Canadian dad goes to jail when daughter draws picture of gun

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

This sounds stupid. The only plausible reason I would think for this to occur is if there were unsolved shootings in the area. Otherwise, even an idiot would realize kids have a little thing called an imagination.

Shaoken:

Kendarik:

The Gentleman:

When you're dealing with the domestic safety of a minor, the default response is to report. The association of the father with a weapon raises the possibility of a violent home life.

Or, to put it another way, what if he had been using a gun to threaten or kill people? How do you know he's not? Do you want to be there a month later reading about how you dropped the ball on a possible warning sign before this guy goes postal?

Default response is to report. Better for everyone to feel a little embarrassed than risk the bloody consequences of inaction.

I don't believe anyone needs to privately own a handgun, but a gun doesn't make someone automatically violent.

You find out more by TALKING TO THE KID. The one answer that they got, that he uses the guns for "killing bad guys AND MONSTERS" should have reduced the threat level a few notches. The police, according to public reports, weren't worried about violence as much as "does the kid have access to a weapon", and they could have asked her that too. (Where does daddy keep his gun? Do you ever play with it?)

And why the arrest and perp walk at the school? They could have just as easily have visited him at home and done the investigation there.

You seem to be discounting the possiblity that there could be procedures detailing how all this is supposed to go. The school might have been legally required to inform the police, the police in turn need to investigate the claim. As for why they didn't visit him at home, perhaps he came to the school whilst they were still there?

I've actually repeatedly commented on that previously in this thread, including indicating that there were procedures in place that triggered most of this and would trigger it again tomorrow. However, none of those procedures preclude talking with the child or deciding where to interview the family. As I've already said, they overreacted because in the province there have over the past few years been several deaths of minors because schools and C&FS ignored their duty totally even though they knew for a fact there was a threat.

F4LL3N:
This sounds stupid. The only plausible reason I would think for this to occur is if there were unsolved shootings in the area. Otherwise, even an idiot would realize kids have a little thing called an imagination.

Personally I'm just glad the kid didn't draw her pet snake in her father's hands or you know what they would have assumed...

farson135:
You do realize that according to the sources I have seen the only thing the kid said was that she drew the gun her dad used to shoot bad guys and monsters. Once again for all the information they had she could have been describing a video game session. How about this, instead of calling the police and social services you call in the parents and ask them about it. It might have been a good learning experience on the practice of moderation for the kid. Instead she got a good lesson on how you need to temper your expressiveness and creativity, otherwise your dad might go to jail. It's a wonderful world we live in.

"dad used [the gun] to shoot bad guys and monsters"

This is how you process that statement in order to determine whether or not to call. Attempt to strip out a child's perception and determine what they may have actually seen. Even at it's most skeptical, this is not a statement you you take lightly. As a teacher, you need to report this in order to determine whether this was an overactive imagination

farson135:
I also have to ask what the fuck prompted this teacher to even report this? A kid draws a gun, big deal. Are we going to call in the police every time some kids play cops and robbers? If the teacher had an actual reason to report this then I want to know it but if she only reported this because a kid drew a gun I have to call her an idiot.

Possible domestic violence.
Possible violent tendencies.
Possible access to a firearm with potential desire to use.

Any one of these is a "report first, ask questions later" response. Better to investigate and find nothing than not investigate and have an event later. The welfare of the child is paramount to any concern of overreaction over what may simply be just a drawing.

So this guy's daughter thinks he's The Punisher...?

On a more serious note, this could have been handled better. It's one thing to be extra prudent, it's a whole other to detain and strip-search a man on a supposition.

The Gentleman:

"dad used [the gun] to shoot bad guys and monsters"

This is how you process that statement in order to determine whether or not to call. Attempt to strip out a child's perception and determine what they may have actually seen. Even at it's most skeptical, this is not a statement you you take lightly. As a teacher, you need to report this in order to determine whether this was an overactive imagination

Bull-motherfucking-shit. In analyzing what a person says you DO NOT selectively delete the parts that are inconvenient. The kid drew a gun no more. Later, upon interrogation, the kid stated that she drew the gun her dad used to shoot bad guys and monsters. Taking that statement it would imply that the kid is talking about some fantasy scenario. That is plain as fucking day. That would be the teachers queue to ask the requisite questions end the situation right then.

Possible domestic violence.
Possible violent tendencies.

Relevance? None of those things require a gun and were not even implied by the child's statement or her drawing (you know all the evidence the case is based on).

Possible access to a firearm with potential desire to use.

So are you advocating police kicking down my door because I have possible access to a firearm and a potential desire to use? If so you better get a move on it, after all you have about 60 million people, in my country alone, whose civil rights you have to violate.

BTW what you are stating was not implied by the child's statement or drawing.

Any one of these is a "report first, ask questions later" response. Better to investigate and find nothing than not investigate and have an event later. The welfare of the child is paramount to any concern of overreaction over what may simply be just a drawing.

It is that kind of logic that had my friend eating asphalt after calling the police. "But it was for our own safety" they cried while still refusing to apologize for chipping his front teeth.

What in the blue fuck did you see in this case that warranted strip searching the man, detaining him, interrogating his children, and searching his home ALL without the benefit of legal counsel or even probable cause? The only evidence they had was a child drawing a picture and then a questioning session where the kid did not say anything of consequence.

Look the child obviously was not in danger while at the school, so how about the school exercise a bit of fucking restraint and common sense. Is that too much to ask?

farson135:

Look the child obviously was not in danger while at the school, so how about the school exercise a bit of fucking restraint and common sense. Is that too much to ask?

I think it's the opposite.

I think that if a school teacher is concerned, they need to report it right away. Better safe than sorry.

But holy shit, it seems like the police went fucking overboard to the extreme, it honestly seems like a few questions could easily have cleared up the misunderstanding. Was arresting him and strip searching him seriously the only option? I highly doubt it.

The Gentleman:

Possible domestic violence.
Possible violent tendencies.
Possible access to a firearm with potential desire to use.

No one claims any of that who was actually involved (police, school, C&FS). The only statement that those that re involved made was that it was potential access by the child to an unregistered gun that concerned them.

farson135:
ALL without the benefit of legal counsel?

Where does it say he was denied legal counsel?

Zekksta:
I think that if a school teacher is concerned, they need to report it right away. Better safe than sorry.

I think the teacher is stupid to be concerned about the drawing (as it was described) but you are right that if the teacher is concerned he/she should contact the proper authorities. The things is my mom is actually a social worker and she has told me a little about the SOP (I know it might be different in Canada but it should not be that different). The fact is that the child was still in the school when the "problem" occurred, because of that the child is safe so you can take your time and figure out what is going on. If they find that there is a reason to continue the investigation then they can put the child under the care of CPS (or equivalent) until the problem is resolved. They jumped the gun big time.

Kendarik:
Where does it say he was denied legal counsel?

I did not say he was denied it, just that he did not have the benefit of legal counsel and any lawyer worth his salt would have told the police to go fuck themselves (albeit in a more diplomatic fashion).

farson135:
any lawyer worth his salt would have told the police to go fuck themselves (albeit in a more diplomatic fashion).

I wouldn't wager too much on that point. After working with lawyers, I see they are all too willing to resort to that language rather quickly. Case in point: I overheard one of the lawyers telling the opposing council over the phone that he was "fucking crazy" and "out of his goddamned mind" to demand 30% arm on this case. And when I delivered dockets to the court, I also heard quite a few words exchanged.

Where was I going with that?

OH, yeah. I wouldn't put it pass any lawyer to tell the cops to go fuck themselves.

The Gentleman:

Possible domestic violence.
Possible violent tendencies.
Possible access to a firearm with potential desire to use.

The latter two are almost kind of arguable, sort of, but the first one? NO.

There is NO way this implies domestic violence.

1. The girl said her father was PROTECTING her form the "bad guys and the monsters." She didn't fear the gun (the TOY gun), all indications is that she loved her dad.

2. Firearm ownership is still fairly common in Canada even with all the regulations (with about a 30% ownership rate, there about), and about 50% of households in the U.S. have them, and there has been no study that links gun ownership to domestic abuse.

3. If the father was using a shotgun to abuse his daughter, SHE WOULD BE DEAD.

CM156:
...he was "fucking crazy" and "out of his goddamned mind" to demand 30% arm on this case.

Ummm... can you please what you mean by "30% arm in this case"? I have no idea what you mean.

OT: If you are EVER talked to by the police you should never A. let them in without a warrant, B. talk after being brought in, or C. do anything they ask that requires your consent. You never know what tiny law or what word you say they could use to arrest you.

Not G. Ivingname:

CM156:
...he was "fucking crazy" and "out of his goddamned mind" to demand 30% arm on this case.

Ummm... can you please what you mean by "30% arm in this case"? I have no idea what you mean.

OT: If you are EVER talked to by the police you should never A. let them in without a warrant, B. talk after being brought in, or C. do anything they ask that requires your consent. You never know what tiny law or what word you say they could use to arrest you.

It deals with workmen's compensation law and how much a person is paid and for how long they're paid. That's all I can really say because I don't fully understand it myself, sadly

CM156:

Not G. Ivingname:

CM156:
...he was "fucking crazy" and "out of his goddamned mind" to demand 30% arm on this case.

Ummm... can you please what you mean by "30% arm in this case"? I have no idea what you mean.

OT: If you are EVER talked to by the police you should never A. let them in without a warrant, B. talk after being brought in, or C. do anything they ask that requires your consent. You never know what tiny law or what word you say they could use to arrest you.

It deals with workmen's compensation law and how much a person is paid and for how long they're paid. That's all I can really say because I don't fully understand it myself, sadly

Oh, ok. Thanks anyway :)

I do wonder how the persecution has any say in the compensation your lawyer gets...

Not G. Ivingname:

CM156:

Not G. Ivingname:

Ummm... can you please what you mean by "30% arm in this case"? I have no idea what you mean.

OT: If you are EVER talked to by the police you should never A. let them in without a warrant, B. talk after being brought in, or C. do anything they ask that requires your consent. You never know what tiny law or what word you say they could use to arrest you.

It deals with workmen's compensation law and how much a person is paid and for how long they're paid. That's all I can really say because I don't fully understand it myself, sadly

Oh, ok. Thanks anyway :)

I do wonder how the persecution has any say in the compensation your lawyer gets...

Prosecution*

Sorry :)

Workmen's comp law is pretty much "Your client is an idiot and mine is a irresponsible douchebag. Let's make a deal"

At least that's what I saw

Well, if your kid draws you holding a handgun, I'd say that's sufficient reason to suspect you might actually own a handgun, and if handguns are illegal that suspicion should probably be enough to warrant a search of your house.

I'm not sure the entire detention debacle was necessary though. Seems they overreacted a bit.

I wonder if the little girl had drawn "evidence" or her holding hands with a big fluffy bear and gave the "witness statement" that it was a friendly bear that lived in her house, who was her friend and who only she could see. Would they have immediately evacuated her street and sent a squad of animal control experts with tranquiliser darts? Better safe than sorry!

farson135:

Kendarik:
Where does it say he was denied legal counsel?

I did not say he was denied it, just that he did not have the benefit of legal counsel and any lawyer worth his salt would have told the police to go fuck themselves (albeit in a more diplomatic fashion).

Ok, where did it say he didn't have the benefit of legal counsel? For all you know he spoke to the Duty Counsel or his own personal criminal attorney. This isn't a guy who is new to the system, he's been through it before.

Even if a lawyer said not to let them search the house on principle, most parents would ignore that advice when the choice is "prove your innocence" (which he knew he could since he knew there was no gun) or have your kids taken away for even for an unknown amount of time until the case is evaluated further.

Batou667:
I wonder if the little girl had drawn "evidence" or her holding hands with a big fluffy bear and gave the "witness statement" that it was a friendly bear that lived in her house, who was her friend and who only she could see. Would they have immediately evacuated her street and sent a squad of animal control experts with tranquiliser darts? Better safe than sorry!

I think they'd be on the look out for pedobear actually.

When I was a kid, the A-team was quite popular. Guns, tanks, Jeeps and other cool military stuff was normal for a kid to draw.
I did get questioned by a teacher (counsellors don't belong in schools, wussies) about all the rats I drew, but since they were my pets, he just felled silly about the whole thing.

We were also allowed to pretend our plastic shovels were machine guns, and play "kick-tag".

I sure do miss the eighties...

Who cares?

Did I miss an announcement that this is Badly Reported Trivialities To Incite Internet Rage Week?

Kendarik:

Ok, where did it say he didn't have the benefit of legal counsel? For all you know he spoke to the Duty Counsel or his own personal criminal attorney.

Of all the versions of this story I have read not one mentioned him having legal counsel. Given the amount of damage control they are doing I would have thought that mentioning the fact that the guy gotten legal advice would have been the first thing they talked about.

This isn't a guy who is new to the system, he's been through it before.

Yeah and he lost. So his record is 0-1 (as far as we are aware) which would indicate he should get legal counsel.

Even if a lawyer said not to let them search the house on principle, most parents would ignore that advice when the choice is "prove your innocence" (which he knew he could since he knew there was no gun) or have your kids taken away for even for an unknown amount of time until the case is evaluated further.

I think the lawyer would have questioned the need for the strip search, the detention, the interrogation of his children, and the search of his home. In fact a good lawyer would have thrown this entire case back in their faces and called them idiots for even pursuing it. It is not just the search of the home but the fact that the police took the liberty to treat him like a criminal on the basis of a 4 year olds drawing.

Do you not comprehend the precedent this sends? God help you if you ever have kids. I have a few nephews and those kids have seen me walking around the house covered in blood (pig and/or deer). I would hope that their school would moderate themselves and ask before they decide to send in the SWAT teams looking for all the corpses I have hanging in my basement.

Do you honestly think that what the police and school did was appropriate? The kid was at the school, she wasn't going anywhere. If you are honestly concerned then why don't you THINK and pursue a logical course of action. Specifically you talk to the kid a little more (start by asking whether or not there is even a gun in the home) call the father and mother and ask them what is going on. If you feel the need you can then call the police and have them obtain a court order to search the home. That would have prevented this entire incident. Instead they decide to bring the father in and arrest him in the school on the basis of a drawing.

Edit: this just reminded me of these videos, this is an actual lecture that a friend of mine attended, watch and learn what a defense attorney and a cop says about talking to the police.

farson135:

Kendarik:

Ok, where did it say he didn't have the benefit of legal counsel? For all you know he spoke to the Duty Counsel or his own personal criminal attorney.

Of all the versions of this story I have read not one mentioned him having legal counsel. Given the amount of damage control they are doing I would have thought that mentioning the fact that the guy gotten legal advice would have been the first thing they talked about.

Why would that get mentioned when that's routine that its made available? In fact I can't recall a single report where a lawyer was mentioned in a crime report unless they are quoted.

This isn't a guy who is new to the system, he's been through it before.

Yeah and he lost. So his record is 0-1 (as far as we are aware) which would indicate he should get legal counsel.

Even if a lawyer said not to let them search the house on principle, most parents would ignore that advice when the choice is "prove your innocence" (which he knew he could since he knew there was no gun) or have your kids taken away for even for an unknown amount of time until the case is evaluated further.

I think the lawyer would have questioned the need for the strip search, the detention, the interrogation of his children, and the search of his home. In fact a good lawyer would have thrown this entire case back in their faces and called them idiots for even pursuing it. It is not just the search of the home but the fact that the police took the liberty to treat him like a criminal on the basis of a 4 year olds drawing.

The lawyer would not have been consulted about the search before it happened, nor could they have stopped it. (Even though it shouldn't have happened, but that's a different issue). And as I said above, no matter what a lawyer said, many parents would "do what it took" to clear themselves and get their kids back. And I think you've seen too many movies because the lawyer can't "just throw the case back in the police's face". The lawyer can't stop a detention or stop an interview (at least not in Canada where this happened).

All a lawyer could have done is said "don't cooperate, you'll get your kids back eventually. If you do cooperate, keep in mind things you say can be twisted around and misunderstood and if they find anything in the house when searching for that non existent gun (say a bag of personal use weed), that will be held against you too".

Naw, most parents would ignore that advice and say "shit no, I don't have a gun, let them go check"

Do you not comprehend the precedent this sends?

It doesn't set any precedent. Only court cases do that.

Do you honestly think that what the police and school did was appropriate?

Read the rest of what I've said in this thread and you'll have your answer.

I was just challenging some of your sillier points that were unsubstantiated, not suggesting that everything went as it should.

Kendarik:

Why would that get mentioned when that's routine that its made available? In fact I can't recall a single report where a lawyer was mentioned in a crime report unless they are quoted.

Happens all the time when people are trying to cover their asses. "We did this and the suspect had legal counsel who agreed" would cover a lot of asses.

The lawyer would not have been consulted about the search before it happened, nor could they have stopped it.

You really don't read very carefully do you? I never said the lawyer would have been consulted beforehand just that he/she would have questioned the need for it (the LEOs own intelligence should have done that).

And as I said above, no matter what a lawyer said, many parents would "do what it took" to clear themselves and get their kids back.

That would make them stupid and it does not negate the fact that the police should not have even pursued this case.

And I think you've seen too many movies because the lawyer can't "just throw the case back in the police's face".

Yes they can.

The lawyer can't stop a detention

"Are you charging my client with anything? No? Then are we free to go? Goodbye."- If there is no charge and no probable cause you can quite literally ignore a LEO and walk out of the interview room. If you are being detained under questionable evidence then the lawyer could then use that evidence to sue the city for wrongful detention. A smart lawyer with the right tools by his side can easily end a detention.

or stop an interview

Lawyer says to his client- "don't say anything", to LEO- "my client is not going to say anything else so are we done?" I think that stops the interview pretty effectively.

It doesn't set any precedent. Only court cases do that.

"Rolls eyes"- Precedent can be defined as "any act, decision, or case that serves as a guide or justification for subsequent situations". A school calling the police over such an incident and the police acting as they did sets a precedent for others to do the same.

I was just challenging some of your sillier points that were unsubstantiated

Do you have proof he was given legal counsel? Do you know a reason why they would not mention legal counsel when they are trying so hard to cover their asses?

If both answers are no you have grounds to call my points either unsubstantiated or silly.

farson135:

And I think you've seen too many movies because the lawyer can't "just throw the case back in the police's face".

Yes they can.

The lawyer can't stop a detention

"Are you charging my client with anything? No? Then are we free to go? Goodbye."- If there is no charge and no probable cause you can quite literally ignore a LEO and walk out of the interview room. If you are being detained under questionable evidence then the lawyer could then use that evidence to sue the city for wrongful detention. A smart lawyer with the right tools by his side can easily end a detention.

Ah, I just realized the problem. You think the laws in your country apply everywhere. They don't. This is a CANADIAN case. You can be held, without charge, for several days. While the lawyer is free to leave, the client is not. You can not sue for "wrongful detention" just for being held without charge when you are innocent, only if deliberate malice is involved.

or stop an interview

Lawyer says to his client- "don't say anything", to LEO- "my client is not going to say anything else so are we done?" I think that stops the interview pretty effectively.

Once again, that would make the cops laugh in Canada and they would tell the lawyer he/she is free to leave. They would then keep asking questions as long as it entertained them.

It doesn't set any precedent. Only court cases do that.

"Rolls eyes"- Precedent can be defined as "any act, decision, or case that serves as a guide or justification for subsequent situations". A school calling the police over such an incident and the police acting as they did sets a precedent for others to do the same.

Except that it is none of those things. It has no weight which could be used to justify subsequent situations.

I was just challenging some of your sillier points that were unsubstantiated

Do you have proof he was given legal counsel? Do you know a reason why they would not mention legal counsel when they are trying so hard to cover their asses?

You are the one that made a claim, I just suggested you have no evidence for that claim. You make a claim, you come up with evidence. The way legal counsel works here they may not even have known if he consulted counsel or not, its not something the police would therefore comment on.

If both answers are no you have grounds to call my points either unsubstantiated or silly.

Your points are unsubstantiated, based on the fact that you can't substantiate them lol

Kendarik:

Ah, I just realized the problem. You think the laws in your country apply everywhere. They don't. This is a CANADIAN case.

Canadian and US laws are not that different.

You can be held, without charge, for several days.

Same in the US (3 days) BUT if you are being detained without charge there has to be a reason and-

You can not sue for "wrongful detention" just for being held without charge when you are innocent, only if deliberate malice is involved.

You can sue for wrongful detention, etc if the charge was based on nothing. I doubt that even in Canada the police can lock up a person without probable cause or even without a reason to do so. In fact his RECENTLY hired lawyer is stating- "On its surface, it appears serious mistakes were made at every level. I share the concerns that have animated millions of Canadians across the country (that) there appears to have been an arbitrary arrest and detention."

http://www.therecord.com/news/article/677919--police-chief-wants-review-of-arrest-sparked-by-gun-picture

Once again, that would make the cops laugh in Canada and they would tell the lawyer he/she is free to leave. They would then keep asking questions as long as it entertained them.

And? If the client does not talk it is not much of an interview. Hell, I am half asleep but I can still comprehend what you are saying. What is wrong with you?

Except that it is none of those things. It has no weight which could be used to justify subsequent situations.

Bullshit. They did it and got away with it (as of right now at least). Therefore someone else knows they can do it and get away with it.

You are the one that made a claim, I just suggested you have no evidence for that claim. You make a claim, you come up with evidence.

I gave it, of all the info we have no mention of counsel was given and given the scenario that means that it probably was not given. Therefore my statement (given the info we have) is correct.

The way legal counsel works here they may not even have known if he consulted counsel or not, its not something the police would therefore comment on.

So you are saying that the police strip searched him but left a cell phone on his body? Or maybe his lawyer felt so strongly that he needed covert advice that he broke into the prison, is that what you are saying?

Your points are unsubstantiated, based on the fact that you can't substantiate them lol

My evidence is all the news stories. They do not mention counsel and they actually do mention the fact that he was not aware of why he was being detained until AFTER he was released. You would think his lawyer or counselor would have told him why he was being held. Unless YOU have some sort of evidence YOUR claims are unsubstantiated because ever news story I have read has not refuted and even backs up what I said.

Wow, that is absolutely retarded. I can't stand the police in the first place, and shit like this just pisses me off. This is the sort of regular abuse of power that makes me distrust the police and the entire legal system in general.

Ok this whole story has me thoroughly enraged enough that I don't think I can even converse about it in anything resembling a civil manner. Suffice to to say fuck the police and move on.

But if anyone could really explain this little chestnut here and how it makes any goddamn sense I'd love to hear it.

"A local school board official later defended the decision to report the drawing, saying they were "co-parenting" with parents."

We're helping your parents effectively raise you by reporting them to the police so that the can be arrested/"interviewed" and your siblings can learn all about the fun of child protective service trying to get them to narc on Mommy and Daddy?

This is the kind of shit that makes people stop trusting the system especially if they're shown that it's the standard from such a young age.

it was totally an overreaction, first off the police had no evidence that this man did anything wrong (outside of his daughter saying he shoots bad people and monsters).

Seriously? why didn't they investigate this man for being the worlds most successful monster hunter? Did it not occur to anyone that maybe this kid was talking about something else or exaggerating?

And it doesn't matter if he went to jail or prison, the fact they arrested a man and searched his home for the equivalent of a second grade art project is ludicrous. I'd also like to point out overreactions like this will only get worse if we allow the canadian police force warrantless searches of us

farson135:

You can not sue for "wrongful detention" just for being held without charge when you are innocent, only if deliberate malice is involved.

You can sue for wrongful detention, etc if the charge was based on nothing. I doubt that even in Canada the police can lock up a person without probable cause or even without a reason to do so. In fact his RECENTLY hired lawyer is stating- "On its surface, it appears serious mistakes were made at every level. I share the concerns that have animated millions of Canadians across the country (that) there appears to have been an arbitrary arrest and detention."

Most people agree there were mistakes made. That doesn't change anything. We can't sue in general as easily as you can (thank god). Malice would have to be demonstrated to see any kind of route to a civil filing.

Once again, that would make the cops laugh in Canada and they would tell the lawyer he/she is free to leave. They would then keep asking questions as long as it entertained them.

And? If the client does not talk it is not much of an interview. Hell, I am half asleep but I can still comprehend what you are saying. What is wrong with you?

Ah the drop to personal insults. Congrats on demonstrating your lack of an argument with any validity.

How many parents want to sit there all night being questioned, and will resist saying anything, all the while knowing their children are in protective custody?

Except that it is none of those things. It has no weight which could be used to justify subsequent situations.

Bullshit. They did it and got away with it (as of right now at least). Therefore someone else knows they can do it and get away with it.

LMAO, you are a funny man.

The way legal counsel works here they may not even have known if he consulted counsel or not, its not something the police would therefore comment on.

So you are saying that the police strip searched him but left a cell phone on his body? Or maybe his lawyer felt so strongly that he needed covert advice that he broke into the prison, is that what you are saying?

No, I'm saying that prisoners must be given reasonable access to a free phone and access to duty counsel. The police have no way of knowing if you have contacted your own lawyer or duty counsel unless they show up.

Your points are unsubstantiated, based on the fact that you can't substantiate them lol

My evidence is all the news stories. They do not mention counsel and they actually do mention the fact that he was not aware of why he was being detained until AFTER he was released. You would think his lawyer or counselor would have told him why he was being held. Unless YOU have some sort of evidence YOUR claims are unsubstantiated because ever news story I have read has not refuted and even backs up what I said.

Your theory is lack of evidence IS evidence? That's not how it works.

Kendarik:

Most people agree there were mistakes made. That doesn't change anything. We can't sue in general as easily as you can (thank god). Malice would have to be demonstrated to see any kind of route to a civil filing.

Then Canadian laws are fucked up. If you can be arrested for absolutely no reason and not have any legal recourse then Canada has no business calling itself a free society.

Ah the drop to personal insults. Congrats on demonstrating your lack of an argument with any validity.

It's not an insult it's a little jab to tell you to PAY ATTENTION. Literally that was the second time today that I have told you to pay attention to what I am telling you. Read what I am saying and stop insinuating.

How many parents want to sit there all night being questioned, and will resist saying anything, all the while knowing their children are in protective custody?

And if they talk they could be indicted for any number of idiotic laws and remain in jail indefinably (you realize I showed the videos of that lecture for a reason).

LMAO, you are a funny man.

So are you arguing that no one else can ever use this to say we can do something similar and get away with it? If not then you have established precedent. If so I what to hear why.

No, I'm saying that prisoners must be given reasonable access to a free phone and access to duty counsel. The police have no way of knowing if you have contacted your own lawyer or duty counsel unless they show up.

Strange that he apparently did not have a lawyer until AFTER the event. Hell, you do not even have proof he was given access to a phone nevertheless legal counsel.

Your theory is lack of evidence IS evidence? That's not how it works.

Apparently that is how it works for you but that is not what I am saying. Never once is counsel mentioned despite the fact that it would have been advantageous for them mention it. He only got a lawyer after the fact. If there was legal counsel then they would have shown up (they cannot do much over the phone). The counsel he talked to probably would have spoken up by now. He was never told why he was even there (a drawing) and any legal counsel would have demanded to know what is going on BEFORE their client answers any questions, etc. There is more than enough circumstantial evidence to show that he did not have legal counsel. What have you got?

Najos:
I don't know, when little kids are drawing pictures of their dad shooting "bad guys and monsters," I think it warrants at least a little investigation. The school did the right thing by calling the police. The police probably could have handled it better, but then again, consider if the story ended differently.

Let's say a kid draws the picture and no one does anything, then, that night, the dad murders someone. Later in the investigation, a teacher says, "Well, she drew a picture of her dad shooting people that day, but I didn't think anything of it." Or even, "I saw the picture she drew and called the police, but they said it was nothing."

We would all be outraged that no one was paying attention.

That's true, and I agree with you in that it shouldn't have been ignored, but what you are suggesting is an extremely unlikely event, at least definitely not likely enough to warrant having the guy arrested without the authorities looking into the situation first. Far less action has been taken on much riskier situations, with a greater likelihood of occurring plenty of times.

farson135:

Kendarik:

Most people agree there were mistakes made. That doesn't change anything. We can't sue in general as easily as you can (thank god). Malice would have to be demonstrated to see any kind of route to a civil filing.

Then Canadian laws are fucked up. If you can be arrested for absolutely no reason and not have any legal recourse then Canada has no business calling itself a free society.

Found nothing? Okay. He was detained and taken to the station. In every Western Society the police can hold you for a varying amount of time while they determine if they have cause to arrest you or not, and you can not sue for wrongful detention because the police were carrying out their duties as defined by law. Now let's look at the facts of this case;

* The daughter drew a drawing of her father holding a gun
* The daughter said her father used it to kill bad people and monster
* The father has a record of violent crime
* In the past, when the police and schools erred on the side of trusting the parent the parent turned out to have a gun illegally and the child ended up dying.

So when you combine all those facts together what happened makes perfect sense; the school was obligated by law to contact the police, the police knew the father had a criminal record, and in the past when they chalked it up to a child's imagination it ended with the child dying. The only excessive parts of this case was the strip search and the handcuffs. But legally they had cause to bring him into the station until they could determine if he was in violation of the law or not.

Also I find it ironic that you're saying that Canada has no business calling itself a free society...aren't you from a country that just made it legal for the military to indefinately detain it's own citizens? Or allowing warrantless wiretaping? Where all the prosecution has to do is utter the word "terrorist" and they can hold someone for as long as they like? Compared to this case where someone held for less than a day can't sue the police for following the law?

And if they talk they could be indicted for any number of idiotic laws and remain in jail indefinably (you realize I showed the videos of that lecture for a reason).

Not talking just makes things worse, because it gives the police reason to think you're hiding something and thus they will bring up any of these "idiotic laws" to try and figure out what you're hiding.

So are you arguing that no one else can ever use this to say we can do something similar and get away with it? If not then you have established precedent. If so I what to hear why.

Well the fact that they're taking flak from the media and admitted that they went overboard would logically dictate that any other officers will see this case and make a note to not take it to those extremes without cause.

And you still don't know what precedent means; it applies only to legal decisions IE if this went to a court and the judge ruled that what the cops did was okay, then it's precedent and okay for other officers to follow.

Strange that he apparently did not have a lawyer until AFTER the event. Hell, you do not even have proof he was given access to a phone nevertheless legal counsel.

Because all someone has to do is say "I want to speak to a lawyer" and Police Procedure dictates that they can not talk to him until after he has spoken to a lawyer. It's a little thing called "Standard Operating Procedure" and if the police violated it then his lawyer would have been all over it, saying on every news show he could that the police violated his client's rights.

So again, you have no proof of any of your claims, yet you insist that everyone else provides the proof to debunk your claims. What bizzaro world is this?

Apparently that is how it works for you but that is not what I am saying. Never once is counsel mentioned despite the fact that it would have been advantageous for them mention it. He only got a lawyer after the fact. If there was legal counsel then they would have shown up (they cannot do much over the phone). The counsel he talked to probably would have spoken up by now. He was never told why he was even there (a drawing) and any legal counsel would have demanded to know what is going on BEFORE their client answers any questions, etc. There is more than enough circumstantial evidence to show that he did not have legal counsel. What have you got?

Simple answer; the man declined legal counsel and answered their questions truthfully. He was only being questioned, and thus did not feel that he needed a lawyer as he was confident he would not be charged with any crime and only got the lawyer afterwards because of some of the treatment he recieved. That still doesn't change the fact that all he had to do was say "I would like to speak with an attorney before answering any more questions." and they would have given him one, since denying him his rights would have resulted in them getting suspended and possibly fired.

farson135:

Kendarik:

Most people agree there were mistakes made. That doesn't change anything. We can't sue in general as easily as you can (thank god). Malice would have to be demonstrated to see any kind of route to a civil filing.

Then Canadian laws are fucked up. If you can be arrested for absolutely no reason and not have any legal recourse then Canada has no business calling itself a free society.

Did I say no recourse? No. Did I say you can't sue? Yes. The two are not the same.

I would never want to live in the lawsuit crazy US (that's why your medical costs are so high btw)

So are you arguing that no one else can ever use this to say we can do something similar and get away with it? If not then you have established precedent. If so I what to hear why.

That is correct, nothing about this case will allow anyone else to do anything. What they can do is set by legislation, regulation, policies, and court decisions. None of those happened here.

Also no one has "gotten away" with anything. All three agencies are investigating. The Province is investigating. Procedures (and if needed regulation and legislation) will likely be updated.

No, I'm saying that prisoners must be given reasonable access to a free phone and access to duty counsel. The police have no way of knowing if you have contacted your own lawyer or duty counsel unless they show up.

Strange that he apparently did not have a lawyer until AFTER the event. Hell, you do not even have proof he was given access to a phone nevertheless legal counsel.

You have no evidence he didn't have a lawyer until after the event. Once again, you may not understand our system. The first lawyer most people use is Duty Counsel (not everyone has a criminal lawyer on standby of their own). Duty Counsel often follows you right through to your first court date (where you are remanded or released). It's often only after that first quicky hearing that people get around to lawyer shopping and hire NEW counsel.

Never once is counsel mentioned despite the fact that it would have been advantageous for them mention it.

Go back and read where I explain that half the time THEY DO NOT KNOW IF HE HAD IT OR NOT. It's also pretty much unheard of for them to raise such a point, it would make it suspicious if they did.

He only got a lawyer after the fact.

As I've explained, that might be his second lawyer.

If there was legal counsel then they would have shown up (they cannot do much over the phone).

Once again, you don't understand the system. It's no unusual for police to question without a lawyer in the room, and MANY of the initial contacts people have with Duty Counsel is over the phone. If he spoke with Counsel and then decided after that consult to cooperate, Counsel would have had no reason to show up.

The counsel he talked to probably would have spoken up by now. He was never told why he was even there (a drawing) and any legal counsel would have demanded to know what is going on BEFORE their client answers any questions, etc. There is more than enough circumstantial evidence to show that he did not have legal counsel. What have you got?

Read my responses above.

The real proof however is that his brand new lawyer would definitely have said something if his client was denied such a basic right. That would have been part of the story, and it wasn't. That either means he consulted counsel, or decided freely not to seek counsel.

You really do need to understand that our system is not your system. We do not have "maranda" (sp?) rights. We have some similar rights, but not the same. Our justice process is not the same in many key areas (for example, most criminal cases are tried by Judge Alone, no jury).

That's not to say we don't have rights and protections, but expecting ours to mirror exactly yours is where you fail to get it.

Shaoken:

Found nothing? Okay. He was detained and taken to the station. In every Western Society the police can hold you for a varying amount of time while they determine if they have cause to arrest you or not, and you can not sue for wrongful detention because the police were carrying out their duties as defined by law.

So an LEO's duty includes arresting a person for no reason? There was no probable cause or reasonable articulable suspicion or anything else.

Now let's look at the facts of this case;

* The daughter drew a drawing of her father holding a gun

Already wrong. It was a picture of a gun no more.

* The daughter said her father used it to kill bad people and monster

She said it was the gun he used to shoot bad people and monsters. Difference is minor but word choice can dictate interpretation.

* In the past, when the police and schools erred on the side of trusting the parent the parent turned out to have a gun illegally and the child ended up dying.

Sometimes. That does not give officers the right to detain a person for no reason.

the school was obligated by law to contact the police,

The school is obligated by law to call the police if they have evidence the child was in danger. They did not have any evidence therefore they did not have to call the police.

and in the past when they chalked it up to a child's imagination it ended with the child dying.

Do you have any proof that that is even remotely probable in this case?

The only excessive parts of this case was the strip search and the handcuffs. But legally they had cause to bring him into the station until they could determine if he was in violation of the law or not.

No they didn't. They had no proof of any wrong doing and frankly they could have just gone to his home. He seemed rather amenable to letting them search his home so why not ask?

Also I find it ironic that you're saying that Canada has no business calling itself a free society...aren't you from a country that just made it legal for the military to indefinately detain it's own citizens? Or allowing warrantless wiretaping? Where all the prosecution has to do is utter the word "terrorist" and they can hold someone for as long as they like? Compared to this case where someone held for less than a day can't sue the police for following the law?

Yo, have you ever read any of my posts before? Here is a clue I AM A LIBERTARIAN OF COURSE I THINK THE US HAS FUCKED UP LAWS BUT THAT DOES NOT NEGATE THE FACT THAT CANADA ALSO HAS FUCKED UP LAWS.

Not talking just makes things worse, because it gives the police reason to think you're hiding something and thus they will bring up any of these "idiotic laws" to try and figure out what you're hiding.

Bullshit. That kind of logic gets people thrown in jail for obscure or idiotic laws. Watch the lecture videos on post 57 for the rest.

Well the fact that they're taking flak from the media and admitted that they went overboard would logically dictate that any other officers will see this case and make a note to not take it to those extremes without cause.

You say that but the fact is that if they get away with the action it does set a precedent.

And you still don't know what precedent means; it applies only to legal decisions IE if this went to a court and the judge ruled that what the cops did was okay, then it's precedent and okay for other officers to follow.

Negative. Y'all do not seem to comprehend that legal precedent and precedent is not the same thing. When Tacitus wrote that in 69AD the secret of the Roman Empire was out he was discussing the precedent that was set in the year of the 4 Emperors, specifically that an Emperor could be made outside of Rome. That was precedent as much as South v. Maryland, they are just different types of precedent (am I going to have to get into another semantics discussion).

prec•e•dent (prs-dnt)
n.
1.
a. An act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances.
b. Law A judicial decision that may be used as a standard in subsequent similar cases: a landmark decision that set a legal precedent.
2. Convention or custom arising from long practice:

(copied from thefreedictionary.com)

So again, you have no proof of any of your claims, yet you insist that everyone else provides the proof to debunk your claims. What bizzaro world is this?

Actually I provided plenty. Do you have proof that he had legal counsel? Can you deny any of the things I said? Can you provide any actual evidence? No?

Simple answer; the man declined legal counsel and answered their questions truthfully. He was only being questioned, and thus did not feel that he needed a lawyer as he was confident he would not be charged with any crime and only got the lawyer afterwards because of some of the treatment he recieved. That still doesn't change the fact that all he had to do was say "I would like to speak with an attorney before answering any more questions." and they would have given him one, since denying him his rights would have resulted in them getting suspended and possibly fired.

Uh huh..well at least it is a start. By his own statement he asked what is going on and they did not tell him, only that he was being charged with possession. Have you ever been on the other side of an interrogation table? I did it once for a training session and I can tell you that it is not pleasant. Half the time you cannot figure out what is going on and with them keeping him in the dark and abusing his psyche he is not going to be thinking clearly. You say he was offered legal counsel but denied it. You got any proof of that? Even if he was that still does not negate my initial or later statements specifically the part were (quoting from my original post)- "ALL without the benefit of legal counsel"- Unless you can prove he had legal counsel he did not have the benefit of it.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked