No, you’re right on.
I still think we’re all missing something significant. It doesn’t make sense as reported. I find it a lot easier to believe that everyone involved was looking at some undisclosed-to-us information or circumstance that made their course of action seem reasonable and necessary to them, than to believe that the threshold for arrest and strip-search is low. Otherwise, this story wouldn’t stand out at all, because it would happen with some frequency.
I will be interesting to see what comes out of the upcoming review. The chief of police’s comments are suggestive:
Did everyone involved in the process just forget that for a day? Why was he singled out? Why make a big deal out of his “possession of a firearm?”
One hypothetical scenario that would explain it is one that we would never hear about if it were true: He admits being convicted of a violent crime five years ago. If he commited a firearms-related offense a couple years before that, he would have been charged under the Young Offenders Act, and it would be illegal to make any reference to it.
I agree. There’s a jump in narrative (and logic) between the guy showing up at school and being “escorted from the back of the school, reportedly in handcuffs.” Did he start getting aggressive with the cops, or lie to them? There has to be more going on.
I’ll elaborate a bit on the reference to the Young Offenders Act, (now the Youth Criminal Justice Act) since it may be a foreign concept to non-Canadians.
One of the principles of the act is that people shouldn’t be branded as criminals early on for youthful transgressions, as this may make it harder for them to be rehabilitated. In aid of this, in most cases it’s illegal to publically identify people who commit crimes before reaching the age of 18. (This provision has always been a source of some controversy.)
Anyway, if Mr. Sansone did something egregiously silly in 2004 (such as committing an armed robbery) and earned himself a firearms prohibition, it would result in something that looks something like this - a seemingly disproportionate response which the authorities would be completely unable to offer any explanation for, even while buddy wraps himself in the mantle of unimpeachable fatherhood. (Because, you know, that’s what it’s like when you live in a police state.)
I am not offering that as the most likely explanation for what’s happened - but there has to be something more to this, because otherwise, solid citizens would be getting strip-searched 'round the clock.
I am no expert, but that looks like an airsoft pistol to me. Fake yes - toy no.
And not even necessarily fake.
This guy is really playing up the fatherhood card. If he gets called in for jury - id bet anything he would complain he is a father who has four kids and is struggling.
That whole line of - “my daugherty thinks it is her fault” is crap straight off lifetime tv. The reason they lifted up his scrotum was to look for his balls.
Sorry, but I am not buying it - and that youthful offender stuff makes sense.
The gun looks more real than what I think of as a toy gun. Wouldn’t surprise me if the little one was scared of monsters and the dad said he would get them with his gun. Nothing wrong with that, but I can see how a kid would think it is real. He did have a gun. Guess what - if he keeps his sugar in clear plastic bags inside a zero Halliburton briefcase - don’t be surprised if someone thinks you are a drug dealer.
In the US - they wouldn’t (usually) strip search you unless it was to put you in a cell.
This doesn’t seem like a guy who would just cooperate with the cops - there is more too this. I have no problem with people asserting their rights - I wouldn’t have given permission to search - but then I wouldn’t complain about it being a toy gun either - either they got probable cause or they didn’t. If he did have a gun - the police would have looked like idiots.
The fact that the asked his permission to search suggests to me that they were following at least some of the rules.