed favourably

+1 x 10 to the power of the Nth, where N approaches infinity!

 

[BusaBob]

More media coverage.

http://www.570news.com/news/local/article/335377--police-reviewing-controversial-arrest

Regional Police are reviewing an incident where a Kitchener man was arrested after his daughter drew a picture of a gun.
Jessie Sansone says he was arrested outside his daughter's school and strip searched. When police searched the home they found only a toy gun.
Regional Police Chief Matt Torigian told 570's Jeff Allan Show Monday morning, that clearly mistakes were made. "Immediately, I asked for a review to determine what happened in this particular case and as a result of that review, we will now be conducting a very thorough review."
Torigian adds that it's important to be able to admit that police may have made a mistake and to learn from it. Still, he says everyone involved, including the police, the school and Family and Children's Services, acted out of sincere concern. "When we look at this situation and we're faced with having to review our past actions, I'll tell you, I'd rather be questioning ourselves about what we did than having to question ourselves about what we didn't do," he says. "When it comes to the safety of children I think we can't lose sight of that."
However, there are those who believe the incident was an overreaction. Lorne Gunter...believes things could have been handled with more tact. He asks, "Whatever happened to police just coming to your door and saying, 'Hi, we have this complaint and we want to ask you a few questions.'?" ​

Gunter says he believes action needed to be taken, but that it was too much, too soon.​

I actually find myself holding my for the results of this "very thorough review"...maybe it will be done in 2 or 3 years

 

[BusaBob]

...we do not have full details of what transpired in the principal's office, so we cannot assume that he responded to questions without a lawyer present. in fact, he probably refused to answer questions, asked for a lawyer, and then was taken into custody....

So let me get this right: you're stating that your "probably" is "fact". Do you not see how you make no sense there? How you're presenting your conjecture/hypothesis as "fact". And you are telling me that I have my facts wrong?

Are you also suggesting in this statement that simply refusing to speak to police is sufficient grounds to be arrested? And we're to accept that you're all for civil rights? Really?

 

[FullMotoJacket]

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/02/27/strip-searches-get-police-in-trouble

"He was told to disrobe and subjected to a strip search in which his testicles were lifted and he was required to bend over."

I've got pretty big *****, but not big enough to hide even a snub nosed .22 under. Now as a tactic to humiliate and break a suspect's will, it's a damn good one. Fortunately the Supreme Court disagrees with the tactic.

Pretty sure afong will come up with some far fetched reason both myself and the Supreme Court aren't seeing the situation in the correct light, though.