# This is just disgusting!



## solarz (Aug 31, 2010)

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...hool-after-daughter-draws-picture-of-gun?bn=1



> The school principal, police and child welfare officials, however, all stand by their actions. They say they had to investigate to determine whether there was a gun in Sansone's house that children had access to.
> 
> "From a public safety point of view, any child drawing a picture of guns and saying there's guns in a home would warrant some further conversation with the parents and child," said Alison Scott, executive director of Family and Children's Services.





> The detective told him his daughter Neaveh had drawn a picture of a man holding a gun. When a teacher asked her who the man was, the girl replied, "That's my daddy's. He uses it to shoot bad guys and monsters."


Wow, a child with an imagination, what a shocker!

Even if you were worried that something might be up, how about *talking* to the parent before calling the police on him? And the cops? Arresting someone just because their kid drew something? Talk about judgment failure!

This guy should sue the school, child welfare, and the police.


----------



## sig (Dec 13, 2010)

First time, that I completely agree with you 

You cannot have Democracy without the bullet. When only the Police are armed, what you have is a Police State.

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."
- Thomas Jefferson

*100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3*


----------



## trailblazer295 (Mar 7, 2010)

But if the Dad was drawn like superman shooting bad guys and monsters with his eyes all would be fine.


----------



## solarz (Aug 31, 2010)

Another shameful failure of the justice system:

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/a...-not-guilty-verdict-for-accused-attacker?bn=1



> However, in delivering her verdict Monday, (Judge) Devlin said she could not conclude the identity of the attacker beyond a reasonable doubt because of the unreliability of eyewitness identification.
> 
> "The case law on eyewitness evidence consistently states that even when an eyewitness is honest and credible, as I'm sure Mitchell Wilson would have been, these witnesses are often mistaken because of how the brain functions," she said.


So according to this judge, if you get beaten up in a dark alley, and you later identify your attacker, that person should still not be convicted because your brain might have been playing tricks on you.

WTF?


----------



## BillD (Jun 5, 2006)

While it may seem bizarre to you, eye witness identification is notoriously unreliable. The state of Texas had something like 100 or more people on death row that were exonerated by DNA evidence. How many of those were put there by eye witnesses? I recall a case I saw on TV where a man was doing time for sexual assault, and the victim still swears it was him, even though DNA evidence cleared him. We have our own cases here of wrongful conviction.


----------



## solarz (Aug 31, 2010)

BillD said:


> While it may seem bizarre to you, eye witness identification is notoriously unreliable. The state of Texas had something like 100 or more people on death row that were exonerated by DNA evidence. How many of those were put there by eye witnesses? I recall a case I saw on TV where a man was doing time for sexual assault, and the victim still swears it was him, even though DNA evidence cleared him. We have our own cases here of wrongful conviction.


If we rely solely on facts for conviction, we would never be able to remove "reasonable doubt". There is always the possibility of an unknown, exonerating evidence.

In the end, Judges need to make judgments. The term "reasonable doubt" is in itself a judgment call.

If the accused attacker has never had any trouble with the law, and has witnesses testifying to his upright character, then obviously it should warrant a different judgment than if the accused attacker was a known perp.

In the case of Mitchell, the accused kid was known as a bully and hoodlum around the neighborhood, the victim identified the accused, and we have an independent witness seeing the event happen. If reasonable doubt is still allowed in such a circumstance, then you might as well get rid of witness testimony altogether.


----------



## ameekplec. (May 1, 2008)

solarz said:


> If we rely solely on facts for conviction, we would never be able to remove "reasonable doubt". There is always the possibility of an unknown, exonerating evidence.


Except science.


----------

