"Creep catchers" - Asset or Detriment

[Machjo]

Or, if you listen to your lawyer and have a shred of sense, you don't talk to the cops at all. They are interested only in arresting you. The prosecutor is interested only in convicting you. None of them give two hoots about your guilt or innocence.

Save your arguments for the judge and jury. Otherwise, keep your mouth shut.

Now that's a stupid system.

Finding the truth should be paramount to 'winning' the case. It's not a soccer match.

Actually, my friend's case does seem like that though. Before she got a lawywer, she giving them everything they wanted and more. They themselves didn't even bother to check. They got pie in the face later at her hearing.

But it shouldn't be that way. There should be a point where, especially if the person is giving the police information an asking them to check it out, the police should be duty bound to collect evidence. Sure it may or may not be a reliable witness, or it may or may not be genuine proof as opposed to fabricated phtoshop, etc. But still, the police should at least look at it to determine.

If the evidence starts to show the person to be innocent and the police have nothing to counter it, why waste taxpayer dollars?

Insane.

In the case in this OP, it might be different. I'm jsut talking generally that the job should be to reveal the truth, not charge the person at all cost.

 

[JLM]

When it comes to protecting my kids 50/50 works for me, and that's being generous.

So you don't give a f**k if some innocent person's life is destroyed?

 

[Machjo]

So you don't give a f**k if some innocent person's life is destroyed?

What do you expect? It's PoliticalNick.

Now don't get me wrong. When a person's safety is at stake, we need to act even before we know for sure. But it is possible for the police to intervene in that case without arresting anyone or laying charges against someone. For example, it could get a court order to remove the child from the family temporarily based on the minimal available evidence until they can determine for sure, after which they will either return the child if it's a false alarm or make an arrest later. They could even surveil the suspect in the mean time to ensure he doesn't hurt anyone until they're reasonably sure.

Now I don't know if the law could require him to wear a GPS without charges being laid against him, but something to explore. An arrest should be done after an investigation. You don't arrest a person and then look like an idiot standing before the judge. 'Well, our gut told us he was guilty your honour.'

 

[PoliticalNick]

So you don't give a f**k if some innocent person's life is destroyed?

No, I give a f^ck. I just give more of a f^ck about protecting my kids. I would rather be wrong and apologize later than be right and have done nothing.

99.999% of the time I go the other way on legal rights but when it comes to pedophiles I make an exception

 

[Machjo]

No, I give a f^ck. I just give more of a f^ck about protecting my kids. I would rather be wrong and apologize later than be right and have done nothing.

And if I'm not mistaken, the police can intervene to protect a child without necessarily making an arrest. Maybe TB can correct me on that.

 

[petros]

Like I said. I'm not familiar with Creep Catchers, so I would presume that they do cross their t's and dot their i's.

Ummmmmm no!

 

[Machjo]

Ummmmmm no!

Like I said. I'm not familiar with them. Maybe they don't cross their t's and dot their i's, which could explain the RCMP's criticism of their activities.

 

[JLM]

No, I give a f^ck. I just give more of a f^ck about protecting my kids. I would rather be wrong and apologize later than be right and have done nothing.

Apologies are good when you bump a person in the hallway or neglect to hold the door open for someone, but for a lot of things they don't undo the damage!

 

[PoliticalNick]

Apologies are good when you bump a person in the hallway or neglect to hold the door open for someone, but for a lot of things they don't undo the damage!

You got kids right? Daughters? Would you let them be abused until you were certain or would you remove the potential danger immediately and worry about being right or wrong later?

It's all well and good to take the moral high road but would you really do that regarding your own child?

 

[petros]

Like I said. I'm not familiar with them. Maybe they don't cross their t's and dot their i's, which could explain the RCMP's criticism of their activities.

It's a bunch of punk kids.

 

[taxslave]

And if I'm not mistaken, the police can intervene to protect a child without necessarily making an arrest. Maybe TB can correct me on that.

Family services can do that. Don't even need much evidence.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

And if I'm not mistaken, the police can intervene to protect a child without necessarily making an arrest. Maybe TB can correct me on that.

In the U.S. they can. I'd be extremely surprised if they didn't have similar powers in Canada.

 

[JLM]

You got kids right? Daughters? Would you let them be abused until you were certain or would you remove the potential danger immediately and worry about being right or wrong later?

It's all well and good to take the moral high road but would you really do that regarding your own child?

But I wouldn't want to throw someone under the bus to do it.

 

[petros]

Family services can do that. Don't even need much evidence.

The cops call family services.

 

[Machjo]

It's a bunch of punk kids.

Oh, good point.

You got kids right? Daughters? Would you let them be abused until you were certain or would you remove the potential danger immediately and worry about being right or wrong later?

It's all well and good to take the moral high road but would you really do that regarding your own child?

Would you want your kid to be falsely accused of statutory sexual assault on a kid? Just askin'.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Family services can do that. Don't even need much evidence.

That's a bit of a myth. If you know your rights and stand up for them they need a lot to remove your children. They cannot even enter the property without invitation or a warrant.

 

[Machjo]

That's a bit of a myth. If you know your rights and stand up for them they need a lot to remove your children. They cannot even enter the property without invitation or a warrant.

I imagine if they don't have enough proof to arrest you but enough to give them reason to worry, they probably could get a warrant to take the kids away for a day or two so they can question them thoroughly. I'd imagine getting a warrant for more than 72 hours would be extremely difficult though without having enough to arrest the parent.

I have no doubt though that they need far less proof to take the child than they do to arrest the parent, and rightfully so as long as they can prove a legitimate reason to fear for the child's safety.

 

[PoliticalNick]

I imagine if they don't have enough proof to arrest you but enough to give them reason to worry, they probably could get a warrant to take the kids away for a day or two so they can question them thoroughly. I'd imagine getting a warrant for more than 72 hours would be extremely difficult though without having enough to arrest the parent.

I have no doubt though that they need far less proof to take the child than they do to arrest the parent, and rightfully so as long as they can prove a legitimate reason to fear for the child's safety.

The key there is 'proof' the child is in immediate danger. That is hard to get without a thorough investigation and if you don't let them in or talk to the kids they got nothing but speculation and hearsay unless there is a reliable eyewitness to abuse. The only other thing that could trigger them would be taking an obviously neglected or malnourished kid to a doctor because they have an obligation to report to authorities.

 

[JLM]

That's a bit of a myth. If you know your rights and stand up for them they need a lot to remove your children. They cannot even enter the property without invitation or a warrant.

I'm pretty sure in B.C. (and AB, I had an experience there one time years ago) if there is substantial evidence to believe a child is in danger, child welfare can get in there in a Hollywood minute.

 

[Frankiedoodle]

In Saskatchewan you get reported to Social Services, they immediately open a file on you. A worker is sent to investigate. When it comes to children, they wants to make sure the kid is safe.