Over-reaction or reasonable precaution?

[draco664]

Link

A 26-year-old man was arrested and strip-searched because his 4-year-old daughter drew a picture of a gun at school.

I can understand the desire to ensure a child is safe, but surely the simple act of drawing a gun in no way suggests that there is a danger? I used to watch cartoons as a kid and would draw the weapons in them all the time.

Even if you accepted the premise that a child's drawing indicated the presence of a gun in the home, how do you jump from that to 'child in danger'? Would it not be more productive, or perhaps less confrontational, to knock on the door and talk to the parents calmly? Ask them if there is a gun on the premises? Ask to see it? Maybe ask the little girl where she saw the gun?

I just don't get the thought processes that suggest heavy-handedness in these situations. The police aren't just stressing out the parents here, they're scaring the bejeezus out of the kids too. Can you see the little girl trusting the police after this?

And don't get me started on the strip-search. 'Officer safety' by bottom. 'Officer-on-a-power-trip' more likely.

[Nyoibo]

Umm... I'm thinking if anyone has a good basis for a lawsuit, it's this guy.

[MadMike]

Complete overreaction. Even if he did have a gun in his house, that's perfectly legal, assuming that he's not a convicted felon who's barred from owning a gun.

I grew up in a rural area, and just about everyone, including my parents, had guns in their houses.

[Greenday]

A complete overreaction. I'm no so familiar with Canadian gun laws, but I don't recall outright bans like in the UK. I don't see why he was strip searched. There was no probable cause but again, I'm not that familiar with Canadian law so I don't know how legal it is to perform something like that without actual evidence that he might have a gun on him.

[Andara Bledin]

Wow. I can't believe how incredibly mis-handled this was.

Then again, it happens all the time when CPS (or their equivalents) are involved. There need to be some serious overhauls to the system to stop them from victimizing the innocent in their zealous hunt for abuse.

I mean, really, their only reason for doing this was because the daughter said that the picture was of her daddy, and that, "He uses it to shoot bad guys and monsters." How the hell can they take a statement about a man using a gun to shoot 'monsters' (as distinct from 'bag guys') as fact?

And the whole thought that he'd have the gun on him while picking his child up from school is so incredibly laughable. This is the sort of bullshit that happens when everybody's first reaction to the presence of a gun is, "OMG! He's got a gun! We must overreact and freak out because none of us have ever seen one in person!"

This whole incident could have been avoided with a few questions posed to the daughter, father, or even the mother, about the gun. Hell, the woman could have produced the stupid toy at the house when they went to pick her up, and the whole thing could have been avoided entirely. >_<

^-.-^

[jackfaire]

It's a reasonable precaution I mean otherwise the family would have been happy, healthy, and blissfully free of abuse bordering on the criminal.

Of course we can't have that.

As for the school and the agency there are mandatory reporting laws and they do have to follow those. The police investigation jumped ship though from investigation to this fucker is a criminal.

[HYHYBT]

OK, and what idiot(s) put in a mandatory reporting law for *drawings* of guns?

[MystyGlyttyr]

Dude, when I was a kid, I drew downright disturbing shit. I drew people tied up, in cages, fighting in wars, etc., etc. Now I RECENTLY looked at some of my preschool-aged drawings and had asked my parents "And ya'll didn't realize there was something WRONG with me?" But back in the day, no one thought anything of it other than that I was a slightly morbid child with an overactive imagination. Hell, I saw all that stuff in GUMMY BEARS cartoons when I was little.

Major, major, sue-worthy overreaction. Not to mention I'd be pulling my daughter out of that school as fast as humanly possible and either trying to find one slightly less insane or putting in for homeschooling...

[jackfaire]

OK, and what idiot(s) put in a mandatory reporting law for *drawings* of guns?

It wasn't for the drawing. It was for her saying her dad has a gun and uses it.

Yes it turned out to be a toy gun and if the police had done their jobs correctly that would have been quickly and peacefully figured out.

However yes some people who own guns would use a real gun to scare the monsters in the closet for their kids.

A drawing has to and should be inquired into for every drawing that is looked into there are 10 more that never are that turn out to be abuse victims.

Some of us wish someone had looked closer at our drawings when we were kids.

[Andara Bledin]

There's a huge difference between a girl who happily tells her teachers that her daddy has a gun that he uses to shoot bad guys and monsters and the drawings and responses of a child who is a victim of abuse.

All that this incident has done is add a traumatic event to a happy little 4-year-old's life that will probably make her less trustful of authority and less likely to go to them should a real need exist.

^-.-^

[jackfaire]

There's a huge difference between a girl who happily tells her teachers that her daddy has a gun that he uses to shoot bad guys and monsters and the drawings and responses of a child who is a victim of abuse.

Except there isn't. If you take someone whom has never seen a gun has no idea what a gun is and point it at them while smiling and talking to them in a happy tone they will still be smiling when they hit the ground after you pull the trigger.

She is 4. To her Daddy is a hero and any weapon he uses to do it is cool by her. And yes if he has a real gun that he is always bringing out around her and giving her full access to that is cause for concern no matter how happy she is about it.

So no I don't think that the school or the agency over stepped their bounds in sayng, "Uhm so hey your daughter said this can you explain" however due to the law they have to follow processes.

The breakdown was when the cops took a simple inquiry to "Your Al Capone must take you down!!!"

For the argument that they should have known the gun wasn't real because her daddy kills bad guys and monsters with it.

UHm really so a kid says monsters and that means they must be being silly? How do they know that the monsters comment indicates it's a toy gun.

If the school did nothing if the agency had said don't worry about it and the gun had turned out to be real and the girl shot herself or a friend with it then they would have been sued for criminal negligence.

Yes the cops overreacted but no looking into a potentially bad situation and making sure it isn't a bad situation is no more an over reaction then making sure your friend is joking when he says he will kill you.

[Andara Bledin]

Except there isn't. If you take someone whom has never seen a gun has no idea what a gun is and point it at them while smiling and talking to them in a happy tone they will still be smiling when they hit the ground after you pull the trigger.

Except that that has no bearing on the issue at hand. This girl has seen a gun, knows what a gun is, and knows what a gun can do, at least in the abstract.

Plus, nobody is still smiling after being shot.

^-.-^

[Ginger Tea]

I think he meant that the gunman would be happy and smiling all the time.

What if this was 10 years ago before the onset of LCD TV's where you could get light guns for video games, there you have "bad guys and monsters" aplenty, all it would take is her to ommit that this happens on the telly.

hmm story idea "I have to shoot these or they will get out of the TV." and in ring tradition, a lost wave does have such beasties exit the TV.

As for investigating the drawings, long story that I can't remember why it happened.
I was asked to draw my family so I drew a cut away of the house and had stick figure mum in the kitchen, me and stick figure brother in the living room with our toys and stick figure dad walking into the house with stick figure dogs.
because I had myself and my brother between my parents and my dad had two dogs, it was implying that we were defending our mum from domestic abuse.

[jackfaire]

because I had myself and my brother between my parents and my dad had two dogs, it was implying that we were defending our mum from domestic abuse.

Yes but anyone who comes to that conclusion from your picture alone has issues.

And Andara the point was that just because the girl is happy about her dad waving a gun around isn't the magical indicator that, "It's okay folks it must be a toy gun no kid would be happy that their dad is protecting them with a real one."

The point being the kid was 4 a little young to be nervous or worried about "Dad waving a real gun around" if he had actually been doing that.

When I was 6 I thought my dad's guns were awesome. When I was 17 and I found one laying around I got pissed at him for it because my little brother and sister could have found it.

How the girl feels about the gun does not indicate whether it's a real gun or a toy gun that her dad is waving around and she never said it wasn't real. In fact at age 4 it can be much harder to tell real from imaginary and if pressed she probably would have reassured everyone, "Yup it's a real gun"

Instead of interrogating the child they started an investigation into what sounded like a dangerous situation and what a child of 4 would not understand was a dangerous situation.

They acted appropriately but, and I am not arguing against this part, the cops massively overstepped their bounds acting like they were arresting him for murder when they should have been investigating to see if there was any real concern.

[protege]

Umm... I'm thinking if anyone has a good basis for a lawsuit, it's this guy.

Yep, I'd be going after the bastards for false arrest. There's no excuse for what they did. But, like most "zero tolerance" rules, they remove any sort of intelligence from the equation. How many times have we heard of kids getting in trouble for such things as a tiny plastic blade from a GI Joe action figure?

Also, I lived in the damn suburbs, and there were guns in the home when I was a child. Dad had a couple of rifles and shotguns he used for hunting. When people hear that, the usual reaction is "OMG, children in danger!" They ignore the part when I mention that said guns were fitted with trigger locks and kept in a locked safe, and that the ammunition was also locked, and kept somewhere else. To them, having children and guns always means that one of those children is going to die. Nearly all of those comments...are by idiots who have no clue about what they're talking about.

Seriously? Those firearms have been in the house since my parents bought it in '75. My brothers and I lived there from '76 until recently. Did anyone ever get shot with those guns? Nope. Of course, we weren't fucking idiots either. Mainly, because my dad had taught us to be responsible with them. That is, a gun isn't dangerous by itself--it's the nut behind the trigger. Also, because we were around firearms, to us, it's no big deal. We understand how to use them, and don't let our emotions take over.