I guess it’s hard to get upset about police state tactics when there’s no easy way to blame George W. Bush for it:
“I’ve been (Garfield County Sheriff Lou Vallario’s) longtime supporter, but I tell you what, to send a SWAT team down there was just absolutely over the hill,” he said. “Inappropriate is not nearly strong enough a word. It was gross irresponsibility and stupidity. … Is this Russia? I don’t know what we’re coming to when they think your kid needs medical help and they send a SWAT team.”
You think? Tam has more. So does Uncle.
UPDATE: Other sources are indicating to me that the state isn’t entirely insane here:
A search warrant and order for medical treatment says there was good reason to believe Jon needed treatment. It states that two social services caseworkers tried to explain to Tom Shiflett they believed the boy needed medical treatment after observing injuries including a “huge hematoma” and a sluggish pupil. They offered to pay for treatment, and said they would have to obtain a court order for treatment if they couldn’t get Shiflett’s consent, the warrant says.
That would justify the warrant in my opinion.
“Shiflett shouted at this worker and advised this worker that if he obtained a court order, he better ‘bring an army,'” the warrant states.
A first responder with West Care Ambulance wrote in an affidavit that she and others in an ambulance crew also believed the boy needed medical treatment.
The responder wrote that paramedics left the residence for fear of their safety after Tom Shiflett refused to let them treat his son and became “verbally abusive” to the ambulance crew.
OK, that probably warranted sending out a few officers to serve the warrant, but the SWAT team?
From that same article:
But Talbott said he was there when paramedics responded, and that Shiflett was not yelling or acting abusive. He only asked them to leave, Talbott said, and paramedics were in fact acting belligerent.
I suppose, IF the paramedics told the police that he was being abusive and/or threatening, the police could justify bringing extra help. But showing up with the whole SWAT team, and then no-knock entering? Not good.
In order to get the warrant, someone would have to make statements under oath, under penalty of perjury. But yeah, it’s not good that the SWAT team became involved.
That would justify the warrant in my opinion.
You would be wrong. As it happens Shifflet was as qualified as any of the EMT personnel and proof of that is the doctor who examined the kid immediately released him and sent him home.
You overlook the fact that this man was a medic in Viet Nam, had 10 children, most older than the child in question and had much experience with bumps and bruises.
I think they are all lucky that the man only wants to sue them. That would not be my response. Nobody grabs my kids or invades my home without serious penalty. They had better be right with their maker. They may win the initial sneak attack, but they dare not leave me alive.
So, are you saying the government can never interfere with parental rights in order to safeguard the welfare of children under their care? Or that this was just not a case where there should have been intervention? If you mean the latter, I can see your point. In the end that appears to have been the case. But warrants are issued on probable cause, which is a lower standard than absolute proof. If I had health care workers testifying to me under oath that there were signs of hematoma and concussion, and that the parent was acting wild and erratic, I’m liable to sign the warrant. If they turn out to be lying, well, the contempt charge is going to be hell, never mind the perjury charge.
I’m also not knocking the guy’s suit. If he feels his rights were violated he has ever right to sue the government for the transgression.
What I am saying is you do not assault my home under any pretext, ever. It is not my concern what they were told. They should have knocked on the damn door and explained why they were there and asked to see the kid. They should have asked the neighbors what they saw. That would have ended it right there.
They didn’t, they assaulted the man’s home. There is no forgiveness or understanding for that if done to mine. Especially not when you shove guns in the face of my children who have done nothing.
You do what you want. I will do what I must.
Do not try to make this about child welfare. It was not. It was about a minor functionary or two being pissed because they didn’t get their way. It is not my concern that a magistrate made a mistake in believing them. He should not have, he had a duty to take more care in issuing the warrant knowing how deadly these police assaults usually are. He would pay a price, even if he honestly believed he did right. I don’t give a good goddamn how anybody rationalizes actions such as this.
My home is inviolate and if it is not, then the field has been expanded and the fetters of society and law removed from me, so that I may engage them appropriately by the light of their actions.
As for your diversionary tactic of inserting the child abuse question, I can see how attacking his home and family probably makes him feel sooooo secure. This was not the way to do it. To suggest that I somehow support child abuse is stupid and angers me greatly. You wouldn’t want to be near me at the moment.
What I am saying is you do not assault my home under any pretext, ever. It is not my concern what they were told. They should have knocked on the damn door and explained why they were there and asked to see the kid. They should have asked the neighbors what they saw. That would have ended it right there.
I don’t disagree with you on that part.