TheAgitator.com
Sheriff: SWAT Team Necessary Because Man Is a “Self-Proclaimed Constitutionalist”
Tuesday, January 8th, 2008Nearly a dozen members of a police SWAT team in western Colorado punched a hole in the front door and invaded a family’s home with guns drawn, demanding that an 11-year-old boy who had had an accidental fall accompany them to the hospital, on the order of Garfield County Magistrate Lain Leoniak.
The boy’s parents and siblings were thrown to the floor at gunpoint and the parents were handcuffed in the weekend assault, and the boy’s father told WND it was all because a paramedic was upset the family preferred to care for their son themselves.
The boy had apparently fallen and bumped his head. His father, who says he was a medic in Vietnam, says he examined the boy, determined he was fine, and saw no need to take him to the hospital. A paramedic called by neighbors forced his way into the home, then called police when the father refused to let the son go to thie hospital.
The police then sent social workers, who according to the Associated Press reported "a huge hematoma and a sluggish pupil." That night, they sent in the SWAT team.
As it turns out, the kid was fine. After the raid, a doctor examined him, and told him to drink some fluids and take a Tylenol.
I’m even more troubled by the explanation for the aggressive tactics:
The sheriff said the decision to use SWAT team force was justified because the father was a "self-proclaimed constitutionalist" and had made threats and "comments" over the years.
However, the sheriff declined to provide a single instance of the father’s illegal behavior. "I can’t tell you specifically," he said.
"He was refusing to provide medical care," the sheriff said.
However, the sheriff said if his own children were involved in an at-home accident, he would want to be the one to make decisions on their healthcare, as did Shiflett.
"I guess if that was one of my children, I would make that decision," the sheriff said.
But he said Shiflett was "rude and confrontational" when the paramedics arrived and entered his home without his permission.
Shiflett also home schools his kids. By the sheriff’s own admission, then, the show of force was more about Shiflet’s political beliefs and desire to be left alone than any real child neglect. "Constitutionalists," beware.
This shouldn’t surprise anyone since the FBI has for years considered it a sign that you might be a domestic terrorist if you have a copy of the U.S. Constitution on you in public.
But he said Shiflett was “rude and confrontational” when the paramedics arrived and entered his home without his permission.
——————————————
Go figure. Wonder what’d happen if they saw my “COME BACK WITH A WARRANT” welcome mat-an airstrike?
Not that I disagree with the AP news story nor do I not find these types of tactics disturbing – but I didn’t get the memo – when did we start accepting WorldNetDaily has a reliable news source for anything?
Radley, you should make this a poster case for the over utilization of SWAT teams. For those who continue to doubt your points about police militarization, this case offers none of the typical ways to weasel out of a real debate- there are no drugs involved and no mention of even the possibility of violence. The only piece of information that we have from the sheriff was that the father was “rude and confrontational.”
The problem of police use of military style force isn’t about the relative merits of the particular laws they are seeking to enforce- hopefully, with a case like this, you could be of the point of view that police intervention was entirely neccessary and appropriate while comprehending that there was no need for a military style raid on the home. I personally don’t beleive the police had any business interfering, but that’s really besides the point. The point is, does anyone in their right mind really think that it’s a good idea for a SWAT team to bust in with military force in this situation?
It actually made me think back to Elian Gonzalez- remember the pictures of that poor, terrified kid? Forget about whether you thought the kid should have been sent back to Cuba or not. Even if you did think he should be sent back, why on earth did Janet Reno have to send in the SWAT team? If you can defend these uses of SWAT teams, then your basically saying that all law enforcement is so dangerous it requires military style force … or in other words you’re okay with living under military style rule.
Did the government have a warrant, at all, to enter the property? It sounds as if they did not. Can’t he sue the heck out of them for that?
Just also had to point out -
Prior to the raid, paramedics and caseworkers entered the home. So the police figured they needed to use a SWAT team because …?
Another scary issue in these cases that I don’t think has been fully appreciated is the utter compliance by various courts to the whims of these SWAT teams.
The story says that the SWAT team entered on a “court order” from a Colorado Magistrate (which is a type of judge). It’s not clear whether there was a warrant or not, but a court order comes pretty close.
We have these two-bit judges rubber-stamping all sorts of dynamic entries without providing the sort of scrutiny that due process really requires.
Going back to the Lima case, there were warrants in that case. But, given the obvious questions that we see after the fact, why did the judge even grant the warrant in the first place? Why grant a warrant for a dynamic entry when the subject of the arrest could easily been arrested if they just waited for him to go out?
yoshi,
I don’t think you should confuse WND’s reporting with the views of its numerous [and often wacky] columnists. WND’s reporting is typically more accurate than that of, say, the NY Times or the AP, though some might argue that being more accurate than the AP isn’t saying very much.
In any case (to amplify Henry Bowman’s point), the local daily (the Post Independent) has the story today. WND just scooped them. Time was, folks thought getting there first with the facts was good journalism.
Ahhh… I love the smell of fascism in the morning.
You’d better mind your P’s and Q’s folks, or the men in black will come take you away. Remember, it’s for your own good!
Usually it is for your own good, Robert.
In this case, it was for the good of the children!
Both equally effective in explaining away the most grotesque infractions upon the most basic (perhaps not any longer?) liberties we have.
“But he said Shiflett was “rude and confrontational” when the paramedics arrived and entered his home without his permission.”
Well duh. They would a paramedic for the paramedic if it was my house.
Is there any mention of this anywhere but WND? It seems to me to be a perfect storm of events guaranteed to yank folks’ chains.
That is it was written to cause gnashing of teeth and rending of garments in order to make people look foolish in their reaction to the “story”.
Yes it has been mentioned in the AP, the glenwood springs paper and was on the front of http://www.thedenverchannel.com website which is the Denver ABC station.
Parents take note. If you don’t cheerfully bend over backwards cooperating with the “authorities”, and they will decide what constitutes cooperation, they’ll send in the SWAT team to rescue your children.
Local paper’s account:
http://www.postindependent.com/article/20080108/VALLEYNEWS/248366321
Liberty and freedom entail a degree of personal responsibility, and neither allows someone to abuse or neglect their children. Unfortunately, there are some parents like that, and it is the function of good government to protect those that might be helpless from such abuse.. It seems from reading the IP article that the boy suffered a severe head injury…paramedics were called but not allowed to examine the injury… children services recommendations to consult a physcian were not taken…a court order, served by two deputies, to have the boy examined was ignored.
It is sad when a child dies or is injured due to parental neglect…it it front page news when Children services has an opportunity to intervene to prevent such an occurence AND FAILS.
These people were just doing their jobs, the father was completely uncooperative given his child had just suffered a head injury.
TAKE THE KID TO A DOCTOR , JERK!
Wow, I got a -1 for asking a question. Thin skinned much, pal?
So it did happen….huge payouts and public executions should follow but probably won’t.
As a Paramedic in NY, I can tell you that parents most of time are confrontational, they are upset that a child is hurt and now must leave that child under the care of a stranger, its upsetting at the very least, they have a feeling of helplessness, but first and for most we DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to enter anyone’s homes without permission, if I see a person unconscious on the floor through the window, that may change the response a little, but as for the use of a SWAT team, a little excessive. In the past 20 years on the job I can count on both hands the time we needed police intervention in regards to pt. safety.
HitsRus
(who’s Rus, and why do you hit him?)
Try reading for comprehension – after the SWATties swatted the family they took the kid to the ‘doc, who “immediately released” the kid with a recommendation for liquids and Tylenol. No parental neglect, just routine abuse of authority.
Cops acting like they are medical experts? And parmedicis – how much training do they get, six months or a year?? Social workers-identifying “serious head injuries”? I can imagine the training they have had! So, why should a parent question what the paramedics or social workers had to say? Maybe because, in the end, the doctor said these “help” groups were WRONG. The doctors are being second guessed by all kinds of wanna be doctors, all of the time! Why should a parent not suffer the same behaviour? Any recourse for the stress place on the child and the family? If I was taken to the doctors office every time I had an accident, when I was a child, my parents would still be paying on the bills, since they were uninsured much of the time, because of poverty! The man, whose son was injured, had more ability than any of his “advisors”! Being a medic really helped his judgement. His opinion was the same as a, well trained, doctor’s. Police state at its best. I fear for the people!
Citizen!!!
Just shut up and follow orders!
That IS the USA today. Just imagine if the father in this case had a bit of beer-breath.
Nobody gets it anymore. They won’t, until the black shirts come for them and theirs.
Their “dawn” at that moment will be way too late.
God Bless America. He did, back when it existed.
No more.
TFB
jb
24 hours later…
Frankly, I expected to find my fingers spanked for putting “good” and “government” next to each other in the same sentence, but I’m disappointed that no one on this site embraced a basic tenet of liberatarianism….the concept of personal responsibility. Sure it’s easy to decry the unnecessary overuse of force….that’s a d’uh. Everyone wants to talk about jack booted storm troopers kicking down doors.
It’s alot harder to hold someone accountable for bringing on the mess himself. What kind of parent denies his child medical care/evaluation when it’s recommended…it’s offered…and it’s available free of charge?
(my reading comprehension is fine Scott) The kid had a ‘huge hematoma and a sluggish pupil’ which suggests to me( a health care worker with significant experience) that he suffered at least a moderately severe concussion with possible facial or skull fracture. Of course there is no way to tell without a thorough examination and an X-ray. The fact that the kid turned out to be okay is no excuse for the man putting his son at risk, anymore than the fact that no one got hurt is an excuse for the massive overuse of force.
Forgive me if I don’t see a paramedic as a government agent.
Permit me to discount this man’s medical competence(a medic in the Army 40 years ago) .
Grant me the opportunity to point out that Locke and Paine and others stated that the people are antecedent to the Constitution, and the Constitution forms the government. The government is not some single minded creature bent on destroying liberty…it’s us, man! What damage to liberty that has been done has been done by the people! We need to change that…we need the people to change that. It is the unfortunate history of this republic, that when individuals or organizations fail to ‘police’ themselves or act responsibly, agencies of the government step in. Worse, ‘we the people’ demand that they intervene. We might not like or agree with that…but it is reality. We need to stop making excuses for irresponsible idiots hiding their excesses, neglect or abuses behind the coattails of the Constitution.
When the sheriff explained the boy’s father was a Constitutionalist, I wish the journalist would have asked “What’s wrong with that?” I would like to have heard the sheriff’s response to that. Military officers have to take an oath to uphold the Constitution “from all enemies, foreign and domestic”. Does that mean this sheriff would use the SWAT team when dealing with military folk? Funny: we always hear a lot about foreign enemies of the Constitution, not so much about the domestic enemies. I can’t say about the whole Constitution, but this sheriff certainly seems to be an enemy of the Fourth Ammendment (illegal search and seizure).
Hear Tom Shiflett tell what really happened. http://www.generationswithvision.com/broadcast.html
Scroll down to the segment for Tuesday January 14 and click to hear audio.
Trust
Anarchists like to talk about “the n+1 problem.” This refers to the fact that, in any government, you have a division between citizens (sheep) and authorities (herders). However, the authorities are sheep as well, since they are also citizens and are not given by nature any greater wisdom or ability. Because centralized government requires passive citizens obeying its rules, and for that reason needs people to enforce those rules, it can be said that for every n citizens there must be a certain number of authority figures. Here is where it gets complicated: because these authority figures are also citizens, and thus we cannot assume that they either will obey all of the rules, government must watch itself, in order to be fair. Thus for every n citizens, you need a certain number of watchers, and another number of watcher watchers. This adds up to the equation that for every n citizens you need at least n+1 watchers to keep society working fairly. Obviously, this is mathematically impossible.
What is missing here is trust. Trust, however, cannot occur when you have a society divided between people assumed to be doing wrong (citizens) and those assumed to be doing right (watchers). Furthermore, trust is nearly impossible when you have a government in Washington, D.C. which is trying to administer laws to places as different as Seattle, Washington and Mobile, Alabama. The only way one achieves trust is a society in which there is no division between citizens and watchers, and for that reason the responsibility to work well with one another is thrust back onto the citizens. When this happens, those who can trust each other exclude those who are irresponsible, forcing them to create their own social group to ensure their survival.
http://www.anarchy.net/anarchy/anarchy_manifesto/
This wouldn’t have happened in an anarchist society. Terrible, terrible abuse of power and trust.