Quote:
Originally Posted by Delgar
Let's be clear here, since we're all adults:
-I'm not intentionally pompous. If I am, I apologize. Were I pompous by design, my username might be something like "Biglaw" to suggest I'm important or prominent in my field, sort of like your choice of "Bignumbers" as an accountant. If I'm otherwise pompous, that is not intentional. I think my posting history shows humility. In this case, I've said show me otherwise on the facts, and I'll stand corrected. For you, an incorrect google search is the law.
-You are on your fourth username because you are both pompous and an agitator... you don't respond with civility when you are shown to be incorrect and blow your top. I'm still on my original user name, by the way.
-What you've shown is not responsive to my request to show a law which prohibits the use of fingerprints in this situation in perpetuity. There could actually be one, and I'm not so informed to know about it. If you find it, that's great, I'll admit I'm wrong. (You've provided a policy which hasn't been shown to apply here, but at least you have decent google skills.)
-Let me give you an example of the police lying to get evidence: Every undercover operation ever. Also, any evidence they obtain is fair game as long as it doesn't violate your charter rights. If you rely on a webpage as your saving grace, all the best to you.
-The big issue here is the safety of the child. I don't know why but I'm not so concerned about the grandparents in this case. The boy is surely blameless however.
|
I think you took my use of the word pompous a bit personal - it was more tongue in cheek and certainly didn't mean for it to cause you to bring all guns to bare. I think you have me confused with someone though? I am certainly not on a fourth name!?! I've been here two years nearly - Hardly someone whose unable to maintain civility. I am not an accountant, I work in finance and do derivative work, hence the name... Definitely not meant in a pompous term - happy for someone to change it to "middleclassnumbers'' if it was mistaken for a humblebrag.
I am so confused by this entire response, I'd like to have a civil rebuttal (but then again you said I'm incapable of such?) but I think you're responding to others than me?
I made one or two posts here simply confirming that it is indeed true that prints given voluntarily by those not charged are kept out of the database and are not referenced against in future cases... I think linking to the RCMP's website indicating as such is ample proof.
As for the rest, I think you're replying to others, as I never made any other claims. I join you in being very concerned for the well being of the child, especially. It hit home for me as I have three little boys, and I can't imagine the grief...
Take care, and if you'd like to discuss anything further, feel free to PM me. Let's focus on this poor family and hoping for the best.