On 2005-01-16 06:50:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2005-01-15 23:39:00, Anonymous wrote:
He (after a w) committed suicide by loading himself up on pills. None of anyones business here.. but theres the deal. Pick it apart all you clowns want. :roll: "
What's a W? I'm not picking apart anything. I'm always sad when I hear that a kid that was in one of those places commits suicide. It happens quite a bit. "
"
So, what we seem to have here is the following:
Young person commits suicide.
Before he commits suicide it appears that:
He attended AARC.
He had been charged with a criminal offence for which he was on probation:
While on probation he committed a much more serious offence (attempted murder)
While charges against him were pending he committed suicide.
He was basically a nice guy.
He is presumed to have a "drug problem"
The question is:
Did his drug problem cause the suicide?
Did his treatment at AARC cause the suicide?
Did his fear of the consequences of his charges cause the suicide?
I think we have some extremely serious assumptions her and we need to know whether the chicken came first or the egg.
Was he in AARC before or after his first set of charges?
Was he placed there by his parents or by the Solicitor-General?
Of course, there could well be a cover-up because Ron Stevens, who is on the record as endorsing AARC in 1999 (see AARC's web page) is now the Attorney General for the Province, and who's going to believe a few disgruntled AARC survivors when some of our most senior government officials support it?
And do not think that cover-ups don't occur in KKKlein's Alberta. Right now there is an enquiry going on into how a young offender came to fall down an elevator shaft and be killed in the courthouse in Edmonton. But THAT is another story...
If he was so unhappy that he would "load himself up with pills" you have to ask why he was in that state. No explanation from AARC groupies really seems to address that problem. And Dean Vause is probably just too stupid to understand the significance of that question.