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

[afong56]

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

i agree consent under duress or where an imbalance of power exists is extremely problematic, but as you say, he had already been released. . .not sure how much compulsion he felt at that point. . .

as you say, lots of detail still left unreported.

 

[mmmnaked]

Its worrisome that you think what happened to this innocent man is okay.

 

[FullMotoJacket]

i agree consent under duress or where an imbalance of power exists is extremely problematic, but as you say, he had already been released. . .not sure how much compulsion he felt at that point.

You have absolutely no idea what the cops said to him upon his release. It is entirely possible and most likely probable they threatened to tell the CAS that the children were in some sort of perceived danger unless he consented to them searching his home.

 

[afong56]

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

Thanks for agreeing!

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!

who said it did? show me where i ever wrote that? you are the only one insisting that this issue was solely based on the sketch. . .maybe you should answer your own question? or is that how you win arguments?

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?

again, where do i state that bruises are 'the same thing' as this example? you seem to have a penchant for arguing something that i never wrote. try to stick with what i actually wrote. the example of the bruising, or the issue of a dangerous weapon/firearm at home are both potential sources of harm or endangerment to a child. the teacher is not 'an idiot' for instigating further investigation.

i repeat, the teacher is NOT an idiot. they did their job. full stop. just because you disagree with it, and that at the end of the day the suspicions were proven incorrect does not suggest that they were an idiot for caring enough to do their due diligence. the fact that the suspicion was based on questioning and investigation and not just a sketch seems to be beyond your comprehension.

at least you accept that the policy and procedure is the problem. so try to change that, instead of blaming and calling 'idiots' the people who were just doing their job.

More media coverage.

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

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

thank you for the actual news link. glad to see more details are starting to emerge.

unfortunately, they quote another opinion piece, lorne gunther. that part you highlighted is his opinion, not based in fact.

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?

the phrase 'in fact' is a colloquialism. obviously, my supposition was just that. until more detail appears, we will not be able to make factual statements. i think we all recognize that.

and here you go again with not addressing what i actually wrote. how many straw man arguments do you have to put up? if you read what i wrote as "suggesting in this statement that simply refusing to speak to police is sufficient grounds to be arrested", then your reading comprehension needs some improvement.

and yes, claiming opinion pieces are news articles IS getting facts wrong. opinion is opinion, whether by gunther, the sunnews media piece, or that full comment national post piece.

obviously more detail is necessary. but i'm not going to take opinion as fact and obviously everything i wrote could be proven to be completely wrong once the facts (if they ever are) are published. i don't mind being wrong based on new facts emerging, but i don't accept the validity of subjective, emotionally-charged appeals based on opinion.

 

[OpenGambit]

regardless of which version of the facts is used. they are all consistant with charter violations. We can argue about degree but suggesting that the cops did nothing wrong is pretty untenentable.

PS: just doing your job is not a good legal argument for anything. Nuremburg proved as much.

 

[afong56]

Its worrisome that you think what happened to this innocent man is okay.

i don't think what happened to him was okay. never wrote that.

but what happened to him was a product of the system, the laws, and the policies in place. not so-called "idiots" that upheld the procedures. they did their jobs.

if people are so upset about what happened to him, then work on changing the system, the laws, and the policies, not blaming the people who, as i have written before, treated him fairly under the existing process (based on existing reports).

was it right? probably not. was it fair? probably. being fair is not the same as being right.

if more actual evidence of coercion, violation of liberties, or biased treatment emerge, then obviously i will amend my beliefs.

 

[afong56]

regardless of which version of the facts is used. they are all consistant with charter violations. We can argue about degree but suggesting that the cops did nothing wrong is pretty untenentable.

PS: just doing your job is not a good legal argument for anything. Nuremburg proved as much.

if all of the opinion turns out to be true, then yes, the cops erred. there are, however, two different elements to this process. . .
my comment about "doing your job" was in large part directed at the role of the teacher and the principal, who others are equating to "idiots", which i consider an unfair comment.

 

[FullMotoJacket]

if more actual evidence of coercion, violation of liberties, or biased treatment emerge, then obviously i will amend my beliefs.

What part of Gambit's explanation that being strip searched (regardless that it was at a police station when the "threat" was a possible alleged gun in the suspect's home) is a violation of the Charter of Rights don't you understand?

 

[mmmnaked]

i don't think what happened to him was okay. never wrote that.

but what happened to him was a product of the system, the laws, and the policies in place. not so-called "idiots" that upheld the procedures. they did their jobs.

if people are so upset about what happened to him, then work on changing the system, the laws, and the policies, not blaming the people who, as i have written before, treated him fairly under the existing process (based on existing reports).

was it right? probably not. was it fair? probably. being fair is not the same as being right.

if more actual evidence of coercion, violation of liberties, or biased treatment emerge, then obviously i will amend my beliefs.

LOL

So you dont think it was okay. You dont think it was right. But you think it was fair.

:lol: pass the bong my way

 

[afong56]

LOL

So you dont think it was okay. You dont think it was right. But you think it was fair.

:lol: pass the bong my way

is it right that whites are discriminated against with affirmative action programs? probably not. is it fair? imho, yes.

lots of examples out there. fair is not the same as right.

 

[mmmnaked]

Oh man :lol:

 

[OpenGambit]

is it right that whites are discriminated against with affirmative action programs? probably not. is it fair? imho, yes.

lots of examples out there. fair is not the same as right.

Asians are discriminated more with AA programs than caucasians... just saying.



But on topic though. I am not aware of a version of the facts (not speculation) that results in no Charter violations. Maybe you can point to it in print.

 

[mmmnaked]

"its fair to trample over a man's rights because of a 4 year-olds drawing of a gun"

Go ahead read it aloud to yourself :lol:

 

[fastar1]

"its fair to trample over a man's rights because of a 4 year-olds drawing of a toy"

Fixed.

 

[afong56]

Asians are discriminated more with AA programs than caucasians... just saying.

But on topic though. I am not aware of a version of the facts (not speculation) that results in no Charter violations. Maybe you can point to it in print.

that doesn't change the fact that the discrimination, while not right, generates fairness, imho.

clearly, as more details are emerging, it appears that the cops, especially at the station, exceeded their powers. however, there is no new info to suggest that the school and its officials did. are you too part of the group that feels they were 'idiots'?

"its fair to trample over a man's rights because of a 4 year-olds drawing of a gun"

Go ahead read it aloud to yourself :lol:

i might, if that was what actually happened.

so let me get this straight. despite the investigation and despite the questioning that the school officials did before calling the police, you still insist that they jumped directly to calling the police based solely on the drawing?

uh, okay.

 

[OpenGambit]

given the choice of everyone doing the right thing or that there being loads of fail in the whole situation. i definately think the latter is more likely.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

i don't think what happened to him was okay. never wrote that.

but what happened to him was a product of the system, the laws, and the policies in place. not so-called "idiots" that upheld the procedures. they did their jobs.

if people are so upset about what happened to him, then work on changing the system, the laws, and the policies, not blaming the people who, as i have written before, treated him fairly under the existing process (based on existing reports).

was it right? probably not. was it fair? probably. being fair is not the same as being right.

if more actual evidence of coercion, violation of liberties, or biased treatment emerge, then obviously i will amend my beliefs.

The way that I read it you're only right about one thing, that was responsible for this situation; the policies.

The laws involved were not upheld, by police who were involved. They acted beyond the scope of their powers, and then tried to cover it up after the fact. The strip search, in particular, was ruled as unconstitutional in such cases some time ago.

The system isn't at fault, as they did an end run around it. Had it gone to court the system would have tossed out evidence that was improperly obtained, unless doing so would "bring the enforcement of law into disrepute." In this case, the actions of law enforcement officers did so, so any evidence would undoubtedly be tossed.

i agree consent under duress or where an imbalance of power exists is extremely problematic, but as you say, he had already been released. . .not sure how much compulsion he felt at that point. . .

as you say, lots of detail still left unreported.

Having been taken into custody out of the blue, without adequate cause, being detained, strip searched, questioned at length, thereafter being released or not, you must admit that someone then faced with the selfsame officials would constitute duress.

 

[afong56]

The way that I read it you're only right about one thing, that was responsible for this situation; the policies.

The laws involved were not upheld, by police who were involved. They acted beyond the scope of their powers, and then tried to cover it up after the fact. The strip search, in particular, was ruled as unconstitutional in such cases some time ago.

The system isn't at fault, as they did an end run around it. Had it gone to court the system would have tossed out evidence that was improperly obtained, unless doing so would "bring the enforcement of law into disrepute." In this case, the actions of law enforcement officers did so, so any evidence would undoubtedly be tossed.

Having been taken into custody out of the blue, without adequate cause, being detained, strip searched, questioned at length, thereafter being released or not, you must admit that someone then faced with the selfsame officials would constitute duress.

yes, as more detail emerges, it certainly seems that the boys in blue overstepped. but there are two clear parts to this process--what took place before the police got involved, and after. i still hold to the belief that the school did its due diligence. what the police chose to do with the suspect afterwards was not within the control of the school. . .i'll ask you as well, do you also think that they were 'idiots'?

on the final issue. . .not to be totally cynical, but this was not the suspect's first rodeo. he had already been through the system before, only five years earlier for two convictions. if perhaps this was someone with zero experience with the system, never arrested or questioned then i could see it. but he had already spoken to legal counsel, and you can't say he was unfamiliar with the process.

 

[OpenGambit]

yes, as more detail emerges, it certainly seems that the boys in blue overstepped. but there are two clear parts to this process--what took place before the police got involved, and after. i still hold to the belief that the school did its due diligence. what the police chose to do with the suspect afterwards was not within the control of the school. . .i'll ask you as well, do you also think that they were 'idiots'?

on the final issue. . .not to be totally cynical, but this was not the suspect's first rodeo. he had already been through the system before, only five years earlier for two convictions. if perhaps this was someone with zero experience with the system, never arrested or questioned then i could see it. but he had already spoken to legal counsel, and you can't say he was unfamiliar with the process.

If you consider speaking to legal counsel 5 years ago for unrelated offences to be somehow satisfying 10b or impacting 10b in any way. You should really reconsider living in a country with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

What next? you are going to suggest that I don't need 10b if I ever get arrested? reason being I used to work for the govt so i should know it all already?
The point of counsel isn't just to let you know how the system works, its to have someone that is on your side to fight for your rights. Any lawyer would have instantly recognized they had no right to arrest him and secured his release instantly. Rather than having him rot in a cell for hours.

Your idea of satisfying the Charter is completely against the spirit of the document.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

yes, as more detail emerges, it certainly seems that the boys in blue overstepped. but there are two clear parts to this process--what took place before the police got involved, and after. i still hold to the belief that the school did its due diligence. what the police chose to do with the suspect afterwards was not within the control of the school. . .i'll ask you as well, do you also think that they were 'idiots'?

on the final issue. . .not to be totally cynical, but this was not the suspect's first rodeo. he had already been through the system before, only five years earlier for two convictions. if perhaps this was someone with zero experience with the system, never arrested or questioned then i could see it. but he had already spoken to legal counsel, and you can't say he was unfamiliar with the process.

None of this in any way justifies what happened to Sansone. How many of us made mistakes, in the past, only to straighten ourselves out immediately after that? The police are required to follow certain standards of behaviour. They didn't. That's where this debate starts and ends.