A Michigan court ordered the removal of a 2-year-old boy from his father because the father had allegedly smoked marijuana in the boy's presence. As marijuana is not a drug approved by the government, unlike the most deadly drugs tobacco and alcohol which are A-OK, police were ordered to take the boy from the man through force.
Unfortunately, the police killed the man in the process because he allegedly engaged in an act of self-defense with a pocket knife. The highest skepticism should be applied to those claims as it appears there was no outside witnesses, excluding, of course, the man's 2-year-old son, who presumably watched his father be murdered.
The Herald Times reports:
GRAYLNG — The fatal shooting of William Reddie, 32, by a Crawford County Sheriff’s Department deputy during the “emergency removal” of his 2-year-old son from an apartment they shared has many of his friends crying foul.
A Michigan State Police probe has concluded the shooting was justified because Reddie had a pocketknife and lunged at police.
“I can’t believe they (police) could not subdue Will without killing him, and over what, marijuana,” said Joanne Michal, who knew Reddie for half of his life. “Why didn’t police just arrest him or cite him for marijuana instead of removing his child?”
Workers from the Department of Human Services along with the sheriff’s deputy and an officer from the Grayling City Police went to Reddie’s apartment with a court order to remove the minor child because Reddie had allegedly smoked marijuana in the presence of his son. Reddie was agitated and had allegedly threatened police when confronted with the marijuana accusation earlier in the day on Feb. 3.
The court order of Feb. 3, obtained by the Herald Times pursuant to a Freedom of Information request, indicated the minor child’s removal from Reddie’s custody for the following reason: “There are reasonable grounds for this court to remove the child(ren) from the parent ... because conditions or surroundings of the child(ren), and is contrary to the welfare of the child(ren) to remain in the home because: It is alleged that the father used marijuana in the home in the presence of the child. In addition, there is concern for the safety of the child due to a domestic disturbance and threats made toward law enforcement by the father.”
[...]“It is particularly sad that Will was shot to death right in front of his son,” she said. “I was married to a 30-year infantry man and my son is a sharpshooter in the Army. You never take your gun out of the holster unless you’re ready to use it. Why not use a Taser? Even if he (Will) had a knife and lunged at police, they didn’t have to kill him. Instead of using a Taser, you shoot him in front of his child. It is just totally unjustified. They didn’t have to kill him. I think it’s very sad that his life was taken during the removal of his son. And the smell of marijuana shouldn’t have been a reason for an emergency order.
“Just a few days before he was killed, Will was visiting, and he was so excited because a hearing was coming up for custody (of his son),” Michal continued. “And it seemed to give him hope of getting permanent custody. His son was everything to him.”
[...]According to court records, the child is now in a foster care home and his future remains uncertain. Read the full story here.
|
