Sciencemadness Discussion Board - 61 year old man's chemicals stolen and destroyed

61 year old man's chemicals stolen and destroyed

The_Davster - 15-9-2007 at 17:44

http://ww w.canada.com/saskat
oonstarphoenix/story.html?id=4f2959e5-1f1e-45d0-8a75-53d229ed870f&k=68148

Saskatchewan, Canada.

Says it all.

"Fire marshal Patti Hoffinger said a team of hazardous materials specialists from a private company, Envirotech Services, were called to help identify some of the chemicals, and then package and dispose of them in accordance with federal and provincial regulations."

""There was nothing drug-related, nothing connected with bomb-making or anything like that. All the neighbours are safe.""

"It's possible charges will be laid in relation to the chemicals as a means of recovering some of the costs associated with the emergency response to the hazardous materials, she said, adding those costs will likely be "substantial.""

So uh...he was not using chemicals for anything deemed 'bad' yet he still looses them and may be charged(with what?).
*Sigh*

[Edited on 15-9-2007 by The_Davster]

not_important - 15-9-2007 at 18:06

umm, maybe because

Quote:

The items were found Monday by officers responding to an unrelated call from a family member,...
"When our officers were inside the home they noticed there were a large number of firearms - more than 50 - in various areas, some loaded, some unloaded and some stored properly, some not," Edwards said.

[Edited on 16-9-2007 by not_important]

The_Davster - 15-9-2007 at 18:15

Yes, but that is an unrelated crime, did he loose anything else because of having some guns loaded other than the guns and chemicals?

What I am saying is they singled out the chemicals. Normally in Canada if one leaves loaded guns around they get charged with it and released, and are banned from owning guns for 5 years or so. Other posessions are not taken other than those related to firearms.

[Edited on 15-9-2007 by The_Davster]

Magpie - 15-9-2007 at 18:36

I'm not familiar with Canadian law regarding gun ownership by private citizens, but I find this article alarming on several counts:

1. In the US many people have gun collections. My brother is an active hunter and has a whole cabinet full of rifles and shotguns. Do the police decide when someone has too many guns?

2. When does a collection of guns become a "large cache?" Or is this just media hype (sensationalism)?

3. Is it against the law to have loaded guns in your home?

4. The authorities said that the chemicals were not drug or explosive related. So why did they feel the need to have them removed. I would guess that potters and other artists might also have large amounts of chemicals in their home studios. Are they subject to the same raids? Or do the police also make judgements about who can and can't have chemicals at home?

not_important - 15-9-2007 at 18:36

He triggered it with guns, anf he's up on firearms charges. The chemicals made the cops alarms go off, as usually happens. When LEA people find chemicals, they tend to go into overdrive until they've made a big enough fuss that they can't back down without losing face. On what grounds they seized the chemicals remains to be seen.

[Edited on 16-9-2007 by not_important]

not_important - 15-9-2007 at 18:49

Do an on-site search and you'll find several related stories. In one it is said:

Quote:

In addition to careless storage of firearms, Wlasenko is charged with keeping a number of loaded handguns in his home.

So it appears that it is against the law to have loaded handguns in your home, at least in that city or province.

There's no further answer as to what the chemicals were, or why they are seized.

[Edited on 16-9-2007 by not_important]

The_Davster - 15-9-2007 at 18:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Magpie
I'm not familiar with Canadian law regarding gun ownership by private citizens, but I find this article alarming on several counts:

1. In the US many people have gun collections. My brother is an active hunter and has a whole cabinet full of rifles and shotguns. Do the police decide when someone has too many guns?

2. When does a collection of guns become a "large cache?" Or is this just media hype (sensationalism)?

3. Is it against the law to have loaded guns in your home?

4. The authorities said that the chemicals were not drug or explosive related. So why did they feel the need to have them removed. I would guess that potters and other artists might also have large amounts of chemicals in their home studios. Are they subject to the same raids? Or do the police also make judgements about who can and can't have chemicals at home?

1-Greater than 10 rifles, or a single handgun owned(? not exactly sure about the handgun part) somehow waives your rights under the Canadian Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and you can be randomly searched, for whatever reason, at any time. Other than that, no limits on number you can own. A friend of mine in Law school who also owns guns has told me that the entire canadian gun laws violate the Charter in various places, and its actually being challenged in court currently. But I digress, and I DO NOT want this thread to end up being about 'gun control' and having to lock it(That was the reason I neglected to post the full article).

2-yup, just media sensationalism

3-yes, and must be locked up.

4-Same question that I have...

I am wondering if there is a legal basis for the taking of his chemicals, or if he could sue for compensation?

Quote:

Originally posted by not_important

So it appears that it is against the law to have loaded handguns in your home, at least in that city or province.

There's no further answer as to what the chemicals were, or why they are seized.

Yes, he is being charged with the loaded gun stuff, but the problem I have is with why that necessitates his chemicals being destroyed.

[Edited on 15-9-2007 by The_Davster]

Sauron - 15-9-2007 at 19:40

True Grit:

Pettifogging Lawyer: "Marshal Cogburn, did you advance on old man Wharton with your deadly six shot revolver loaded and cocked?"

Rooster: "Well, a gun that is UNloaded and cocked ain't good for nothing!"

So in canada it's illegal to be prepared to defend your life and property against intruders?

Let's all sing Maple Leafe Forever! (not)

The_Davster - 15-9-2007 at 19:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron

So in canada it's illegal to be prepared to defend your life and property against intruders?

AARG...Yes thats true....BUT

Quote:

I DO NOT want this thread to end up being about 'gun control' and having to lock it

Lets stick to the chemicals here...and what I am really curious about, any actual legal basis for the theft of the chemicals. I think such theft of his chemicals is unreasonable seizure(unconstitutional), and would love to see him sue over this.

chemrox - 15-9-2007 at 20:07

Canada is closely related to Britain - a growing police state where non-royal citizens can't own guns and there are police video cameras on every corner in major cities. US got its (former but quickly eroding) search & seizure protections from the behavior of the British occupying forces. Main reasons we haven't considered moving to Canada.

Sauron - 15-9-2007 at 20:19

Yes, my Canadian friends (most;y they are expats, diplomats and UN or NGO staff) constantly complain about the politically correct nanny/police state up there in Dudley Do-Right territory.

"All oligarchies get the castelains they deserve, right, Castelain?"

(Dr.Who, as played by Tom Baker)

[Edited on 16-9-2007 by Sauron]

Sauron - 15-9-2007 at 20:36

Back to th chemicals issue:

1. a family member called the police, sounds like a domestic disturbance complaint.

2. That gets the cops in the door and with a perhaps proper concern for the emotional/mental state of the fellow, depending on what allegations the (distraught?) family member made.

3. Depending on the nature of the chemicals, and their classification, there well may be regulations/ordinances/laws concerning proper storage of same and these may well preclude storage in a dwelling as opposed to a commercial building; how they are stored (acid cabinets, solvent cabinets, seperating oxidizers, all that rigamarole).

If this is the case, then he has not got a legal leg to stand on because he had no affirmative right to have those chemicals stored in that place and in such ways.

Even absent any of that, the domestic dispute (if any) and in particular if allegations of wife-battering, or depression attempted suicide, or alcoholism/drug abuse, or psych problems -- and the removal of the chemicals (and the things with triggers) will be deemed to be "for his own good" and that of his family.

Property rights totally subordinate, no presumption that anything not specifically permitted by law is allowed. The Nanny/Police State. Mandatory marriage counselling! Maybe his wife is now at a "women's shelter" talking to some bulldyke with a faint mustache who is coaching her on how to take Hubby to the cleaners in divorce court. Don't laugh. I know people this has happened to. It is not a laughing matter.

Blind Angel - 15-9-2007 at 20:40

@Sauron: Which intruders? (Answer in PM if needed, no need to clog up the thread)

May he be charged with innapropriate storage of dangerous chemicals? They didn't specify if he would face criminal charge, so it might be something along those line (unless charges are intrinsicly criminals)

The_Davster - 15-9-2007 at 21:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron

3. Depending on the nature of the chemicals, and their classification, there well may be regulations/ordinances/laws concerning proper storage of same and these may well preclude storage in a dwelling as opposed to a commercial building; how they are stored (acid cabinets, solvent cabinets, seperating oxidizers, all that rigamarole).

Can't say I've seen anything about that anywhere, and I have looked, but with any giant bureaucracy, finding usefull information is difficult. As a country that only put into existace regulations on the ammount of gunpowder one can keep in a home a year or so ago, I am not sure if we even have the regulations.

Sauron - 15-9-2007 at 22:01

Burglary is unknown in Canada? B&E, sexual assault? Unheard of? Those are generally the reasons for maintaining the ability to defend one's home.

In some American jurisdictions the right to do so is absolute.

However apparently in Canada you may not keep anything but a long gun (rifle or shotgun) ready for this purpose. A singlem loaded handgun is a violation. Balderdash.

Yeah I know, chemicals not guns. However, I am replying to a specific question, and am now done.

On the chemical front, the cops called in a private commercial environmental company to identify, classify and dispose of the chemicals. And now they want the victim to pay for those services, and are prepared to force him to do so in a judicisal process by couching this in terms of FINES.

This is not merely the Sherrif of Nottigham's men pillaging but the Sherrif then charging the peasants for the salaries of the pillagers.

[Edited on 16-9-2007 by Sauron]

Mr. Wizard - 15-9-2007 at 22:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron
True Grit:

Pettifogging Lawyer: "Marshal Cogburn, did you advance on old man Wharton with your deadly six shot revolver loaded and cocked?"

Rooster: "Well, a gun that is UNloaded and cocked ain't good for nothing!"

So in canada it's illegal to be prepared to defend your life and property against intruders?

Let's all sing Maple Leafe Forever! (not)

I just had to add to this, from "The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly"

Blondie to Tuco: "You see in this world there's two kinds of people my friend - those with loaded guns, and those who dig. You dig."

Attachment: dig.wav (59kB)
This file has been downloaded 1158 times

Sauron - 15-9-2007 at 22:08

Not to mention Eli Wallach's best line in same movie, delivered from bubble bath after dispatching a verbose assassin wannabe:

IF YOU GOT TO SHOOT, SHOOT! DON'T TALK!

Cascade Of Events

MadHatter - 16-9-2007 at 08:17

Sounds like one thing led to another:

1) Someone calls pork with a complaint.
2) Upon arrival, pork either spots or complainer points out firearms in violation of law.
3) On further inspection by pork or snitching by complainer, chemicals are determined to
be "unsafe" - storage problems, incompatibilities, or a pure overreaction by pork/complainer.

So the complainer gets his/her way and another citizen of Canada is totally fucked over.

I've been in simlar situations. Last time a roommate threatened to call ATF over my pyro
supplies because I jumped on him about being an asshole when he gets drunk, not working,
and treating my home like a dump. Now he's the one in jail until the New Year ! Serves the
fucker right ! Whiny snitches belong in jail !

I sincerely hope things work out well for this gentleman. In some ways it sounds like what
YT's friend is going through for a homemade roman candle.

Magpie - 16-9-2007 at 10:48

I will bet that most people store chemicals improperly. Not intentionally, but just due to laziness or ignorance.

Some possible examples:

1. 3% or 35% H2O2 stored next to charcoal lighter fluid, paint thinner, gas line anti-freeze (methanol), etc

2. Laundry bleach (Na hypochlorite) or swimming pool Ca(OCl)2) similarly stored near lighter fluid, paint thinner, etc

3. Muriatic acid (for concrete cleaning, etc) and drain cleaner (93%H2SO4) not stored in an acid cabinet.

4. Gasoline and other solvents not stored in proper containers.

If the police were called in to investigate a burglary or vandalism at these peoples' home, and they happened to see any of these illegal storage practices, would they even say anything? My bet is no.

It is only when the police see multiple chemicals in unfamiliar containers do they get excited. Proper labels with chemical names or formulas just scare them. So even if there is nothing illegal they assume that something nefarious is very possibly afoot. They make a judgement to 1) steal that persons property, 2) embarass him before his friends and neighbors, 3) make him pay for the costs of chemical disposal, and 4) very possibly arrest him.

Now if the police turn out to be completely wrong and the person has some means, he may sue. He may even win in court and receive a substantial award for damages. Are the police who made the bad judgement ever brought to account? Not likely, it is just another day on the job for them, and they lose no sleep over it. Insurance covers the monetary award to the person. This judgement is buried in a small article on page 7 of the local newspaper. The orginal raid was front page news with sensationalist language.

In the meantime what has happened to the innocent persons peace of mind, career, family relations, and reputation?

Unfortunately I don't think this situation is going to get any better. Politicians get votes promoting this kind of action by the police. Apparently the general public likes it this way.

franklyn - 16-9-2007 at 17:21

Having in your possession what may be deemed to be an arbitrarily large amount
of cash is reason enough for the cash to be " arrested " on suspicion that it may
be from unlawful traffic or contraband. You however are free to go if there is no
reason to detain you. You will subsequently have to show cause before a court
magistrate and to the satisfsction of the district attorney that said money has
legitimate provenance in order to reclaim it.
Actual reported cases that I can recall are :

A man driving a pickup truck is stopped by highway police on some pretext and
when searched has something around 15,000 dollars which is confiscated by the
police although after being arrested he is released without charges. It takes him
some 2 years to have a court order the " release " of the money back to him.

Two men enter a bank branch and ask to open an account and deposit something
around 200,000 dollars cash. Upon exiting the bank they encounter several police
cruisers with policemen pointing weapons at them and they are arrested.
The money is deemed to be illicit untill the legitimacy of having that much in cash
can be substantiated.

One can hardly say no harm done when such an affair at the least results in
hefty expenditures for legal council.

.

Sauron - 16-9-2007 at 18:15

Assuming we are talking bout the US, that is Federal civil property forfeiture, enacted by Congress, and enthusiastically applied willy-nilly by local law enforcement, state and federal agencies, who split half the take with the DEA.

No arrest or criminal charge is required. All that is necessary is that "trained narcotics investigators", i.e., any Barney Fyfe who has taken a short course in drug enforcement, deems that the property (cash, vehicles, real property) was obtained from traffic in drugs, or was going to be used for the purpose of financing same. The district attorney has nothing to do with this process. The burden of proof, in Federal court, to recover your property is on you to prove that the property was not for the alleged illicit purpose, or obtained illicitly.

IMO this is absolutelky unconstitutional denial of due process.

Some egregious examples:

A charter air service operator takes a charter to fly a well dressed middle aged white male from airport to airport. The guy looks like a banker. On anding the place was met by the DEA and the "banker" arrested. The airplane is confiscated!

By that principle a taxi or a municipal bus or an Amtrak train or a commercial jetlines used by a drug suspect might be similarly confiscated. ABSURD.

Nor does the money need to be substantial. In an example shown on 60 Minutes, a black small businessman travelled to buy some items for his tree farm, he had $200 on him. He was stopped and questioned and his $200 confiscated. ABSURD.

In the same segment Ed Badlee tried to pay for an airline ticket with cash. The ticket agent called the police who started to question Badlee with a view toward snatching whatever $$ he had on him. This went on till he identified himself as a CBS TV journalist. Bear in mind this happened 20 years ago and this sort of bullshit has only gotten worse since.

And they call it a free country!

I am a fish - 17-9-2007 at 01:45

"[No person shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

-- 5th Ammendment to the US Constitution

It seems that I know more about US law than the US congress. (Despite the fact that I have never even visited America.)

Of course, I am probably being too generous. In reality, many of them know that the law is blatantly unconstitutional. Unfortunately they just don't care. They're just banking upon the fact that most of the victims will be too poor to mount a legal challenge.

Sauron - 17-9-2007 at 02:42

Clearly the Congress thinks that the exigencies of the drug war override the due process clause of the Constitution. I disagree and that is one of th reasons why I live elsewhere.

Note also that entering or leaving the US, US Customs requires declaration of cash or negotiables (like, what is the limit on your credit card(s)?) if $10,000 or above. Fail to declare and the money can be confiscated and you can be criminally charged with a federal currency violation.

I have a friend who trades in used Roleses. He buys the out of fashion gaudy diamond studded ones in US and sells them in Asia where they are still in demand. He buys the plain vanilla ones in Asia and sells them in USA where they are preferred. He carries a lot of cash for this purpose and has been hassled many times by US Customs and the IRS who have so much as accused him of being some sort of money launderer. Bullshit. He's a second hand watch trader.

When my Japanese ex wife moved to USA she had stashed about $2500 worth of Japanese 10,000-Yen notes in her bag. Customs found it and got all hot and bothered, they questioned her for about 45 minutes till a currency specialist told them that the exchange rate meant that the amount was way under the violation level. My ex was not impressed. Welcome to Amerika!

franklyn - 29-7-2008 at 19:26

This is how bad things have gotten where I am, read it and weep.
http://www.nycourts.gov/library/queens/PDF_files/nyc-15409.p...

I just received a cancellation from an Amazon.com store of an
order I put in for 5 lbs. Copper Sulfate algecide. The reason
claimed is that it's banned in my state ( NY ). Huh ! ? who new.
Anyway another order with another Amazon source is on it's way.

vulture - 30-7-2008 at 11:22

I'm starting to wonder about vitamin preparations and other similar health products. There's stuff (transition metals) in there that could be banned if this goes through. Anybody feel like filing a complaint against Merck, Pfizer or similar for putting dangerous chemicals in the hands of the public without prescription?

chloric1 - 30-7-2008 at 17:44

The encroaching restrictions are getting to be too much for me to bear. Lets be happy and merry, drink some tequila, and do a bunch of thermite reactions and hope for the best. I really need some molten chromium therapy

MagicJigPipe - 15-9-2008 at 18:38

I said I would do this a while back and I never did. Here is a transcript of the police report that was entered against me. I had a few chemicals (not related to meth; but then again, what isn't?) and about 6-10 pieces of glassware put up in a cabinet. The maintenance man broke into the apartment and called the cops because he found that stuff. Here is a transcript :

Criminal Activity: C Cultivating/Manufacturing/Pu
Suspected Using Drugs: check
Suspected Using Compute: check (because they took my laptop I guess)

DRUGS:

Drug Type: N/A
Drug Amount: N/A
Drug Measurement: N/A

On 01/18/06 we received a call from ****** at the ****** Apt. in reference to a possible Meth. Lab. When we arrived she stated the the apt. listed had been vacated on 1/16/06 by the suspect listed above [obviously not]. She stated that the maintenance man went into inspect the apt. and found possible remnants of a Meth Lab [notice capitalization of "Meth Lab"]. They immediately called the P.D. and myself and Sgt. Gilbert responded to the apartment complex. When we arrived we received written consent from ****** *****, the apt. manager to search the apartment. Inside the apt. myself and Sgt. Gilbert discovered chemical's and other remnants of a Meth Lab [nice assumption dipshit] and immediately backed out of the apt. and secured it and called Lt. Mcphail and the Little Rock P.D. Meth Lab team. When Lt. Mcphail arrived we turned the scene over to him. The printout on the suspect that was living there last is included in the case file along with a photo. There is nothing further at this time.

--This was before I came home and got arrested. Imagine my surprise when I got home and my apartment had been broken into, my glassware broken, my chemicals gone and the rest of my stuff rifled-through and trashed. I was about to call the cops myself!

This is proof that police automatically assume that any kind of glassware/chemicals is part of a "Meth. Lab".

(they never apologized)(and they tried to say I was making a bomb because I had mercury switches)

[Edited on 9-16-2008 by MagicJigPipe]