Well, I have a permit for the Poo monster. [ reaches into apartment and pulls out a sheet of paper ] Here you go.
Police: This is a permit to run a nail salon.
Wrong one! Wrong one! [ pulls another sheet of paper out of his apartment ]
Police: This is a permit to do street performances.
Yeah. The Poo monster’s a big part of the act.
The more credible news sources (which did eventually report the story) did not mention any details about the father’s criminal record. If a firearms prohibition had been levied, I can understand the cautions that the police took. (Though there may have been a Charter section 8 violation stemming from the seemingly unwarranted strip search–without more details, I won’t comment.) But if the father’s record was for such non-violent offenses as possession of drugs or fraud, I cannot see a firearms prohibition issuing. Does any source have more details as to the father’s record?
We don’t need guns. We’re so tough that insert bullets in assailants manually. 
Thanks to “Welcome Back Kotter” for the line. And yes, I’m just having a little fun.
The reason I’m “still on” the monsters thing is that it impeaches the evidence. If an adult were to state that the neighbor was using a gun to shoot monsters, no reasonable judge would grant a search warrant.
Obvoiusly we are all speculating with insufficient evidence, but I think is further evidence that something is fucked in in how it was handled. For even a ten-year-old, cops are in such a position of power that it’s all to easy to ask questions in such a way to elicit any time of response they want. Do I know for sure that this is what happened? No, of course not, but something if fucked up. I have a hard time seeing where due process is being carried out.
Ten years old should be plenty old enough to say, “Yeah, she’s talking about a toy gun.” I remember when there was a small to-do about a classmate of mine bringing his father’s (real) gun to grade five show and tell. Although it was a real gun, none of the kids had any difficulty articulating why we though it was ridiculous to make a big production out of it. (It was an antique flintlock that hadn’t seen powder or flint for god knows how long, and it seemed pretty clear that it wasn’t going to be accidentally loaded and discharged.)
The kid couldn’t protest that it was just a toy? Really? He wouldn’t twig that something is wrong when they’re asking if they were allowed to handle it and point it at each other?
It’s reported that he was recently convicted of assault and attempted burglary. The attributed source for this info is Sansone, who simultaneously says "My character got put down so much. I was actually really hurt, like it could happen that easy. How do you recognize a criminal from a father?”
I’m a bit underwhelmed with the offended honour and the appeal to the ideal of Fatherhood: “I been reproducing non-stop since I was fifteen years old, why they gotta treat me like a criminal? Half that time I ain’t even beaten or robbed nobody!”
Sadly, you seem to be sorely misinformed about Canada, we have much of the same issues as in the US, including guns and overzealous police forces.
Secondly, and maybe worse, is that you refer to Tenessee as being “up”
I would think that anybody with any presence of mind would go and retrieve the gun before doing *anything *else, if it was that much of a threat. If they had enough ‘evidence’ to arrest the father, why not go and make sure that the WMD was out of harms way? Arrest the father, leave the gun around for the kids and mother to die by? Something is entirely wrong with the story, as we have received it.
Firearms prohibitions are mandatory for certain drug offences; see Criminal Code, s. 109(1)(c), upheld in R. v. Wiles. They’re also mandatory for convictions involving violence to the person (109(1)(a)), firearms offences (109(1)(b)), and other weapon offences (109(10(d)).
However, without knowing what record, if any, the guy had, can’t tell if he would have been under one of these mandatory orders.
Agreed. Strip search rules are also strict in Canada. I think we need to wait for more information.
I’m not sure what you’re suggesting here. Clearly, this was their priority - the decision to arrest him at the school was made specifically because they perceived the household to be unsafe for the kids to return to. The kids were in Family Services’ custody and the mother was being interviewed for the four hours it took for them to determine that it wasn’t a real gun the kids were describing.
I agree that something is wrong with the story as we’ve received it - but remember that Sansone is the primary source. Family Services has been tight-lipped and haven’t cracked much apart from saying that they continue to treat the situation as an open investigation.
The narrative provided makes for a sexy tale of incomprehensible outrage, but your right - parts of it don’t add up. How did police interview a ten-year-old and feel confident enough that they had a detailed description of a real automatic to proceed as they did? The detailed description that impressed them omitted details like “plastic,” “shoots foam darts,” and “transparent,” but otherwise described a real gun to their satisfaction?
According to the description of events, the mother and mother-in-law were both left in the home unsupervised after they knew the details of the situation but before the mother went down to the station. Do you suppose it’s possible that the guy really is an idiot who kept an unsecured gun in the house, and the family had the presence of mind to move it in those few hours?
Well, they did have him lift his nuts…
DAMN. I’m glad my son’s 1st grade teacher had more sense then that when he sneaked a copy of “Combat Handguns” magazine a neighbor had given me into school in his backpack. She just handed it to me when I picked him up that night.
I stand corrected–thanks for the info!
Which they are required to do by law, to respect the privacy rights of the parents and children.
Maybe he was arrested for possessing photos of Nevaeh on Sundae.
Every time I read shit like this I get completely furious with every politician who campaigns on the oppressive need to hire more cops. Then I want to stab every single idiotic voter that falls for the pandering when I see abusive cops unable to be fired, cowardly cops unwilling to report their peers, a corrupt system unwilling to investigate and punish their own and a million cops writing parking tickets while doing nothing with regard to burglaries and assaults occurring everywhere.
Yes by all means, lets hire more cops. I haven’t been strip searched while being fined in a while.
No, if the priority is the existence of the gun, you go get the gun. Then, once you have the gun, you arrest the person who owns it. You can keep the children away from the house while you are looking without arresting the father. The arrest indicates that your primary goal was to punish rather than discover whether anyone needed to be punished.
I’m reminded of the term ‘jump the gun’ so much in this thread.
Wouldn’t an arrest for possession require, um, you know, possession?
As in shouldn’t they have to have found a gun BEFORE they made an arrest?
Or am I missing something?
did you not hear about his testicles? come on they were looking pretty hard :dubious: