It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Children arrested, DNA tested, interrogated and locked up... for playing in a tree

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 12:23 AM
link   





Children arrested, DNA tested, interrogated and locked up... for playing in a tree

To the 12-year-old friends planning to build themselves a den, the cherry tree seemed an inviting source of material.

But the afternoon adventure turned into a frightening ordeal for Sam Cannon, Amy Higgins and Katy Smith after they climbed into the 20ft tree - then found themselves hauled into a police station and locked in cells for up to two hours.

Their shoes were removed and mugshots, DNA samples and mouth swabs were taken.

Officers told the children they had been seen damaging the tree which is in a wooded area of public land near their homes.

More...



Unbelievable!




posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 12:56 AM
link   
From the source:

Officers considered charging the children with criminal damage but eventually decided a reprimand - the equivalent of a caution for juveniles - was sufficient.


Charges were considered


So someone actually thought of charging these kids and tarnishing their future.....wtf, over.

What a crock of #e! whoever initially arrested the kids probably has a big chip on his shoulder and a stick up his arse. I can't believe this....seriously, I want to call BS, this can't be true....how could any LEO be this stuck up.

I'm not one for taking hand outs, but I would sue for emotional damage, just to make a statement.


Sporty



[edit on 3/8/2006 by SportyMB]



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 01:08 AM
link   
I'm not a police man, but isn't DNA taken to prove guilt by matching a sample of something found at the crime scene with the DNA sample?

There was nothing to match, they got caught climbing the tree. So why swab?

My tinfoil hat wearing side says that maybe they don't want the kids climbing the trees for a reason like toxic seepage or something.

Just following a paranoid train of thought.

Spiderj



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 01:24 AM
link   
Ah sounds like the NWO testing public reaction to their future plan of operations. In the future if you are caught committing any public crime like littering they will throw you in jail and demand a DNA sample from you.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 01:24 AM
link   
Is this is another news balloon from the new world order, not an independent decision by the police but by the federal government? It appears almost daily that government is attempting to apply unlimited control over every aspect of living, and to make people submit for the sake of submission and the attendant dominance that gratifies narrow minds.

Just as you do a trace route on the internet, research these so called local police departments. You may find that their activities come from the same sheet of paper, something cascading from think tanks specializing in psyops or psychological operations.

Don't get too distressed, do the research and expose the root cause of this destruction of traditional values and traditional freedoms. The biggest question is whether you want your future children to climb trees as they have done for thousands of years without a thought to it. If you want a world of suppression and oppression, then go along with these people by tearing your hair, screaming under a pillow, and doing nothing.

[edit on 3-8-2006 by SkipShipman]



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 02:03 AM
link   
I really don't see what the problem is.


To the 12-year-old friends planning to build themselves a den, the cherry tree seemed an inviting source of material.

So the children were destroying public property. They admit as much since they were looking for wood for their "den."


Their shoes were removed and mugshots, DNA samples and mouth swabs were taken.

All standard operating procedure for a police department it would seem. They didn't want the kids to try to kill themselves so they took their shoes and laces. Like it or not, the police take DNA samples from anyone brought into the station with or without any charges; just like they take fingerprints and mug-shots for everyone. Why should kids be any different?

Then, after the seventh paragraph, the article degrades into useless emotional rhetoric.


Amy's mother, Jacqueline, said her daughter was left so traumatised by the police action last month she refused to sleep in her bed for a week.

After only two hours in a concrete room, a twelve-year-old became traumatized. Please give me a freaking break and stop allowing your children to play to your sympathies. Instead, of being angry with them for breaking the law the parents are angry they were caught. I think I hear violins.


"Amy was scared bucketloads to be locked up in a cell knowing murderers and rapists have been sat in the same cells. The police action was completely unbalanced. These were children playing in a tree. The information taken by the police will be held on record for five years and Amy is worried it could affect her going to college or university."

Must be a very violent town with all those murderers and rapists coming into the police station.
Most likely she was in a cell that had seen a lot of drunk and stupid people over the years. The university comment is equally stupid. She is 12, and they are holding the information gathered for 5 years. There is no criminal record so there is nothing to show up on a background check.

Overall, another news story of sheltered kids being scared by the real world. Alternatively, they are pretending to be scared in the hopes that their parents will take it easy on them and it seems to have worked.

Jon



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 02:12 AM
link   
Those cops should be fired. These kids are gonna remember this for a long time, and being young like that.... \/\/ 7 |= ???



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 02:36 AM
link   
Voxel - i'm 22, and spending a day in jail traumatized me like you wouldn't believe. yes, i'm one of those 'drunk and stupid' guys. no, i'm not sheltered, and i didn't actually do anything that required my being in jail longer than it took me to sober up. i made an honest mistake, albeit stupid - and it's changed my life and my outlook on things. luckily, i've got a 'type a' personality (whatever that means) and will use the stress to better myself - but these kids are 12 freakin years old. they're not even done watching nickelodeon, for christs sake. sure, they shouyldn't have chopped down the tree, but there was absolutely no reason to throw them in jail. a ticket, a fine maybe, but jail is ridiculous. furthermore - i'm willing to bet you have no idea what you're talking about regarding what happens inside a jail. DNA testing does not happen to everyone. fingerprinting, yes, mugshots, yes - but DNA testing is too expensive to just throw around for every common jackass.

if these kids were 16 or 17 maybe, i could understand your viewpoint on their 'fragile, sheltered psyches', but these kids are likely genuinely innocent, because at age 12 you're not really thinking about how to live a life of crime.

maybe you should learn to speak about what you know rather than talk out of your backside. you'd be quite a bit more respectable.

oh, and regarding the rapists and murders - that kind of stuff happens way more often than your sheltered little mind can believe. don't be so quick to brush it off.

[edit on 3-8-2006 by 25cents]



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by 25cents
Voxel - i'm 22, and spending a day in jail traumatized me like you wouldn't believe. yes, i'm one of those 'drunk and stupid' guys. no, i'm not sheltered, and i didn't actually do anything that required my being in jail longer than it took me to sober up.

You were probably in a cell with several other 'drunk and disorderlies' then. Being in a cell alone (what they do with kids) is not as much a traumatizing experience as it is a learning experience.


furthermore - i'm willing to bet you have no idea what you're talking about regarding what happens inside a jail. DNA testing does not happen to everyone. fingerprinting, yes, mugshots, yes - but DNA testing is too expensive to just throw around for every common jackass.

I may not know much but I'm pretty sure I know more than you do. There was no DNA TESTING they took samples. Thats all SOP today. Do you want to know why? Because kids (and adults) who do little things now tend to go on do illegal things later. God forbid, but if that girl gets raped and they do a rape-kit on her they will need those samples taken of her old-friends to rule out (or prove) the most likely canidates first. Thats the real world there.

Jon



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 02:58 AM
link   
no, i was in a cell alone, then moved from 5 different holding tanks to a larger jail that held all kinds of detainees who were awaiting trial. it's the principle that affects you. sleeping on the floor of a room that is all concrete, with nobody to speak to for 12 hours, moldy food, and a lack of any decent clothing is humiliating.

and i'm sure you know so much more, with all your worldly experience. how many time have you been arrested, pray tell? have you ever spent a day in a cell?

and again - there was no collection of any DNA samples, either. fingerprinting and mucgshots are all they do for simple crimes, and there is still no merit whatsoever to taking a 12 year old to jail over something like this.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 03:12 AM
link   
For the benefit of those members not familiar with the the British media, the clue to understanding this story is the publication - "The Daily Mail", a paper which has regularly printed stories bemoaning the lack of action against young offenders.

This is a rabidly pro Conservative and anti Government/Labour/Blair paper which routinely takes low value stories and presents them in such away as to show a picture of middle class Britain being torn apart with the inference that this is the personal responsibility of Tony Blair. My guess would be that you see about one third of the real story here and that heavily slanted againt the police.

What you can certainly be sure of is that if the children had been from less savoury backgrounds the paper would have screamed blue murder that out of control yobs had destroyed local parkland and that the police had failed to take firm enough action against them. Alternatively, if the police had not responded to what were clearly numerous complaints from the public to what was perceived as vandalism they would have been heartily criticised for their lack of action which would, in turn, have been blamed on the Government's under funding of the service.

Sadly, the Mail's credibility is almost negligible.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 03:23 AM
link   
They didn't chop down the tree. They climbed it and removed some loose/dead branches. From the looks of it, they didn't even have an axe or a saw, so it stands to reason that they could only have removed dead/dying branches.

While technically vandalism, I doubt very much that they harmed the tree.

They should have been given a stern warning at the scene, not detained and swabbed. Here's a novel concept, what if the arresting officer had a little talk with them, and explained how what they were doing was not only illegal, but also wrong. Tell them that it's not their tree, and that some people in the neighborhood were concerned about their actions. Try, at least, to reason with them and if they seem receptive, send them on their way and go do something better with your time!

How many man-hours did it take to process these non-violent juvenile offenders? Weren't there any dustbins knocked over in the meantime, any urinals defaced, anything at all for these retarded woop-woops to do with their time on the clock?

This was an overreaction, and contrary to what the woop-woop feels (clearly, there's no THINKING going on), this experience will most likely not turn the kids off crime. What it will do is instill in them a deep and long-lasting loathing for abusive authority figures.

Kids are kids, and they need to be treated as such AS LONG AS THEY ACT THE PART. If a kid rapes, or kills, or does something similarly 'adult', then by all means, arrest them and bring them to trial.

The DNA angle is the most creepy, no doubt about it. If you trust the police not to misuse the sample, then by all means, give up your code. Doesn't it bother you, just how easy it makes a frame-up? Juries are so swayed by DNA evidence, they'll ignore an iron-clad alibi! This is madness, and if you think the police force is incorruptible, that too is madness!

These kids didn't need to be treated like this. What they need is some goddamn engineering lessons, you can't build a safe and attractive tree-fort with a handful of sticks, you need pressure-treated hardwood planks. :shk:

Thanks for posting this loam. I didn't have nearly enough rising bile earlier this evening. That problem has been remedied nicely.


voxel
Do you have any idea how ridiculous it sounds when you say, in so many words, that kids who build tree-forts are more likely to grow up to be rapists?



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 03:42 AM
link   
Now this IS bizarre. We must not have the complete story or something right? Buccal swabs taken for a tree incident? In a democratic nation? Kids playing?

What in the name of the seven sons of the seven sons is that supposed to say to kids! Hate cops, do dope, carry guns, play out of sight, conform, trust no one? I can't even imagine that as seriously true except that it IS true. Tough to be a youngster - even a normal youngster in these times. Not funny. Cause for concern - what could those officers have been doing instead?

Victor K.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 03:58 AM
link   
For "kids playing" read

"kids destroying" an ornamental cherry tree by stripping every branch from it, in an area where there have been reports of anti-social behaviour.

As I said above, if police had not responded to the complaints the Mail would have been first in line to criticise them for inaction.

What could those officers have been doing instead? - they could have been absolutely slaughtered by reactionary newspapers for ignoring complaints about anti social behaviour.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test
For "kids playing" read

"kids destroying" an ornamental cherry tree by stripping every branch from it, in an area where there have been reports of anti-social behaviour.

As I said above, if police had not responded to the complaints the Mail would have been first in line to criticise them for inaction.

What could those officers have been doing instead? - they could have been absolutely slaughtered by reactionary newspapers for ignoring complaints about anti social behaviour.


hardly justification for this kind of reaction.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by 25cents
and i'm sure you know so much more, with all your worldly experience. how many time have you been arrested, pray tell? have you ever spent a day in a cell?


While I don't have all your valuable years of experience gained in the drunk-tank, I have been in a holding cell for 4 hours before. I was 14 and I had no ill effects to speak of. There must be something in my make-up that can resist the boredom of confinement because I felt quite safe with the bars, concrete, and police right outside. It gave me time to reflect on what I did while I waited for my parents to get out of work.

Hey, while your standing on your flimsy pedestal let me ask you have you ever been in a holding cell at a mental institution? That freaked me out much more. Being tied to a chair surrounded by both loonies and patients is much more frightening. They leave the door to the nice white room wide open so that they can see if you’re trying to do anything funny while tied down. The powerless feeling of being completely unable to defend yourself in an unknown environment filled with strangers left a more lasting impression on me than 4 hours staring at a grey ceiling.

Jon



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 05:10 AM
link   
all my 'valuable hours' taught me is that i never, ever want to go back. i know very well how to avoid the situation, and i can assure you that it was the worst experience of my life.

as far as the mental institution, no, i have not experienced that, but it may account for why you hold your position on this matter.

once again, these are CHILDREN. they were simply doing something that i, and hundreds of thousands of other children around the globe, have done - torn the branches from a plant. sure, it's not exactly a productive venture, and should in fact be stopped by any passing adult. putting someone in jail for something like this is absolutely ridiculous, and your trying to defend those who would lock a child up for something that was not only harmless by the deed, but also intent, is pretty disconcerting.

maybe you need to go back to the nuthouse.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by 25cents
...your trying to defend those who would lock a child up for something that was not only harmless by the deed, but also intent...


*sigh*

One more time... the police received multiple complaints from the public that kids were vandalising a tree ("stripping every branch from it") in an area with a history of anti social behaviour. How are they supposed to know the intent or detail of the action until they attend and investigate?

Should they have simply told them off and sent them on their way? - possibly, but we weren't there so we don't know. For example, we don't know how the kids reacted when they were approached - were they abusive or uncooperative? The report doesn't tell us because it's trying to make a point to support its broader political agenda.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by 25cents
i can assure you that it was the worst experience of my life.

Oh, it appears you are the sheltered one. What a tough "alpha male" we have here.



maybe you need to go back to the nuthouse.

Are you twelve?


EDIT: Basically, what "timeless test" has already said above is my feeling on the matter.

Jon

[edit on 8.3.2006 by Voxel]



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 05:34 AM
link   
Well.. this dosent seem so outrageous as so many other things..

After all... they WERE trying to STEAL wood.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join