|
|
|
Holy Smokes!!! This country is off it's collective head.
- Thread starter eastcoast_gsx
- Start date
hold on a second. re-read my post. i was responding to rob's post, specifically his last point/issue on whether he was under duress when he consented to the search, not the 10b issue.
i have already written that, thanks to the additional details that have emerged, i do agree the police overstepped. yes, the police owe him an apology, even greater than the one they have already offered, and yes, he should probably find out if there is compensation or legal remedy available (depending on what other additional details have yet to be reported, which i am sure exist).
and yes, i'm not sure how good his counsel was if he permitted what has been now reported to happen to his client. but the original article clearly states he spoke to a lawyer while at the police station, and that's why i presumed that the police had acted above board throughout, since he should have had his interests protected, as you say. the new details are disappointing on many levels, but not surprising. i have not been a huge fan of the boys in blue in the past (see: g20) and this just re-affirms that there are some bad seeds that need to be re-trained or let go.
many in the thread are not just questioning police standards of behaviour. they are debating the "idiot" status of the professionals that set in motion this process which ultimately led to the police becoming involved. there are two separate issues.
as for whether one's past record should or shouldn't be considered--in terms of the school officials, who had to take into consideration the sketch, the responses given by the child, the suspicion of a weapon in the home--i think that you cannot remove it out of the equation when determining the seriousness of the threat.
is that what you think i've done? i couldn't disagree with you more.
OpenGambit
Banned
Speaking to a lawyer at the police station is in itself a charter violation as the right to counsel needs to be be given "forthwith". So no, thats isn't having his interests protected.
All the charter violations were apparent in the very first article. I am not sure where these "addtional details" you keep referring to come from.
All the charter violations were apparent in the very first article. I am not sure where these "addtional details" you keep referring to come from.
Well I'm not one of them. The usual stupid 'zero tolerance' law garbage has tied educator's hands and they MUST report. They get beaten down for not reporting. This is why I am steadfastly against such rules. Common sense should be employed, not rigid legislated structures.
Such reports, however, do not require that police roll with body armour and rectal probes.
did i miss the report that stated that he was denied his right to counsel? how do we know it wasn't given "forthwith", and he refused at that point?
i stand to be corrected, but that very first article doesn't mention anything about him being denied counsel. given the opportunity he had to make public the violations of his rights, i would think he'd mention that one for sure when being interviewed by a reporter, no? is it possible you've read into the situation or interpreted/extrapolated what happened?
without question, there is much that went unreported. the accused was given an opportunity to give his version of events in a light that would be most flattering to him and cast a pall over everyone else. again, since he has been through the system, you'd think he'd be aware of his right to counsel as well.
thank you for appreciating the context. i wholeheartedly agree with you that the 'rigid legislated structures' that you refer to are what needs to change. there are too many in this thread who are badly misplacing their anger regarding what happened to this man.
OpenGambit
Banned
The very first article stated he spoke to a lawyer at the station.
The idea that he refused the right to counsel but asked for it back at the police station... doesn't make sense. It COULD have happend, but it doesn't make sense, nor is it likely. The idea that someone would refuse right to counsel is pretty weird considering there is absolutely no advantage to be gained from it. So its pretty ridiculous to suggest it. You might as well suggest that he had 10 guns at home because it is based on the same amount of nothing. Long story short, I would be willing to put money against the speculation that 10 b was offered to him but refused.
whats more likely is that he wasn't given right to counsel until he showed up at the police station. On it's face, thats is a violation of 10b unless other circumstances show that it is not. No such circumstances have been claimed by the police nor the accused.
You should understand the concept of Prima facie. the simple fact that he did not speak to counsel at the point of his arrest is on its face a violation of 10b.
You however seem to like to assume the most Government friendly course of events. Which is kind of offensive in a just and democractic society. The appropriate mentality to be brought to these analysis is that of skepticism, for very obvious reasons.
You can argue with me till you are blue in the face, but the available facts even from the first article point to charter violations. And you certain have been unable to cast doubt on the existence of Charter violations, its also weird to be defending the cops so strongly ( i dont' care if you took their side or not in a previous arguement because it just seems to me that you can't let go of the losing point in this one)
Lastly, I see little reason for the dad to lie. there is no advantage to be gained from it, the chance of him getting any sort of compensation is slim to none. The police however, do have an incentive to spin the facts to their advantage.
Last edited:
the problem is that none of us were privy to what actually took place, so despite how you want to present it, we are all making some assumptions here. the article does state that he spoke to a lawyer at the station. but it doesn't say that he necessarily spoke to counsel for the first time at the station. maybe in the balance of probabilities we can assume that, but it's not stated. i'd think he or the reporter would have made a point of that, if it was another example of his rights being trampled, don't you think? why does he not clearly make the claim that he was denied counsel?
if we accept your version of events, where he was not offered counsel at the point of arrest, then obviously, his 10b rights were trampled. IF that happened. . .but neither his version of events nor any other reported versions have brought this out.
i tend to be very wary of the government version of events, especially in our current state of affairs, so you are mistaken when you say i am assuming a 'government friendly' stance. . .while skepticism runs deep in my heart, i also am wary of overstating what are the 'facts', as you say. i have already written that the police have clearly overstepped. when more details of charter violations are made public, then we can all properly assess what did or didn't happen, rather than this rush to judgement.
as for reasons to 'lie', no i'm fairly sure that the details that were actually reported were not lies. but likewise, i'm sure his version of events is incomplete. he may not have lied, but he has much to benefit from leaving out details that do not flatter him, and there is plenty in the court of public opinion to gain. suggesting that only the police have incentive to spin the facts is pretty much invalidated by the fact that he chose to go public, to be interviewed by a reporter, and to pose for a staged photo with his child. yes, reporters like to chase stories, but there is plenty of self-interest on his part apparent here. . .
OpenGambit
Banned
There is nothing to indicate my assumptions aren't reasonable. I also have the experience of seeing multiple of these situations to back up those assumptions.
If you wanna stand there and say I can't prove it. I can't, nor do I care to prove it. but my opinion is based on very reasonable interpretations that aren't stretched by any means.
The fact that he or the reporter didn't focus on it really doesn't mean squat to me. because I wouldn't make a big deal of it either in a media article. the point is it show people the ridiculous outcome of what happened. Newspaper articles are not, and are not meant to be, legal analysis.
You don't have to accept "my" version of the events, its just the most likely version, if you want to base your opinion on some fantastical interpretation that has no basis, by all means. People believe in lots of fairy tales.
You eventually admitted that there were charter violations, but everything I wrote about is, or should have been clear from first blush. You were just in denial. I still don't see any "new" facts that you keep claiming came out that revealed charter violations. I just see a bunch of details that did not change the original point.
So far, the one person in this thread making the most assumptions is you. all this crap about "i'm sure his version of events is incomplete" is just obvious bias. All you saw was "oh he has a record" and just went crazy.. Thats considered irrelevant in a court of law on the question of guilt btw. For a guy who is putting up a front of being "fair", you sure include a lot of irrelevant factors.
If you wanna stand there and say I can't prove it. I can't, nor do I care to prove it. but my opinion is based on very reasonable interpretations that aren't stretched by any means.
The fact that he or the reporter didn't focus on it really doesn't mean squat to me. because I wouldn't make a big deal of it either in a media article. the point is it show people the ridiculous outcome of what happened. Newspaper articles are not, and are not meant to be, legal analysis.
You don't have to accept "my" version of the events, its just the most likely version, if you want to base your opinion on some fantastical interpretation that has no basis, by all means. People believe in lots of fairy tales.
You eventually admitted that there were charter violations, but everything I wrote about is, or should have been clear from first blush. You were just in denial. I still don't see any "new" facts that you keep claiming came out that revealed charter violations. I just see a bunch of details that did not change the original point.
So far, the one person in this thread making the most assumptions is you. all this crap about "i'm sure his version of events is incomplete" is just obvious bias. All you saw was "oh he has a record" and just went crazy.. Thats considered irrelevant in a court of law on the question of guilt btw. For a guy who is putting up a front of being "fair", you sure include a lot of irrelevant factors.
Last edited:
my concern with charter violations came when more detail about the nature of the search of his person at the station was reported.
iirc, your 10a, 10b, and sec 8 concerns dealt with being informed of the charge, whether he was given access to counsel, and consent for search of his home given under duress.
as i responded, the original news report addresses 10a, there is no proof of 10b only assumption (and unreported), and the belief of duress was assumed and not reported. at first blush, we can assume that your version is correct, but only on a balance of probabilities, not as a statement of fact.
i wouldn't deny that your version of events is possible, i would not make that assumption that your version is factual, however.
yes, news articles are not meant for legal analysis, but they do, until proven incorrect, provide a basis of fact for our discussion here. if you're not basing your understanding on the news articles, what are you establishing your understanding on, other than assumption? what other reliable source of information are you drawing on, that the rest of us do not have available?
if the validity of your argument falls on "my assumptions are likely, imho, more probable than yours", then we're just swapping weasel words and calling it a day. . .
I haven't seen this much back pedaling since the flatland competition at last year's bicycle show.
"us?"
You are of course referring to yourself.
Everyone sees what you're willfully being blind to.
OpenGambit
Banned
from the article linked on the first page
"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...
...At the police station, Sansone talked to a lawyer who said only that he was being charged with possession of a firearm, Sansone said"
Also from the article linked on the first page
"On Wednesday, Sansone arrived at his children’s’ school to pick them up. He was asked to step inside and meet with the principal. In the principal’s office, Sansone was met by three Waterloo Regional Police officers and immediately arrested. He was taken to a nearby station, strip searched and locked in a cell. His wife was also summoned to the station, and their children taken by Family and Children’s Services. 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."
If you continue to insist that the fact that his 10b was not violated... all you are showing is how hard it is for you to admit that maybe you were wrong.
My "assumption" that 10b wasn't given till the station is about on the same level as the assumption that if someone was shot. they died of that injury (omg its not a factual statement because i didn't see an autopsy)
or are you going to stick to your easter bunny version of him "refusing" it. Duty counsel are on call 24/7 by the way, as are all private practice criminal lawyers.
And by the way, saying that one version of the events is more likely than the other is a normal part of analysis that even courts use.. and you are saying its somehow not good enough for you? There is actually evidence that suggests my view is correct and none for yours. Any reasonable person reading this thread can ( and do) see that.
They can't prove evolution conclusively either, do you pretend that doesn't exist?
And yes, everything I said is more likely than your conclusion. You know why? its because I am in touch with reality.
Last edited:
isn't it interesting how you have constructed your post. it actually proves my point quite well about omitting details to flatter their cause. thanks.
first, you jump between quoting the actual news article (first quote) to an opinion piece (second article) without attributing either accurately, which misleads the reader into thinking they are from the same source, when a) they aren't, and b) opinion pieces are opinion, and not raw news.
second, you very selectively quote the first article, cleanly omitting the part that vitiates your claim on 10a issues, and directly refutes the timeline suggested by the opinion piece in the national post (which i'm guessing you are relying on). here is the full quote from the waterloo record, verbatim:
"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.
At the same time, other police officers went to his home, where his wife and 15-month-old child were waiting for his return.
They made his wife come to the police station while the other three children were taken to Family and Children’s Services to be interviewed.
“Nobody was given any explanation,” said his wife, Stephanie Squires. “I didn’t know why he was being arrested.
“He had absolutely no idea what this was even about. I just kept telling them. ‘You’re making a mistake.’ ”
At the police station, Sansone talked to a lawyer who said only that he was being charged with possession of a firearm, Sansone said"
did you lie in regards to the information you quoted? no, but you certainly selected what information to include. and you had even less to benefit from doing so than the accused. or even the reporter, when it comes to that. so, ignoring your ad hominem attacks, i will reiterate--let's stick to details that have actually been made public as this debate on 'believability' of assumptions is pointless.
OpenGambit
Banned
what does that sentence have to do with 10b? both of those articles say they talk to the lawyer at the police station. do you have reading comprehension issues?
You can change the topic all you want but it isn't going to change the fact that the only explaination you can give for the fact that he didn't speak to counsel until way after his arrest is highly fantastical and ridiculous.
Last edited:
what that gun really needs, is a silencer.
and you never know, maybe he wants to be strip searched..
Brian Lilley and Chris Simms make the Waterloo cops look like a bunch of bumbling idiots (and it didn't look like it took much effort).
The headline on the scrolling ticker at 5:07 was kinda creepy.
[video=youtube;LLyg9NpDk-I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLyg9NpDk-I[/video]
The headline on the scrolling ticker at 5:07 was kinda creepy.
[video=youtube;LLyg9NpDk-I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLyg9NpDk-I[/video]
|
|
|
|
|