62 replies to this topic

[cybercoma]

I don't trust this story. It seems patently absurd that they would arrest someone because their kid drew a picture of them with a gun. I'm willing to bet this has more to do with the daughter saying that he "shoots bad guys" with the gun than the picture itself. Even then arresting the guy may be a stretch. You do have to consider though that a child draws a picture of her father with a gun and makes the claim that the father shoots "bad guys", it might be best that it's at least investigated. Imagine if she drew a picture of him naked and make some comment about him abusing her. Hopefully that's at least investigated.

[Derek L]

I don't trust this story. It seems patently absurd that they would arrest someone because their kid drew a picture of them with a gun. I'm willing to bet this has more to do with the daughter saying that he "shoots bad guys" with the gun than the picture itself. Even then arresting the guy may be a stretch. You do have to consider though that a child draws a picture of her father with a gun and makes the claim that the father shoots "bad guys", it might be best that it's at least investigated. Imagine if she drew a picture of him naked and make some comment about him abusing her. Hopefully that's at least investigated.

My guess is once the teacher reported the “incident”, the police checked to see if there were registered handguns in the house, and used the opportunity to see if the father was compliant with safe storage laws……..They don’t after all require a warrant when it’s related to firearms……….Though this is pure speculation on my part, the police do use a heavy hand on any reports related to firearms……In this instance, I would hope the handgun was unloaded and that the parent didn’t carry it around “often” with small children in the house…….Pretty dumb if you ask me.

[Bonam]

I don't trust this story. It seems patently absurd that they would arrest someone because their kid drew a picture of them with a gun. I'm willing to bet this has more to do with the daughter saying that he "shoots bad guys" with the gun than the picture itself. Even then arresting the guy may be a stretch. You do have to consider though that a child draws a picture of her father with a gun and makes the claim that the father shoots "bad guys", it might be best that it's at least investigated.

Why? What else is a gun for in the mind of a young child besides shooting "bad guys"? There is absolutely nothing here worth investigating or even raising the teacher's eyebrow, frankly.

Imagine if she drew a picture of him naked and make some comment about him abusing her.

Completely different and not at all analogous.

[cybercoma]

A child says their father is a murderer and that's not at all analogous? I beg to differ. She didn't draw a gun on her father with a bright orange vest on standing over a bloody Bambi. She didn't tell the teacher that he uses his guns to catch food or kill animals. She said her father murders people. Kids say crazy things, so you need to be careful, but it also shouldn't go ignored when something that serious comes up.

[American Woman]

A child says their father is a murderer and that's not at all analogous? I beg to differ. She didn't draw a gun on her father with a bright orange vest on standing over a bloody Bambi. She didn't tell the teacher that he uses his guns to catch food or kill animals. She said her father murders people. Kids say crazy things, so you need to be careful, but it also shouldn't go ignored when something that serious comes up.

Oh please. If If every parent of every four year who said "my daddy shoots [kills] bad guys and monsters" (emphasis mine) were investigated solely on that basis, social services and the PD likely wouldn't have time to do anything else. To arrest him for "possession of a firearm" on that basis - at the school, no less - and strip search him was ludicrous.

The child didn't say "he shoots Bambi" because she wasn't talking about reality - she was talking about a fantasy. The "and monsters" should have been a clue.

Odd that you could see the irrationality of such a reaction when Muslim children were saying that they were afraid of their dad and said that he was abusive - and that situation ended in murder. link Very odd that you didn't take the "it ... shouldn't go ignored when something that serious comes up" approach in that situation.

[BubberMiley]

"He had absolutely no idea what this was even about. I just kept telling them, 'You're making a mistake.'"

NO ONE expects the Spanish Inquisition!

[Argus]

The school did not call the cops. The school called Childrens Aid, and we know what a bunch of prune faced loose cannons they can be. Childrens aid called the cops -- and we know what a bunch of ham-fisted morons THEY can be. God help anyone at the mercy of child welfare and the cops in this country. The only sure thing we know is that unless you're actually a brutal child beater or killer they'll be on you like white on rice.

Of course, if you actually are an evil, vicious cretin who's a danger to your child they'll whistle to themselves as they walk away. I've had very little respect for Childrens Aid for some time and I'm lately losing the respect I once naively held for police.

Edited by Argus, 25 February 2012 - 07:45 AM.

[Wild Bill]

The school did not call the cops. The school called Childrens Aid, and we know what a bunch of prune faced loose cannons they can be. Childrens aid called the cops -- and we know what a bunch of ham-fisted morons THEY can be. God help anyone at the mercy of child welfare and the cops in this country. The only sure thing we know is that unless you're actually a brutal child beater or killer they'll be on you like white on rice.

Of course, if you actually are an evil, vicious cretin who's a danger to your child they'll whistle to themselves as they walk away. I've had very little respect for Childrens Aid for some time and I'm lately losing the respect I once naively held for police.

And yet some wonder why there's so much distrust about handing them even more unchecked powers, a la Vic Toew's Bill.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

The school did not call the cops. The school called Childrens Aid, and we know what a bunch of prune faced loose cannons they can be..

Children's Aid can have you recorded as a sexual predator in their database on the word of a student alone. There are teachers guilty of doing nothing more than having standards of student behaviour on that list, then a student decides to get back at the teacher by making outrageous and untrue claims. There was no trial, no evidence in defence of the teacher, just an "Airing" of hearsay and an entry of "sexual predator" with the true victims name attached.

I'd wager similar stories like the one in the OP are as follows
- Child sees parent playing video game with gun or holding a gun
- Parent says that they are "getting the bad guys"
- Child makes picture but does not have full capability to explain
- Child communicates true nature incorrectly to teacher
- Teacher, hearing something that doesn't sound right, is LEGALLY REQUIRED to contact children's aid. Because if that teacher didn't and something happened, that teacher could lose their job.

Does it suck that it happened to someone who didn't deserve it? Yeah.
Would everyone here be slandering the teacher/process if they didn't follow it and something happened? yeah.

It's a lose lose as a teacher. You are always wrong, no matter what.

[cybercoma]

Oh please. If If every parent of every four year who said "my daddy shoots [kills] bad guys and monsters" (emphasis mine) were investigated solely on that basis, social services and the PD likely wouldn't have time to do anything else. To arrest him for "possession of a firearm" on that basis - at the school, no less - and strip search him was ludicrous.

The child didn't say "he shoots Bambi" because she wasn't talking about reality - she was talking about a fantasy. The "and monsters" should have been a clue.

Odd that you could see the irrationality of such a reaction when Muslim children were saying that they were afraid of their dad and said that he was abusive - and that situation ended in murder. link Very odd that you didn't take the "it ... shouldn't go ignored when something that serious comes up" approach in that situation.

First of all, in that thread I never said that CAS shouldn't have investigated. I was addressing Boges ridiculous assertion that every child who says they're afraid of a parent should be taken away. When he comes from the mindset that the state should be extremely limited and not interfere in people's lives at all. Of course that incident should be investigated. They should always err on the side of the child's safety. CAS rarely takes children away and for good reason. It's a drastic measure only done in the most extreme cases.

For this case, I'm not saying that every father whose child says he kills "bad guys" should be arrested. But once again, if there's a possibility that the child is expressing the fact that she has seen her dad kill someone, then it ought to be investigated. Once again, CAS didn't take the children away and I didn't suggest that they should in this thread, just as I was arguing in the other thread that they shouldn't be taken away, because that would be absurd.

edit: I realized after I hit reply who I was replying to. This will be the only response you get from me because you continuously misrepresent people's arguments on this forum. I don't believe you're that stupid, so I have to assume you do it intentionally and I'm choosing not to take part in your silly game.

Edited by cybercoma, 25 February 2012 - 09:29 AM.

[cybercoma]

Children's Aid can have you recorded as a sexual predator in their database on the word of a student alone. There are teachers guilty of doing nothing more than having standards of student behaviour on that list, then a student decides to get back at the teacher by making outrageous and untrue claims. There was no trial, no evidence in defence of the teacher, just an "Airing" of hearsay and an entry of "sexual predator" with the true victims name attached.

I'd wager similar stories like the one in the OP are as follows
- Child sees parent playing video game with gun or holding a gun
- Parent says that they are "getting the bad guys"
- Child makes picture but does not have full capability to explain
- Child communicates true nature incorrectly to teacher
- Teacher, hearing something that doesn't sound right, is LEGALLY REQUIRED to contact children's aid. Because if that teacher didn't and something happened, that teacher could lose their job.

Does it suck that it happened to someone who didn't deserve it? Yeah.
Would everyone here be slandering the teacher/process if they didn't follow it and something happened? yeah.

It's a lose lose as a teacher. You are always wrong, no matter what.

Your first paragraph is a bit exaggerated. They don't record you as a "sexual predator" in the sense of Megan's Law. The list is private and you're not recorded as a predator. They just keep logs of the complaints. And of course CAS will keep a database. Obviously keeping track of the number and frequency of claims against a person is important to their work. If someone has numerous and frequent "spurious" claims from many different sources, then chances are there's probably something seriously wrong going on. What other way are they to keep track of these things?

[Argus]

. Once again, CAS didn't take the children away and I didn't suggest that they should in this thread, just as I was arguing in the other thread that they shouldn't be taken away, because that would be absurd.

Actually, they were indeed taken away by child welfare to be interviewed separately. They were then returned to their family after the house was searched.

The gun in question turned out to be a toy gun belonging to one of her brothers which shoots sponge pellets and is sold for $20 at Wal-mart.

[cybercoma]

Actually, they were indeed taken away by child welfare to be interviewed separately. They were then returned to their family after the house was searched.

The gun in question turned out to be a toy gun belonging to one of her brothers which shoots sponge pellets and is sold for $20 at Wal-mart.

If you want that to be your definition of taking someone's children away, then you're right. Most rational people would simply call that "interviewing the children," but that doesn't exactly incite the same kind of response as saying their kids were taken away.

[capricorn]

If you want that to be your definition of taking someone's children away, then you're right. Most rational people would simply call that "interviewing the children," but that doesn't exactly incite the same kind of response as saying their kids were taken away.

By all accounts, the parents were not told beforehand what it was they were investigating.

While Mr. Sansone was being escorted from the back of the school, reportedly in handcuffs, other police officers were at his home, scooping his wife. She was there with their 15-month old baby. They brought her to the police station. The couple’s three children were taken to Family and Children’s Service for questioning.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/24/joe-oconnor-arrest-over-daughters-gun-sketch-a-case-of-vigilance-and-too-much-zeal/

Mother and father at the police station, and children (one of which is 15 months old) taken by child welfare authorities to different premises. Sounds like taking away the children to me.

[American Woman]

First of all, in that thread I never said that CAS shouldn't have investigated. I was addressing Boges ridiculous assertion that every child who says they're afraid of a parent should be taken away.

Odd. You quoted me, and agreed with me - when I was clearly speaking of CAS investigating.

When he comes from the mindset that the state should be extremely limited and not interfere in people's lives at all. Of course that incident should be investigated. They should always err on the side of the child's safety. CAS rarely takes children away and for good reason. It's a drastic measure only done in the most extreme cases.

Odd then, that you didn't say that.

For this case, I'm not saying that every father whose child says he kills "bad guys" should be arrested. But once again, if there's a possibility that the child is expressing the fact that she has seen her dad kill someone, then it ought to be investigated.

Perhaps she had seen him kill a monster too, eh? Perhaps the Loch Ness Monster.

As I said, if every four year old who said "my daddy kills bad guys and monsters" was investigated, serious allegations and crimes would go without attention. Four year olds need to believe that mommy and daddy kill the bad guys and monsters that they are afraid of.

edit: I realized after I hit reply who I was replying to. This will be the only response you get from me because you continuously misrepresent people's arguments on this forum. I don't believe you're that stupid, so I have to assume you do it intentionally and I'm choosing not to take part in your silly game.

Boo hoo. Cry me a river. I didn't "misrepresent" anything. I provided the link. The link to the post where you quoted me - agreeing with me. But yeah. I'm misrepresenting you. I can only hope this is "the only response I'll get from you" - ever - as you're all over the board with your opinions/judgments.