13 ms·

FTA: The Ontario Provincial Police say, “We can knock on someone’s door and say, ‘We’re so worried about you, can we come in and chat?’” Yikes. I understand th

FTA: The Ontario Provincial Police say, “We can knock on someone’s door and say, ‘We’re so worried about you, can we come in and chat?’” Yikes. I understand the positive spin is the police care about the wellbeing of at-risk people with these visits. But wouldn't it also be true that anything and everything the police observe and believe as a result of such a visit could also be used against the resident or others in the home?

cperciva 7y ago
You're always free to say no.
- tjoff 7y ago
  Sounds like negative behavior, doesn't it?
  - inflatableDodo 7y ago
    Do they accept 'mu'?
- tastroder 7y ago
  Can you really? The article seems relatively clear that there are some problems regarding consent in this whole apparatus. I'm torn on the article. The Canadian government isn't China and we have had quite a few pretty public cases here in Germany where lack of inter-agency coordination led to serious harm in the context of our CPS equivalent. OTOH, at least from that article, this program doesn't seem to get the oversight required for such a task. At any rate, the lack of transparency and contractually forbidding people from talking about the program is a weird and all to common move these days.
  - jdc 7y ago
    > Can you really? In my experience with the RCMP at least, yes. They might give you attitude about it, though. I have received a veiled threat or two though (which materialized to nothing).
    - sgift 7y ago
      What is "received a veiled threat"?
      - jdc 7y ago
        Whoops, meant vague threat. Was "we can do this the easy way or the hard way."
  - cperciva 7y ago
    Yes you can. This program is being driven by a desire to identify potential future victims of crime, not a desire to identify future criminals.
    - tastroder 7y ago
      That makes sense I guess, thanks!
    - kstenerud 7y ago
      "Information about people believed to be “at risk” of becoming criminals or victims of harm is shared between civilian agencies and police and is added to the database when a person is being evaluated for a rapid intervention intended to lower their risk levels. Interventions can range from a door knock and a chat to forced hospitalization or arrest."
    - icebraining 7y ago
      The intent behind the people setting up the program is besides the point; if the actual cops think your behavior is suspicious, are they prevented from investigating? If not, then the increased interaction caused by this program can very well lead to more situations wherein you aren't free to say no.
taneq 7y ago
Yeah, without some pretty strong new protections in place there is absolutely no upside and likely a significant downside to letting them in. The police are not your friends.
- sgift 7y ago
  This post and the article have the same problem: Thinking the way police works/seems to work in the US (always out to get you) is universal to the world while it is the exception. Police in other countries usually works out of a desire to help.
  - taneq 7y ago
    I don't know about Canada but I'd apply similar caution in Australia. Note that the police aren't your enemy, but the greater your surface area towards them the more likely you are to have issues, so unless you really need them you're still better off minimizing your exposure to them.
    - cjhveal 7y ago
      Having grown up in Canada, this also characterizes my experience with law enforcement.
      - wolco 7y ago
        Having also grown up in Canada the parent/parent could not be more accurate. The larger your surface area the more likely you will have problems. It makes sense. Law enforcement is looking for someone to blame for crimes. You interact enough you might just fit a profile. Police never lose pay for misjudging anyone.
        jstarfish 7y ago
        > Police never lose pay for misjudging anyone. This is an important point. Police are a bureaucracy with all the same incentives and problems inherent to that structure. They are seldom penalized for being wrong (even if someone gets shot/killed as a result) but they do miss out on promotions for not closing enough cases (or writing enough citations). Detectives under pressure will absolutely name weak suspects to achieve these ends and let the courts sort it out.
goodcanadian 7y ago
You are generally free to decline to talk to the police. You definitely do not have to invite them into your home. Your rights around police interaction are very similar to those in the US.
- mcv 7y ago
  At the same time, I would hope that Canadian police is a bit more trustworthy and trusted than US police. I certainly wouldn't want that kind of visit from police officers whose primary concern is to find a reason to arrest or shoot you, but if police is honestly trying to help and prevent problems, it's an entirely different matter. Police culture, policy and accountability matters a lot in a case like this.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    They are about 6X less likely to kill you so that helps! [1] [1] https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/why-canadian-police-are-so-good-at-not-shooting-people https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/why-canadian-police-are...
  - Causality1 7y ago
    Canadian police have their fair share of psychopathic bullies and systemic racist murder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saskatoon_freezing_deaths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saskatoon_freezing_deaths https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/03/30/football_player_who_was_beaten_by_cops_pens_letter_of_forgiveness.html https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/03/30/football_player_... https://globalnews.ca/news/1608030/new-video-shows-another-case-of-alleged-police-brutality-in-terrace/ https://globalnews.ca/news/1608030/new-video-shows-another-c... https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2014/07/30/toronto_cop_charged_with_attempted_murder_in_sammy_yatim_shooting.html https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2014/07/30/toronto_cop_ch...
    - mcv 7y ago
      Don't let perfect be the enemy of good, though. There will always be something wrong. The point is to address it and reduce how often it goes wrong. I'm not denying these incidents are terrible; they are. And even if you do address them and punish the perpetrators, you'll still occasionally have police officers that do the wrong thing. But that doesn't mean it's pointless to hold police accountable, or to train them better.
mattlondon 7y ago
What I find weird about all of this is that people actually answer their door to unexpected & unknown visitors?! Do you also answer your phone to unexpected & unknown callers?! My rule of thumb built up over years of annoyance & bullshit is: if you don't know who it is, or aren't expecting anything, ignore it; 99.9% of the time someone unexpected/unknown on the phone or at your door are just going to be wasting your time and attention. (trying to sell you something/con you/religious recruitment/generally be weird/mad etc)
- tonyedgecombe 7y ago
  I once had someone knock on the door who was having a heart attack. At first sight he looked like he was drunk. I'm glad I didn't ignore him and was able to help.
- Arnt 7y ago
  A friend of mine once read the local newspaper while he was on vacation somewhere, and there was a half-page article along the lines of: "Among the fans expected to show up for tomorrow's big sporting event are a large contingent of the country's worst hooligans. The police plans to increase its presence massively to ensure peace, with no less than eight extra officers." My friend decided to move there. Maybe you should too. You do gain a certain peace of mind from being able to open your door without risk or trouble.
  - Joe-Z 7y ago
    Maybe I should just forget about it, but I don't understand your point. Where did your friend move and why? Where you criticizing the police for increasing presence in case of a hooligan invasion? Or where you applauding them for doing so? And how is this connected to what GP posted? I'm genuinely confused. If you read this, maybe you'd like to elaborate. Cheers!
    - netsharc 7y ago
      Not the poster, but maybe the fact that they only needed 8 officers means the hooliganism wouldn't even be that bad, meaning it's a very peaceful place.
tonyedgecombe 7y ago
This should be the responsibility of social services rather than law enforcement. If someone is a likely offender then they are probably going to clam up at the sight of the police.
- sonnyblarney 7y ago
  "police, health care professionals, and social workers participating in the Hub" - I think it probably (hopefully) mostly is.
imgabe 7y ago
"Wellness checks" are a thing in the US too. They are often for the case of "I haven't seen my neighbor in a week and there's a funny smell coming from their home." I don't see how it's a violation of any rights to knock on a door.
turk73 7y ago
We have to get control over our technology and its applications or else we're going to suffer a far worse fate than those of the people depicted in "Brave New World" or "1984."
cabaalis 7y ago
I recommend everyone watch this video. It's geared towards lawyers. If the police are asking questions with any level of suspicion at all, don't talk to them. Even if you do not lie, and are innocent, the things you say can still be used against you. Summarizing: 1. There is no way it can help. 2. If your client is guilty (or even innocent), they might admit guilt with nothing in return. 3. If your client is innocent, they can still make some small mistake or tiny mistruth that can be used to convict by seeding doubt. 4. If your client is innocent, and does not make any small mistake or tiny mistruth, what is said can still be used in court to convict. 5. If your client is innocent, and tells the police absolutely nothing incriminating at all, the police can still mis-remember the conversation and result in a conviction. 6. If your client is innocent, and tells the police absolutely nothing incriminating at all, and the clients statements are videotaped so it cannot be mischaracterized, the police can still augment the conversation from their personal knowledge and result in a conviction. There's more, it goes on and on and on. Don't talk to police if you are being questioned about something, whether you did it or not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
- 781 7y ago
  That video is very US centric. In Europe in particular, police officers are not such an enemy. Also, in UK, refusing to talk to police at first contact can be used against you, for example it will be more difficult later to introduce exculpatory evidence that you were supposed to know of at the time you refused to speak. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales#Adverse_inferences_from_silence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an...
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    I believe the reason for this is the idea that it's a massive waste of the public's time and resources for you to refuse to reveal evidence which could have stopped the prosecution well before it went to trial.
    - elliekelly 7y ago
skywhopper 7y ago
The thing is that the police are not the appropriate agency to be leading "helpful" interventions. These are the people empowered to kill you, imprison you, seize your belongings, and charge you with crimes. Those people are not the ones who should be knocking on your door offering "help".
- mcv 7y ago
  Different cultures have different ideas on the role of police.

cperciva 7y ago

You're always free to say no.

tjoff 7y ago
Sounds like negative behavior, doesn't it?
- inflatableDodo 7y ago
  Do they accept 'mu'?
tastroder 7y ago
Can you really? The article seems relatively clear that there are some problems regarding consent in this whole apparatus. I'm torn on the article. The Canadian government isn't China and we have had quite a few pretty public cases here in Germany where lack of inter-agency coordination led to serious harm in the context of our CPS equivalent. OTOH, at least from that article, this program doesn't seem to get the oversight required for such a task. At any rate, the lack of transparency and contractually forbidding people from talking about the program is a weird and all to common move these days.
- jdc 7y ago
  > Can you really? In my experience with the RCMP at least, yes. They might give you attitude about it, though. I have received a veiled threat or two though (which materialized to nothing).
  - sgift 7y ago
    What is "received a veiled threat"?
    - jdc 7y ago
      Whoops, meant vague threat. Was "we can do this the easy way or the hard way."
- cperciva 7y ago
  Yes you can. This program is being driven by a desire to identify potential future victims of crime, not a desire to identify future criminals.
  - tastroder 7y ago
    That makes sense I guess, thanks!
  - kstenerud 7y ago
    "Information about people believed to be “at risk” of becoming criminals or victims of harm is shared between civilian agencies and police and is added to the database when a person is being evaluated for a rapid intervention intended to lower their risk levels. Interventions can range from a door knock and a chat to forced hospitalization or arrest."
  - icebraining 7y ago
    The intent behind the people setting up the program is besides the point; if the actual cops think your behavior is suspicious, are they prevented from investigating? If not, then the increased interaction caused by this program can very well lead to more situations wherein you aren't free to say no.

taneq 7y ago

Yeah, without some pretty strong new protections in place there is absolutely no upside and likely a significant downside to letting them in. The police are not your friends.

sgift 7y ago
This post and the article have the same problem: Thinking the way police works/seems to work in the US (always out to get you) is universal to the world while it is the exception. Police in other countries usually works out of a desire to help.
- taneq 7y ago
  I don't know about Canada but I'd apply similar caution in Australia. Note that the police aren't your enemy, but the greater your surface area towards them the more likely you are to have issues, so unless you really need them you're still better off minimizing your exposure to them.
  - cjhveal 7y ago
    Having grown up in Canada, this also characterizes my experience with law enforcement.
    - wolco 7y ago
      Having also grown up in Canada the parent/parent could not be more accurate. The larger your surface area the more likely you will have problems. It makes sense. Law enforcement is looking for someone to blame for crimes. You interact enough you might just fit a profile. Police never lose pay for misjudging anyone.
      - jstarfish 7y ago
        > Police never lose pay for misjudging anyone. This is an important point. Police are a bureaucracy with all the same incentives and problems inherent to that structure. They are seldom penalized for being wrong (even if someone gets shot/killed as a result) but they do miss out on promotions for not closing enough cases (or writing enough citations). Detectives under pressure will absolutely name weak suspects to achieve these ends and let the courts sort it out.

goodcanadian 7y ago

You are generally free to decline to talk to the police. You definitely do not have to invite them into your home. Your rights around police interaction are very similar to those in the US.

mcv 7y ago
At the same time, I would hope that Canadian police is a bit more trustworthy and trusted than US police. I certainly wouldn't want that kind of visit from police officers whose primary concern is to find a reason to arrest or shoot you, but if police is honestly trying to help and prevent problems, it's an entirely different matter. Police culture, policy and accountability matters a lot in a case like this.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  They are about 6X less likely to kill you so that helps! [1] [1] https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/why-canadian-police-are-so-good-at-not-shooting-people https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/why-canadian-police-are...
- Causality1 7y ago
  Canadian police have their fair share of psychopathic bullies and systemic racist murder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saskatoon_freezing_deaths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saskatoon_freezing_deaths https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/03/30/football_player_who_was_beaten_by_cops_pens_letter_of_forgiveness.html https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/03/30/football_player_... https://globalnews.ca/news/1608030/new-video-shows-another-case-of-alleged-police-brutality-in-terrace/ https://globalnews.ca/news/1608030/new-video-shows-another-c... https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2014/07/30/toronto_cop_charged_with_attempted_murder_in_sammy_yatim_shooting.html https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2014/07/30/toronto_cop_ch...
  - mcv 7y ago
    Don't let perfect be the enemy of good, though. There will always be something wrong. The point is to address it and reduce how often it goes wrong. I'm not denying these incidents are terrible; they are. And even if you do address them and punish the perpetrators, you'll still occasionally have police officers that do the wrong thing. But that doesn't mean it's pointless to hold police accountable, or to train them better.

mattlondon 7y ago

What I find weird about all of this is that people actually answer their door to unexpected & unknown visitors?! Do you also answer your phone to unexpected & unknown callers?! My rule of thumb built up over years of annoyance & bullshit is: if you don't know who it is, or aren't expecting anything, ignore it; 99.9% of the time someone unexpected/unknown on the phone or at your door are just going to be wasting your time and attention. (trying to sell you something/con you/religious recruitment/generally be weird/mad etc)

tonyedgecombe 7y ago
I once had someone knock on the door who was having a heart attack. At first sight he looked like he was drunk. I'm glad I didn't ignore him and was able to help.
Arnt 7y ago
A friend of mine once read the local newspaper while he was on vacation somewhere, and there was a half-page article along the lines of: "Among the fans expected to show up for tomorrow's big sporting event are a large contingent of the country's worst hooligans. The police plans to increase its presence massively to ensure peace, with no less than eight extra officers." My friend decided to move there. Maybe you should too. You do gain a certain peace of mind from being able to open your door without risk or trouble.
- Joe-Z 7y ago
  Maybe I should just forget about it, but I don't understand your point. Where did your friend move and why? Where you criticizing the police for increasing presence in case of a hooligan invasion? Or where you applauding them for doing so? And how is this connected to what GP posted? I'm genuinely confused. If you read this, maybe you'd like to elaborate. Cheers!
  - netsharc 7y ago
    Not the poster, but maybe the fact that they only needed 8 officers means the hooliganism wouldn't even be that bad, meaning it's a very peaceful place.

tonyedgecombe 7y ago

This should be the responsibility of social services rather than law enforcement. If someone is a likely offender then they are probably going to clam up at the sight of the police.

sonnyblarney 7y ago
"police, health care professionals, and social workers participating in the Hub" - I think it probably (hopefully) mostly is.

imgabe 7y ago

"Wellness checks" are a thing in the US too. They are often for the case of "I haven't seen my neighbor in a week and there's a funny smell coming from their home." I don't see how it's a violation of any rights to knock on a door.

turk73 7y ago

We have to get control over our technology and its applications or else we're going to suffer a far worse fate than those of the people depicted in "Brave New World" or "1984."

cabaalis 7y ago

I recommend everyone watch this video. It's geared towards lawyers. If the police are asking questions with any level of suspicion at all, don't talk to them. Even if you do not lie, and are innocent, the things you say can still be used against you. Summarizing: 1. There is no way it can help. 2. If your client is guilty (or even innocent), they might admit guilt with nothing in return. 3. If your client is innocent, they can still make some small mistake or tiny mistruth that can be used to convict by seeding doubt. 4. If your client is innocent, and does not make any small mistake or tiny mistruth, what is said can still be used in court to convict. 5. If your client is innocent, and tells the police absolutely nothing incriminating at all, the police can still mis-remember the conversation and result in a conviction. 6. If your client is innocent, and tells the police absolutely nothing incriminating at all, and the clients statements are videotaped so it cannot be mischaracterized, the police can still augment the conversation from their personal knowledge and result in a conviction. There's more, it goes on and on and on. Don't talk to police if you are being questioned about something, whether you did it or not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

781 7y ago
That video is very US centric. In Europe in particular, police officers are not such an enemy. Also, in UK, refusing to talk to police at first contact can be used against you, for example it will be more difficult later to introduce exculpatory evidence that you were supposed to know of at the time you refused to speak. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales#Adverse_inferences_from_silence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an...
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  I believe the reason for this is the idea that it's a massive waste of the public's time and resources for you to refuse to reveal evidence which could have stopped the prosecution well before it went to trial.
  - elliekelly 7y ago

skywhopper 7y ago

The thing is that the police are not the appropriate agency to be leading "helpful" interventions. These are the people empowered to kill you, imprison you, seize your belongings, and charge you with crimes. Those people are not the ones who should be knocking on your door offering "help".

mcv 7y ago
Different cultures have different ideas on the role of police.