I’d like to see a cite from a more reputable source–the Globe and Mail, the Ottawa Citizen, the CBC or CTV or similar–before I’ll believe this one. As of this moment, I haven’t seen anything in the mainstream Canadian media about this; though that may change as time goes on.
I thinkthis the Ezra Levant link you want.
So, doing 2 seconds worth of googling turned up this article which contained the following line snippet"
“She also, according to police, explained to the teacher that the gun was at her house, that her siblings played with it and that it scared her.
Instead of simply calling the parent and having a conversation, the teacher did what they are legally bound to do — if they suspect a child is in danger — and called child welfare first.”
I’m thinking that makes a little more sense now. We’ve seen things happen like that in the US as well. If I call the cops and say “My neighbor has drugs” not much is going to become of it. However, if I call CPS and say “My neighbor’s kid just showed up with his dad’s heroin and syringe” things are going to happen much faster. CPS is more of a “shoot first ask questions later” type entity.
I also found this statement “After he was released, Sansone was asked to sign a paper authorizing a search of his home. He signed, even though he didn’t have to, he said.”
in this article.
Assuming it’s correct, we can ignore the home search since it was apparently authorized. I’m guessing at that point he was just trying to clear his name since he knew full well he didn’t have any guns in his house.
A bit about Naming your kid Nevaeh
(Kudos to the headline writer.)
No, the little girl drew a gun. The father had to lift his nuts for inspection by the cops. Perhaps they were looking for concealed art supplies, as there are few firearms small enough to conceal 'neath the folds of the average scrotum. Tain’t something the gunmakers see as profitable, I expect.
Canada’s anti-monster policy has always been pretty lax.
I see what you did there.
Except that you are not four years old. (Or you write really well for a four-year-old ;)) So, one would expect a little more credibility if an adult reports something.
This is so stupid on so many levels. Why take a word of a child barely older than a toddler and arrest the father? Any why the father? Everyone knows it’s the mothers who really shoot the monsters.
Since you’re still on the monsters thing, you might have missed an earlier quote where (allegedly) the 4 year old told the teacher that dad lets the kids play with the gun and that they were scared of it. At that point the teacher (a mandatory reporter I assume) called the Canadian version of CPS. From what I’ve read, CPS (in the US at least) seems to have more authority then the police to walk in and remove the kids from the household while things get sorted out.
I don’t know what the strip search rules are in Canada. In my state they are very strict. To the point that I have never performed or see one performed in 14 years of law enforcement. The circumstances in which one can be performed are very specific. I still think there are pieces missing.
It wasn’t just the four-year-old; they talked to her siblings as well, and came away with the impression that it was a real gun, the children had access to it, and that they were scared by it.
They interviewed all the kids before taking it further, and the oldest is a ten-year-old who ought to have been able to speak up with “Yawell it’s just a toy!”
All articles consistently state that he was told he would be charged with “possession of a firearm.” The only way this begins to make sense is if he is specifically prohibited from possessing firearms. It seems reasonable to assume then that the “brush with the law” vaguely referred to left him with a firearms proscription as a term of his probation - so his past behaviour likely contributed to the inclination to accept the kids’ statements at face value rather than considering the possibility that it was a toy.
It looks like a comedy of errors, but it also looks as though all the authorities involved acted appropriately. They had a reasonable belief that kids in the home had access to an unsecured handgun.* This was not an ideal result, but it beats the hell out of shrugging it off and having a kid shoot themself in the face.
*Seriously, they asked a ten-year-old if their father kept a gun in the house and let them handle it, and came away with the impression that there was indeed a real gun in the house. My three-year-old can distinguish between real items and their toy counterparts - I understand that kids of a twenty-six-year-old father of five may face certain disadvantages, but in all honesty I still have a tiny bit of doubt as to which is more likely: that a ten-year-old would be unable to communicate to police that it was just a toy gun that was laying around or that there actually was a gun in the house and it was concealed or removed in time.
Well, it doesn’t really say where she drew the gun that the man had. :eek:
Are you joking? You think it’s appropriate for the authorities to arrest a man for possession of a firearm without bothering to, you know, actually look for the damn gun?
But the kids were scared!
Given that the teachers are obligated to report up to Child Protection and Child Protection is obligated to report to the police in situations where there is reason to believe that there is a credible danger in the home, everyone acted appropriately.
Given that they interviewed all the school-aged kids in the family (including a ten year old) and they all maintained that yes, daddy kept a gun lying around where the kids could get at it, they had no choice but to keep the kids from going back home until they were certain that it was a safe environment. This took four hours.
If he didn’t have arecent criminal record, the interview of the father would probably have been handled a little bit more cautiously.
But seriously, if you talk to three kids ranging from four to ten and they all report that they have unsecured firearms lying around in their home environment, what do you think ought to be done? Shrug it off? Send a note home?
Bullshit. Some of the authotities may have acted appropriately, but the police department most certainly did not. Testimony from young children might be enough to obtain a search warrant, but it damn sure isn’t enough to make an arrest for possession.
10 whole years old!? Wow, you’re right. Gentlemen, grab your scrotums.
This story makes me want to get down on my knees and thank God for the NRA. But for them, we’d be in the same predicament as our friends in Canada and England.
I don’t think many of us feel like we’re in a predicament.