Police state

arbilad · Head Chef

Police state

LoudmouthMormon · Profuse Pontificator

The more WND articles I read, the more it becomes apparent that not only do you get only one side of the story there, they also seem to enjoy adding melodrama and sensational outrage where none belongs.

I'm thinking in this particular story, they're adding melodrama by glossing over the reason a judge was convinced a SWAT team was necessary, instead of just an officer and social worker.
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.
When I hear the left writing sentences like this, I calls them on it. Selecive use of quotes and unwarranted conclusions being drawn from quotes ain't right. Even if it's being done by someone on my side. I'm a homeschooling staunch conservative who is itching for a chance to fight the 4th amendment fight with a social worker and cop at my door. But dang, WND, I can tell you ain't doing this story justice.

What did the dad do, that convinced a magistrate to allow such overpowering force? What did the ambulance crew witness?

It's quite possible that this is indeed a story of da man oppressin' da rights of da little guy. But I'd like to hear the rest of the story before leaping to that conclusion.

LM

Ros · Senior Member

I agree, LM.

When did this happen? There are no dates. It could have been 10 years ago, on a friday.

The drama is evident. This is not an article that would be printed in a standard newspaper.

I haven't been able to find any other article referring to it. A swat team literally breaks down a door and puts guns in childrens faces and it's not reported anywhere?

Not buying it. There's more to this.

arbilad · Head Chef

LM, they were quoting the Sheriff on that part. Granted, they weren't using the whole quote. They were just quoting terms like "self proclaimed constitutionalist". So we don't know the whole context. But what context could reasonably connect what was supposedly a child welfare case with the words "self proclaimed constitutionalist"?
Also, if the father was really guilty of something, it seems very likely that it would be easier to find the story in other news sources, such as the local paper. They like promoting sensationalist stuff. But when it comes to police state actions like this, where the sheriff's office was operating well outside its authority, they're trying to avoid publicity as much as possible.

arbilad · Head Chef

BTW, I perused the website of the local paper, www.postindependent.com, and there is absolutely no mention of this story. Doesn't that seem weird? The Sheriff's office isn't denying that it happened. So something happened involving the SWAT team and this family. And yet a small town newspaper doesn't report on it. Doesn't that seem weird to you? A SWAT team breaking into a house and seizing a child suddenly isn't newsworthy?
So yes, we're getting only one side of the story. So I think it's worthwhile to ask, Why is the other side of the story conspicuously absent? The Sheriff's office doesn't deny that it happened. In my experience every newspaper I've ever subscribed to has erred on the side of overreporting stuff concerning law enforcement actions, not underreporting it.
But in any case, a SWAT raid like that would only make sense if the child's life was in imminent danger. There is absolutely no evidence that that was the case, nor does anyone appear to make the assertion that it was. Heck, Social Services visited a day before the raid. If they thought that there was imminent danger, they wouldn't have waited that long to ask law enforcement to step in.
So, there was no imminent danger. What's the justification behind destruction of private property, pointing loaded weapons, handcuffing the parents, etc?

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

The self proclaimed constitutionalists around here could be more accurately described as white supremacists. If that is the case where this occurred that would answer the SWAT response.

Ros · Senior Member

arbilad wrote:

BTW, I perused the website of the local paper, www.postindependent.com, and there is absolutely no mention of this story. Doesn't that seem weird? A SWAT team breaking into a house and seizing a child suddenly isn't newsworthy?

Exactly. It seems wierd. But not in the way you are implying, not to me.

To me, an overzealous SWAT team busting down doors when there is no valid reason is FAR more newsworthy than a neglectful parent.

The fact that there is no other info tells me that it wasn't nearly as dramatic as the writer would like it to be.

Unless you're suggesting the Sherrif is capable of mafia-type intimidation, preventing anyone from telling the story--which would actually be a whole other story that ANY reporter would jump all over. Seems unlikely.

arbilad · Head Chef

If it was a simply case of an allegedly neglectful parent, then you're right, it's not newsworthy. But in this case the SWAT team broke down their door, pointed a gun at the older daughter, and handcuffed the parents. That is not normal, and certainly newsworthy. So you have to ask yourself, why is it not being reported? I'm not buying the explanation that a SWAT team breaking down the door wouldn't make the local paper in a small town. So something is not normal about this, and it stinks.
If you doubt that the SWAT team actually did break down the door and take the kid into custody, follow the link in the article to the Sheriff's office contact info. Ask them.
This is another example of government using force to impose its will. It wasn't even necessary in this case - the kid had nothing wrong with him.

DaKnife · Senior Member

Or maybe that it didn't even really happen. Or what did happen was nowhere near as interesting, but WND took it's usual tabloid path of embellishing the truth beyond truthfulness. Especially since this article once again involves Home-schoolers. This is a repeating theme from WND home-schoolers are recipients of unbelievably excessive reactions by the authorities.

And a referenced source is once again the Home School Legal Defense Association, It just adds up to a very questionable article. Especially since as noted above, no date or time of this alleged event are given. Plus as you were unable to find verification in the legit news. All this leads me to call BS on WND.

arbilad · Head Chef

Daknife, instead of questioning the source (and, to my knowledge, WND has never been successfully called on making up the facts for a story, unlike the NY Times), you should find out if it happened. Contact the Sheriff's office and find out. Otherwise your skepticism is unimpressive. It's easy to mock a source you don't like. It's harder to deal with the facts of the story.
And it is an established fact that the authorities have pulled some pretty outlandish stunts on homeschoolers, so it is disingenuous to mock the story on that basis as well.

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

Here's your Post Independent article about the incident. Apparently the local press is not being suppressed by the evil sheriff afterall.

LoudmouthMormon · Profuse Pontificator

"Shiflett shouted at this worker and advised this worker that if he obtained a court order, he better 'bring an army,'" the warrant states.

Gee - imagine that. Some random nut brings down da man on himself through his own stupid belligerent dangerous threatening idiotic moronic foolish actions, and then cries foul when he gets what he asked for.

And then WND holds him up as a hero, completely supressing the part about how da man's decision to show up with overwhelming force was a rational, justifiable, common sense decision, intended to minimize the chance of danger to all parties involved.

And then normal Americans, always on the lookout for legitimate abuses of power, fall in lockstep behind the hero.

Fortunately, someone looked a bit deeper here on this board.

I think it's time that I formally and officially distance myself from WND. I've appreciated their forceful conservative voice in the past, but dangit, they just pull too many of these dumb onesided, agenda-forwarding, sensationalizing, yellow-journalismish stunts to be considered a reliable source any longer.

If I'm a bit wordy, it's because I'm dissapointed that one of the 'good guys' is acting so immaturely. WND, clean up your act. The world is a better place when only the liberals use these childish tactics to blindside people into their way of thinking.

LM

-- Edited by LoudmouthMormon at 08:55, 2008-01-08

-- Edited by LoudmouthMormon at 09:21, 2008-01-08

arbilad · Head Chef

The Post article also covers other points of view, such as the owner of the mobile home park who called the action grossly irresponsible. I still say that sending a SWAT team to take a kid in for testing is a gross abuse of police power.
Thanks, Bok, for finding that article. I hadn't thought to look today, and that article adds a lot of info that WND didn't have. Too bad it wasn't posted yesterday.

LoudmouthMormon · Profuse Pontificator

I read what the mobile home owner had to say as well, and yes, it initially had an impact. Then I noticed he was also a columnist for the Post Independent. His most recent column - dated end of December - sheds a bit of light on his notions about govt.

Anyway, here's what I draw from the whole matter.

If the police went overboard, that's not really new news. It happens every now and then, and it's important to keep an eye on, and highlight when it happens.

If the dad was a loose cannon who threatened violence, and brought it on himself, that's not really new news either. There's lots and lots of loose cannons out there, and they're important to keep an eye on, and somtimes it's in everyone's best interests to have a swat team show up and kneel on his neck for a while.

What is news out of this whole thing (at least news to me), is that you can pretty much trust WND to NOT tell the whole story. When reading anything they produce, the default gut reaction should be "I wonder what they're leaving out, that makes this story not worth a single ounce of outrage or adrenalin."

(At least, that's my conclusion I draw from this whole thread.)

LM

Ros · Senior Member

Again, I agree with LM

If I had read a balanced, normally written article, I would have been on the family's side. But when i get a half cocked, not complete, dramatized version, it looses credibility. And it doesn't come back.

I've seen both sides. Here in Uah there was a family whose son was diagnosed with cancer and told he needed chemo. A second opinion was not so sure. The family decided to wait. The state thought they shouldn't. They actually fled the state to avoid having their son removed and put on chemo.

I struggled with it because I'm the first one to tell the government (principles, teachers, etc) that I will do whatever I see fit with my own kid. But, if this boy died, there would be serious repercussions for the family. I hoped they were really praying and listening and confident in their choices. Turns out, they were. Whew.

On the other hand, I know a woman who, when her kids were deathly ill with flu-like symptoms, she tied bags of onions to thier feet. (if any of you do this as a standard course of treatment--I'm sorry--but wt??!) No doctors, no tylenol. Does she know how many brain cells a high fever can kill?? Sometimes it's hard to trust the judgment of unconventional parenting. I would rather err on the side of safety.

If this man had shown some unconventional, untrustworthy traits in the past, how can you let what could be a life-threatening unjury go unchecked?

I'm glad he wasn't seriouslly hurt. Wouldn't it have been easier for the family to find that out at the beginning and none of this would have happened?

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I've noticed that with a lot of agenda driven internet news sites, they'll publish a story that they published months ago, sometimes they'll put something like "retrospective" on it, but not always.

--Ray

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

I also plugged the name "Tom Shiflett" into whitepages.com... and drew a blank on Glendood Springs, CO. But when I searched all of Colorado, a Tom Shiflett turned up in Pueblo, CO. Odd that the Tom Shiflett in the article didn't come up... or is it possible that's him, and he's moved since this event? But then, the regular local paper wouldn't print an old story also, would they? Rather odd, all of it.

-- Edited by bokbadok at 17:54, 2008-01-08

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

This is what I did last night:

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=2451588

and then I went to this right after:

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=2451589

that is my car in the video.

-- Edited by mirkwood at 01:30, 2008-01-09

arbilad · Head Chef

Mirk, you linked the same article twice.

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

nu-uh....

LoudmouthMormon · Profuse Pontificator

mirkwood wrote:
This is what I did last night:

In case I haven't said this to you before - THANK YOU. My wife says the job description of police officer is to constantly practice superhuman amounts of patience and self-restraint. You do a necessary job, bound by rules and laws and policies I don't think I could follow all the time.

I'm glad you were able to catch two bad guys in one night - here's hoping something good comes of it.

LM

historian · Senior Member

Ros said:
I've seen both sides. Here in Uah there was a family whose son was diagnosed with cancer and told he needed chemo. A second opinion was not so sure. The family decided to wait. The state thought they shouldn't. They actually fled the state to avoid having their son removed and put on chemo.

You are probably referring to Parker Jensen. There was a questionable diagnosis of a vicious cancer and the treatment prescribed in Utah was a more vicious type of chemo that definitely would have rendered him sterile, and possibly given him brain damage. His parents sought second opinions in California and in Texas, and Utah reached out to those doctors and insisted that they were right. I think there were even official threats of legal action against the Texas practioners.

In Utah there was an outcry against the heavy-handed enforcement of a doctor's opinion, and eventually they backed down. Parker never received chemo, and the last article I read a couple of years ago stated that he was absolutely well.

So the case you mentioned is a proof in my opinion that our government does make mistakes and is tending toward denial of rights.

During Parker's tribulation, there were protests on the Capitol steps and I was there once, waving a sign. If we don't try to preserve our rights, then we will lose them.

Ros · Senior Member

historian wrote:

So the case you mentioned is a proof in my opinion that our government does make mistakes and is tending toward denial of rights.

Exactly. My point being that the dramatic, one-sided articles actually harm the effort to retain rights.

And...that there are some situations that need intervention. I don't want the responsibility of choosing which ones.

arbilad · Head Chef

I think that government shouldn't interfere in cases of medical need at all. It's too subjective. In Parker's case, they were willing to sterilize him for life.
Also, I know that most social services people are hardworking and honest. I know a wonderful guy who works in social services and is a temple worker. He's one of the nicest people I've met. But there are also many social services workers who way overstep their bounds. For instance, there have been court cases where social workers claimed that they weren't subject to 4th amendment restrictions. There have also been documented cases of social workers threatening to take children away just to force parents to allow unsupervised interviews with the kids.
Government's job is not to make sure that problems never happen.
BTW, Mirk, well done on those cases. As much as I don't want to live in a police state, I don't want to live in a government without police either.

LoudmouthMormon · Profuse Pontificator

arbilad wrote:
I know a wonderful guy who works in social services and is a temple worker. He's one of the nicest people I've met.

Cool - maybe an opportunity for me to gain a little data about the real-world!

Does your friend work with children, and could you ask him a question? I'm wondering how aware he is about federal law that applies to children. Federal law states that a social worker must reveal the allegations/charges made, at the initial time of contact. Does your friend know this? Has he ever been trained on this law?

HSLDA is always sending out stories about social workers who either ignore this law, or are completely clueless about it. Clueless isn't their fault - it's the fault of their organization.

Nice is good. Nice and clueless is potentially dangerous, and I'll treat them like the enemy if they darken my door and demand access to my children.

LM

-- Edited by LoudmouthMormon at 13:16, 2008-01-09

arbilad · Head Chef

He doesn't deal in child services. If I weren't concerned about privacy issues, I'd give you his name and you could talk to him yourself.

historian · Senior Member

Ros said:
"Exactly. My point being that the dramatic, one-sided articles actually harm the effort to retain rights."

And I vehemently disagree with that statement.

The soft, soothing "All is well in Zion" reporting is lulling many into allowing severe abrogation of our rights.

We need to discover and protest those actions that limit our rights and freedom. Thomas Jefferson said that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

If this action hadn't been reported on a site that you don't like, you and many others would have no idea that it happened. How can you protest things you don't know about? Or are you willing to let Big Brother do anything he wants?

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

The article is deceptive and I took that to be Ros' point.

Organist · Senior Member

Re: historieans comment
Maybe it is the vehemence in your disagreement that I don't understand, but wouldn't dramatic, one sided articles actually help those who seek to say that "all is well"? It is like the boy who cries wolf. Sick of being faked out, we ignore all stories that sound like this, eventually there may even be a true one.

Re: the newspaper article.
The social workers saw a sluggish pupil, which is an incredibly ominous sign (shine a light in the eye and the pupil should get smaller, if it takes noticably longer than the other side, then it is sluggish). That means that there is some kind of intracranial swelling, which could quickly result in death. My only problem with this is that the social workers are not medical professionals, so why would a court send in a swat team upon their medical assessment?

historian · Senior Member

Regarding Organist's medical assessment - you're right, a social worker is probably not medically trained and might not accurately understand or report pupil response. However, the boy's dad was medically trained - a medic in Vietnam - and was trying to give his child appropriate care.

historian · Senior Member

From the boy's mother:

This letter is meant to act as an alarm to awaken, alert and appall any who read it.

Anyone who knows me, knows that my husband and I have studied and treated all sorts of injuries and raised 10 healthy children. We rely heavily on common sense and deep faith in God, and we would not hesitate to take a child to the hospital for any condition we deemed necessary.

On Jan. 4, our 11-year-old son fell and injured his head. We elevated his feet and put an ice pack on the injury. He was being treated with the tender care and supervision of his father and mother. But that day, Garfield County accused us of not properly caring for him. Responders to an ambulance call from a witness wanted to take him to a hospital for examination. We refused.

Late Friday evening, a fully armed S.W.A.T. team broke into our home, slammed my children to the floor face down with their hands behind their backs, and shoved a gun in my daughter's face and handcuffed her, my husband and me. The armed men in black masks took my terrified son against his wishes to Grand River Hospital, where he was examined by a doctor and interrogated by Social Services.

No evidence was found that he had not been properly taken care of. Upon his return, we were told to keep ice on his head.

To the S.W.A.T. team members defended the raid by citing orders: How far will you go in "just doing your jobs?" If you feel no guilt busting into an innocent family's home, traumatizing young children and stomping the security found therein, will you follow more horrific orders? May I remind you that in Nazi Germany, outrageous, monstrous crimes were committed by soldiers "just doing their jobs?" What will be next? Where will this stop?

Fathers, mothers, families and countrymen, consider our story and ask yourselves, "If this were my family, what would I do?" For it very well could be you.

Tina Shiflett
New Castle
http://www.postindependent.com/article/20080108/LETTER%20/328302563/-1/LETTER

edited to add link

-- Edited by historian at 12:21, 2008-01-10

historian · Senior Member

Also remember, the SWAT team picked Jon up at 11 pm and returned him at 2:30 am.

How much concern for his well-being does that display?

Want these same caring professionals in your home?
Have you ever made a decision that your neighbors disagreed with?

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

Man I hate cops.

arbilad · Head Chef

Mirk, is that said tongue in cheek, or are you on the level?

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

*snort*

Randy · Senior Member

SWAT teams should be reserved strictly for situations where life-threatening violence is imminent.

But ya form all these SWAT teams and ya gotta do somethin' with 'em I guess.

historian · Senior Member

Cops would not have been there unless the magistrate ordered it.
Magistrate would not have ordered it unless the social services recommended it.
Social services would not have recommended it if the paramedic had not called them.
Paramedics would not have been there if busybody neighbor had not called.

There is a whole line of blame there, with corresponding bad attitudes.

But even if competent authority was going to insist that the boy be examined by a doctor, why send a SWAT team at night to cuff the parents, go through their drawers, point loaded weapons at his siblings, all after breaking down their front door?

Whatever happened to treating people respectfully?

-- Edited by historian at 13:19, 2008-01-10

LoudmouthMormon · Profuse Pontificator

Now, see, a more balanced letter would say something like:

historian wrote:

From the boy's mother:

But that day, Garfield County accused us of not properly caring for him. Responders to an ambulance call from a witness wanted to take him to a hospital for examination. We refused. And my hothead husband threatened deadly force against any attempt to legally serve a warrant.

Now, we're howling like stuck pigs, because they took my husband seriously and showed up with sufficient force to minimize the chances my dumb husband could make do on his dumb threat.

I mean really - how were we to know, just because my hubby said "if you get a court order, you'd better bring an army", that they'd actually believe him? I mean really - our tactic here is to either pretend that my hubby is either a serial liar and wouldn't hurt a fly, or that he never said what he said.

Now, I'll close my rant by denying responsibility for our own actions, tossing up a few dumb slippery-slope comments, and displaying antagonism against people who sucessfully served a court order with out harm or injury to anyone involved. Oh yeah - and by mentioning Nazis. You always gotta mention Nazis when dealing with govt authority.

To the S.W.A.T. team members defended the raid by citing orders: How far will you go in "just doing your jobs?" If you feel no guilt busting into an innocent family's home, traumatizing young children and stomping the security found therein, will you follow more horrific orders? May I remind you that in Nazi Germany, outrageous, monstrous crimes were committed by soldiers "just doing their jobs?" What will be next? Where will this stop?

Fathers, mothers, families and countrymen, consider our story and ask yourselves, "If this were my family, what would I do?" For it very well could be you.

See, outrage really loses force when you get to hear both sides of the story.

LM

-- Edited by LoudmouthMormon at 13:25, 2008-01-10

LoudmouthMormon · Profuse Pontificator

Randy wrote:

SWAT teams should be reserved strictly for situations where life-threatening violence is imminent.

Like when someone threatens deadly force against someone coming to serve a warrant?

Consider - you're the guy considering the level of force to send to serve the warrant. If you send a social worker and an officer, and one of them gets shot, that blood is on your hands, because you send them into a situation where the hubby warned he'd get violent.

-- Edited by LoudmouthMormon at 13:26, 2008-01-10

Ros · Senior Member

Loudmouth Mormon--you have truly made my day!

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

The Sheriff's side of things.

arbilad · Head Chef

bokbadok wrote:

The Sheriff's side of things.

So the sheriff sent in the SWAT team because of a previous incident in which the man had run after someone with an axe? He was perfectly within the law to do so in that situation, as evidenced by the fact that he was never prosecuted. There are two different versions of whether a warrant was served and whether he threatened violence. It seems to me like a case of sour grapes on the part of the sheriff. He wanted to see this guy prosecuted for self defense, hence his claims of "violent history", and when the DA didn't because no law was broken, he looked for an excuse to get back at this guy.

And note that no prosecution of the father was made in this case. No charges of threatening a police officer, no charges of parental neglect, no crime was committed.

So again, it seems clear to me that the use of the swat team was way above and beyond anything that the situation called for. In fact, the government didn't need to get involved in this situation at all. Now they're doing their best to cover their posteriors.

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

Since I wasn't a fly on the wall, I will never know what really happened. Both sides are telling a different story. Both sides seem to be leaving pertinent details out. It does seem excessive to send in a SWAT team for something like this, but it also seems like the father is not very much in control of his temper.

This is why I often feel so frustrated with political/social news reports - I always get the feeling that I'll never know what the truth is.

So, arbi, let's say that the sheriff is lying and the father is telling the truth, and the faimily's rights were trampled on here. What would you like us here at bountiful to do or say?

LoudmouthMormon · Profuse Pontificator

I'm still of the opinion that hotheads who threaten deadly harm against law enforcement, should not be surprised when they get their door kicked in and have their necks kneeled on with a gun to their head every now and then.

My wife disagrees partially with me. She used to work for the state animal services, and would often accompany the authorities to people's homes to investigate claims of animal abuse. She's been to 'repeat offenders' homes, where the officers are on first name basis with the hotheads. She's seen an officer or two not draw their weapon, and talk a hothead or two into putting their drawn gun down. A bunch of talk like "d*mm*t Bob, I just have to come in and look at your dogs. I'm not going to take anything, I don't have any right to do anything else. Just let me do my job, and I'll go away".

In her mind, everyone has a point, and everyone screwed up.

I guess at the end of the day, the kid is fine, and nobody else got hurt. The whole episode reminds me of my first fight in Jr. High School. The action lasted about 5 seconds, and was followed by two hours of arguing over who won, and who lost, and who got who more, and who still needs a beatin'.

LM

DaKnife · Senior Member

Anyone who knows me, knows that my husband and I have studied and treated all sorts of injuries and raised 10 healthy children. We rely heavily on common sense and deep faith in God, and we would not hesitate to take a child to the hospital for any condition we deemed necessary.

On Jan. 4, our 11-year-old son fell and injured his head. We elevated his feet and put an ice pack on the injury. He was being treated with the tender care and supervision of his father and mother. But that day, Garfield County accused us of not properly caring for him. Responders to an ambulance call from a witness wanted to take him to a hospital for examination. We refused.
Bold added by me to point out what I want to address.

One of the prime rules of first aid(particularly as taught in the army) is do not elevate the injured person's legs if you suspect a head injury, and if the father was really able to remember his medical training from Vietnam he would have known that.

Just something I noticed in the quoted letter.

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

Good catch DaK.

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

Last nights encore:

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=2521936

Organist · Senior Member

I'm not sure how that story of two UofU football players being stabbed is relevant. Care to elaborate?

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

Well, I've been posting stories that I was involved in, this was the next installment.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Are you saying that the several cars that pulled up were police cars and you were one of the attackers? :wierdface: