Man who blocked treatment for son, 11, claims overreaction
By John C. Ensslin, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published January 9, 2008 at 11:48 a.m.
Updated January 9, 2008 at 12:19 p.m.
A Garfield County man contends sheriff's deputies barged into his home and forcibly took his 11-year-old boy to a hospital after he refused to allow paramedics to examine a bump on the boy's head.
Garfield County Sheriff Lou Vallario, however, said the deputies were acting on a warrant obtained out of concern about the boy's injuries, which he said also included an ankle injury, a contusion and swelling over his eye.
Vallario also said two deputies gave the father, Tom Shiflett, 62, ample opportunity to resolve the situation peacefully before a team of officers used force to enter the home.
Vallario also said he once asked Shiflett to leave the sheriff’s office after he became agitated and confrontational. The incident started Thursday at the Apple Tree Mobile Home Park south of New Castle when the son, Jon Shiflett, hit his head "real hard" on the pavement after he grabbed the door handle of a moving car driven by his sister, the father said.
Someone called for an ambulance, but before paramedics arrived, Tom Shiflett said he picked his son up, brought him inside, put him on a couch and applied an ice pack to his head.
When paramedics arrived at the home, Shiflett said he let them look at his son, but refused to let them treat the youngster.
"I told them I didn't call for an ambulance. We're taking care of it," Shiflett said. "I want you people to leave. I didn't call you."
That led to a visit on Friday morning from two social workers. Shiflett said when he rebuffed them, they vowed to come back with a court order.
Deputies returned to serve the order later that evening. Shiflett contends he would have let them in if they said they had a warrant.
He claims they gave no such notice and barged in with a battering ram.
Shiflett said deputies temporarily handcuffed him and his wife and their oldest daughter and left with the boy.
They returned the boy around 2:30 a.m. Saturday along with a doctor's note advising them to make sure the youngster drank plenty of water, that he take some ibuprofen, that an antibiotic ointment be applied as needed and that a cold compress be put on his bruises.
"This is exactly what I was doing," Shiflett said. He accused deputies of overreacting.
Vallario said his office has had previous confrontations with Shif lett.
In 2005, he said deputies arrested Shiflett on a charge of felony menacing after he allegedly threatened someone with an ax.
That charge was dismissed, the sheriff said, but the case was a factor in the deputies' response. Shiflett said the charge was dropped because he was acting against a man who had threatened his family at his home.
The sheriff said deputies used handcuffs as a safety precaution because they were executing the warrant in a relatively small space.
Vallario also questioned why the father would not let paramedics examine the child’s injuries, especially after human-services officials assured the father he would not incur any medical bills.
“Why is this guy being so uncooperative?” Vallario asked. “Where’s the harm?”
To which Shiflett responded, “What’s the harm of letting a parent care for his own child?”
Shiflett has 10 children, ranging in age from 8 to 29 years old. All but one were born at home, he said. A remodeler, Shiflett said he has had trouble finding work since he rescinded his Social Security number.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
January 9, 2008
12:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
jgd writes:
Does anyone know the amount Shiflett would have been charged for the ambulance and paramedic treatment? By refusing to have treatment from the paramedic, he probably saved about $400. All of this hassle and in the end he was instructed to do exactly what he had been doing. One more example of our government trying to make decisions for us.
January 9, 2008
12:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
benn writes:
Yes, seems like the police overreacted. It costs $$ for an ambulance ride and hospital visit, and it seems the parent had this under control.
January 9, 2008
12:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
ItsJustme writes:
Let's see...The police wrecked the door with a battering ram because the paramedics weren't allowed to make money for their run, for which the man did not call, and because the man had a history of defending himself with an ax against someone who was threatening him, even though he was exhonorated. Welcome to the coming socialist police state.
January 9, 2008
12:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
newsjunkie writes:
and let's see - I suppose you posters would be the same ones calling for the heads of all law enforcement involved had the child been seriously injured and died as a result of the father refusing treatment and the gov't not stepping in. unbelievable. this guy has a history with law enforcement and got belligerent with paramedics - so they had good reason to believe the child may be in distress. they did their jobs and thank god. this creep asked for it.
i can't believe anyone would be so cynical to think this was all about making sure the paramedics got paid. or that it was worth it to resist law enforcement in order to avoid the ambulance charges.
I say always, always - err on the side of the welfare and safety of the child who cannot fight for him or herself.
you gov't haters never make any damn sense at all.
January 9, 2008
1:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
mrNiceGuy writes:
Police man shoots man in heart at a distant range, is not charged. Police cover up the events that proceed the death of someone in their custody, no one is charged. Police enter wrong apartment and shoot an unarmed man thinking a can is a weapon, no charges filed.
But a kid bumps his head and his parents deem him to be ok - knock the door in and start cuffing people!
January 9, 2008
1:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Retread writes:
Maybe we should all turn our children over to state to take care of? So if we have an overdue parking ticket, we have a history? Therefore give the police the right to be suspicious? Sorry, no cigar for the police and social workers on this one.
Freedom is a fickled animal, some either want it, and some would rather be "Protected".....
January 9, 2008
1:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
I'm sure there are many conservatives making the above posts. Just to let you know, the conservative justices you like to have on the Supreme Court are at least partially responsible for this:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/15/sco...
The title of the article says it all "Police don't have to knock, justices say". It was a 5-4 decision with the conservative justices in the majority. If another conservative president is elected, don't expect to see a less police-state friendly Supreme Court for a good number of years. So you may eventually get your way, no abortion at the federal level, at the cost of being in a totalitarian society. Congrats, I hope it was worth it.
January 9, 2008
2:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
kevinjjones writes:
"In 2005, he said deputies arrested Shiflett on a charge of felony menacing after he allegedly threatened someone with an ax.
That charge was dismissed, the sheriff said, but the case was a factor in the deputies' response. Shiflett said the charge was dropped because he was acting against a man who had threatened his family at his home."
The Grand Junction Sentinel reports that this man was a former boyfriend of Shiflett's daughter. Why was this detail not mentioned?
I think the social workers, the judge, and the paramedics are most at fault here.
January 9, 2008
3:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
PonchoVia writes:
The fourth amendment has been emasculated over the years. On average, I suspect cops smashing down doors of innocent people do far more harm than the harm they are supposedly trying to prevent. Granted, cops do some good things, but they will also find a reason to justify their existence - and in doing so, causing harm to innocent people. As someone said earlier "welcome to the coming socialist police state".
January 9, 2008
3:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Val writes:
We elect our Sheriffs in Colorado. Apparently the good folks of Garfield County need to take a hard look at the current Sheriff, if he runs for re-election.
January 9, 2008
3:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ben writes:
When I was young, I crashed my bike. I was fine, but momentarily stunned. Someone called 911, and an ambulance arrived. I told them I was fine. They WOULDN'T LET ME REFUSE TREATMENT. They MADE me get on the ambulance and sit there as they drove me to a doctor. I asked the doctor if this was going to cost anything. He said "No." He lied.
Castle Rock/PCM then charged my parents $2,000 for me to climb into an ambulance, sit there while they drove me two miles, and have a doctor take my temperature and blood pressure.
NO exaggeration.
I would do the same as that guy in this story.
January 9, 2008
3:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
kmeissner writes:
The paramedics said nothing about taking the boy to a hospital to treat him. I'm sure they just wanted to check him out at the home. But the dad freaked out and wouldn't let them. I think they did the right thing. I agree that ambulance rides aren't cheap, but at least let the paramedics take a look at the boy.
January 9, 2008
3:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
CalebTGL writes:
I'm just really suprised that Garfield County Protective Services has the resources to send out 2 people to check this report out when many other counties drop the ball in so many other situations, I'm actually pretty impressed that they responded so quickly, or at all actually.
It seems like things worked very well except that the paramedics did not accurately assess the condition of the boy when they examined him. Which is not really something that they did wrong, they probably just didn't have the ability to determine whether or not he had a serious injury at the scene. I would imagine though that it was their report that created the urgency which resulted in the police confrontation, but I can't think of a way that any of the decisions by the EMTs, social workers, judge or police could have been made differently that would have addressed the situation better.
Poor kid, it must have been pretty scary for him.
January 9, 2008
3:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
samsmith writes:
There are limits insofar as legitimate government intrustion into private life, and Child Protective Services went waaaay over the line on this one. We need some reforms of this agency, but we're not likely to get it so long as the Democrats are in conrol in Colorado. The child in this case had not been run over, was not unconscious and (as it turned out) THE FATHER WAS RIGHT and the PARAMEDICS AND CASE WORKERS WERE WRONG. Let's hope that the judge who signed the order allowing the police to break down an innocent citizen's door thinks it about it long and hard before he signs another warrant. (You people who think the father had a "history" with the sheriff's department apparently don't understand what the word "dismissal" means. It means he had not history of any wrongdoing whatsoever.)
January 9, 2008
3:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Lee_the_man writes:
Dan2
The first description was when the accident happened and the paramedics were called. The second description was when the police responded after Shiflett refused to allow them treat his son the next day. It's not that hard to follow.
January 9, 2008
4:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
newsjunkie writes:
the word "dismissal" means there was insufficient evidence to go forward - not that the man was not dangerous or that he did not break the law. coming at someone with an ax is a very scary, violent thing to do - whether the person was threatening your family or not. and as far as "threats" warranting his behavior -that is just his side of the story. this guy sounds like a total controlling a**hole who required a show of force in order to get through to him. like i said - always err on the side of protecting the welfare of the child. who is he to say he knows more than paramedics do? obviously the accident that the caller witnessed was serious enough to warrant calling 911 (hello - falling after grabbing the handle of a moving car??? sounds serious to me). when the paramedics arrived, they responded appropriately. but this jerk wouldn't let them do their job b/c apparently he thinks he knows more about treating injured children than they do. what the paramedics witnessed was alarming enough for them to notify social services - so how was their judgment wrong? what would you have done when faced with an injured child and a parent refusing treatment? so the kid turned out to be o.k. this time - but what about next time, hmmmm? are we just going to go with the parent? or what the medical provider recommends?
January 9, 2008
4:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
reddog writes:
Funny.. The cops jumps on this one and let all the other recent horrific events involving children go through their hands. Cops seem to only go after the easy cases.
January 9, 2008
5:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Devil_Dog writes:
dan2
Good entry, too bad some were not able or willing to understand it.
January 9, 2008
5:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Devil_Dog writes:
Lee the man
Please re-read you are completely wrong about what the article said.
January 9, 2008
5:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Devil_Dog writes:
newsjunkie
If you are in someone else's home and threaten them what do you think should happen.
January 9, 2008
5:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
newsjunkie writes:
just because this guy says he was threatened in his home doesn't mean it happened that way. who knows why the charges were dismissed - this is just his version, not the word of the DA. that alone does not tell me his actions were justified - or that his "defense" was even truthful. obviously his actions in going after someone with an ax were questionable - because charges were filed.
January 9, 2008
5:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
newsjunkie writes:
people obviously something happened in that home while the paramedics were there that was cause for alarm and caused them to fear for the child's well being. we're not getting their side of the story here so don't assume that dad here was in the right.
January 9, 2008
5:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
JCS1958 writes:
newsjunkie,
I'm with just about everyone else here in disagrreing with your assessment of this incident. The county stepped way out of line here, and did something that wouldn't have been tolerated not that many years ago.
Having worked with county governments in the past I have seen just how much these people will take each other's position against just about any outsider's position. It's especially sad when the "ousider" is one of the very taxpayers they are hired to serve.
The social workers had NO cause to do wha they did, and they should be ashmed of themselves. They must not have enough to do. I also wonder just WHO said WHAT to the judge to get that warrent. That couldn't have been completely honest.
January 9, 2008
5:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Firedewd writes:
If the father had let the social workers check out the kid the next day, they may have agreed he was ok and dropped everything. Seems he had to be a buthead and take it to the limit.
January 9, 2008
5:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Devil_Dog writes:
newsjunkie
Why do you so easily take the "coming at someone with an axe" statement and then even though the charges are dropped so quickly assume that he must be lying? You assume he was not defending himself or his family, this incident happened in his home did he invite someone over to then attack him with an axe?
You did not answer my question. What do you think should happen to someone who is threatening someone else in their own home?
January 9, 2008
5:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
nonayerbsns writes:
JUSTME: you wrote: welcome to the 'coming' socialist state...
I hate to tell ya this, but that shipped sailed. The future is here. Sucks, doesn't it? Sadly, too many others will defend the actions of the police (until, one day, it is THEIR turn to have their rights and liberties trampled on in such a way that is SO blatant, even the currently-blind will see)
January 9, 2008
7:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
freethinker07 writes:
The paramedics refuse to believe the father that he treated his son so they report to Social Services who show up demanding to see the child that they have no jurisdiction over. Why didn't they believe the father?
Then the police get a court order and break in(something they didn't deny). The police have a history with the father. The history includes an arrest that never should have happened (according to the police).
Now it is clear that Social Services waited from sometime on Thursday until Friday morning, so they obviously didn't think it was an emergency. Then the police show up Friday night? We are now 30 hours after the injury. They must have been real concerned.
They returned the child around 2:30am. This means that the ER doc saw the child around 1 a.m. which makes it a full 36 hours after the injury. Everyone was really hurrying.
Note that there was no wound, just abrasions which they apparently did not bandage. If there were symptoms of serious injury the ER doc would have kept the boy overnight for observation. But he didn't. So why didn't the paramedics use some judgment Friday night?
Now look at where this happened. Halfway between Rifle and Glenwood Springs in a mobile home park.
Mobile homes in this area go for 60k-80k so we are not dealing with wealthy people. The $900 for the ambulance plus the $700 for the emergency room probably was an issue. Lots of people are worried that the boy might have been injured. How many of them will be around next fall when he needs a new parka?
The news story said that there would have been no charge for paramedics examining the child. But they are encouraged to not take chances and to transport even if there is a minimal chance of serious injury.
The story says that the father let the paramedics exam but not treat his son. Then the police were quoted as saying that the father wouldn't let them examine the boy.
People who have active boys know that you have to use judgment when deciding whether to get medical services for young boys. My son (who is now an acrobat) was on a first name basis with the radiologist at our local hospital. If we had not had excellent insurance, we would have been bankrupt. Going to the emergency room about every scrape is not an option.
January 9, 2008
8:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
justajob writes:
Ok, I don't live in his county, but I can tell you how it works in my community. Yes, I am a cop. If I call medical to respond to a scene to clear someone medically, the paramedics and an ambulance shows up. The person is treated at the scene, and can REFUSE any additional medical care by signing a waiver that releases emergency services from any liability in case that person wakes up dead the next morning. Noone has to take the trip in the ambulance, unless they are bleeding and I am going to arrest them, then my agency is on the hook for the tab if the suspect doesn't pay. We have a multi-jurisdiction agreement and pay a monthly fee for this service. With head injuries of any kind, the concern is a contusion or bleeding on the brain. My paramedic friends say these are the hardest to diagnose and usually would recommend a CAT scan to rule out bleeding. My guess is that the gentleman in this story told the EMT's to get the hell out, and let him care for his own. Given that a juvenile was involved, the EMT's probably have a duty to report what transpired. If the situation was reversed and this kid didn't wake up the next day, their asses would be on the line, not the dad's. He could claim they didn't do enough to help his kid. Most of this happened because noone wanted to be on the hook in case the kid was seriously hurt. In my agency we must announce when breaking down a door for a warrant, I am surprised that this didn't happen, of course, we have not heard what the Sheriff's Department report said yet. I would handcuff, and do, for my officer safety, anytime I go up against a person who is antagonistic towards law enforcement. This is not custodial cuffing, it is known as protective custody. If any of you have ever had to go up against people who have knives, guns, and other weapons at their disposal, you probably would feel the same. And I am not surprised this gentleman has a hard time finding a job without a social security number, that would mean he doesn't feel he has to pay taxes either.
January 10, 2008
9:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
newsjunkie writes:
disagree with me all you want but once again, a juvenile was involved. what about the kid? or is your sole concern with "my rights" and "my home", blah, blah, blah??? read justajob's post - if this kid was in fact seriously injured (hey - i didn't know dad was a doctor and could diagnose him himself!!!), then all of you "we've got rights" and law enforcement/social services haters on here would be demanding an investigation and criminal charges against the officials who failed to come to this kid's aid. and you know it. you are just too stubborn and caught up in your "i hate gov't intrusion" frenzy to admit it.
until you have been an officer, paramedic or social worker placed in this same position - you've got a kid with a head injury - i don't think you can speak about what these folks did "wrong".
January 10, 2008
9:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
newsjunkie writes:
hey RickyLee - how does "innocent until proven guilty" come into play?? i don't read anywhere in the article that the father was facing criminal charges of any kind in connection with this incident. this was all about trying to determine if there was a juvenile who needed medical attention.
there is very little information in the article about the father's previous charges. but you all just assume his side of the story about why the charges were dismissed is the truth. i don't know what the DA has to say or whether it's true. but when someone is charged with felony menacing for coming after someone with an ax, i am not just going to take them for their word when they say they were trying to protect their family. obviously it was a serious incident. just b/c the charges were dismissed does not mean he didn't break the law. i don't know and you don't know either.
January 10, 2008
11:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
freedom1986 writes:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/art...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/art...
I see the need to be concerned over the child's well-being, but this is another case of the government treading on our God-given rights. In these articles I post here, it mentions that the father served with paramedics in Vietnam, I guess he doesn't know anything about treating injuries (newsjunkie).......
Social Services is a scurge in this country, and the father had every right to refuse them access to the boy. SS has been known to take children away from their parents over complete nonsense. What has happened to parental choice in this country? The government doesn't own or the child.
As far as the axe incident, if the charges were dropped obviously the police or whoever brought the charges know things about the case that we don't. I have every reason to believe that he was protecting his family. If someone was threatening my family I would take action too. Thank God for the second amendment.
"If any of you have ever had to go up against people who have knives, guns, and other weapons at their disposal, you probably would feel the same." - Give me a break, they barge in on a FAMILY (not some guy waiting with a weapon, or someone known to be armed and dangerous at the time), they could have seen there was no danger.
January 10, 2008
11:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Logan5 writes:
Newsjunkie:
Since you apparently think it's OK to take a kid by force and evaluate him anytime some random person just happens to think it is warranted, I am sure that you'll also be fine with us calling the guys in white coats to come get you. After all, we're just concerned about you.
January 10, 2008
11:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
newsjunkie writes:
logan5 you are completely irrational - but that's o.k., you anti-gov't, anti-law enforcement types tend to be that way.
he wasn't taken away by some random person. a witness saw the injury take place, thought it was serious enough to call 911 - paramedics showed up and took a look at the boy. something happened while they were there - plus something about the injuries alarmed them - so when the father refused treatment, they felt the situation was serious enough to alert authorities. are you saying the paramedics are just wrong? what would you have done in their position and you had concerns about an injured kid? just shrug your shoulders and say, oh well, none of my business? and then when it later turns out to be serious and the kid dies - lose your job or get sued for not doing anything about it?
i find it very disturbing how all of the focus here is on the so-called rights of the "parent" and no concern whatsoever for the minor child involved. it's all about "my rights" and the needs of the child be damned. guess what? when you are being a sh***y parent - the state can and will step in to protect your child. deal with it. are they wrong sometimes? yep. but i'd rather have them go too far in trying to come to a kid's aid then just walk away.
oh and i'm not impressed that the guy was supposedly a paramedic in Viet Nam - many years ago. that does not demonstrate that he was acting rationally or responsibly in this instance. you weren't there - the paramedics were and they made a judgment call.
January 10, 2008
12:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
justajob writes:
If you go to the link that freedom1986 posted you get a better sense of what the deputies were up against. The father refused to come to the door, speaking through a window, the daughter won't open the door, the mother refuses to open the door.. so to serve the warrant in they come by whatever force neccessary. And freedom1986, the mother says in her story "they were throwing knives and scissors out of our reach"- that is exactly the point I was making. The deputies will control a scene in any manner possible, and no you don't get a phone call until you are arrested and through the booking process, you can't call your lawyer before you do roadsides (DUI) , and yes, I have heard that argument before, and crimes are not solved within a 60 minute period like they are on tv. And guess what, most of what happens on CSI is NOT reality. These folks got exactly the type of treatment they asked for by being uncooperative.
January 10, 2008
12:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Devil_Dog writes:
logan5
You forgot to ask where newsjunkie lives, we don't want the authorities to get lost, break down the wrong door and haul away the wrong person. Of course nothing like that ever happens does it newsjunkie?
By the way newsjunkie you never answered my question. What do you think should happen to a person who threatens someone in their own home?
January 10, 2008
12:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Logan5 writes:
Newsjunkie:
Oh, it was a "witness", oh OK, no problem then. Well, I'm witnessing your irrationality right now, so by your extremely loose definition I am fully qualified to judge your condition. By the way, when the white van shows up, just submit. We wouldn't want to have to send the SWAT team after you, now would we?
January 10, 2008
12:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Devil_Dog writes:
justajob
First let me say. Thank you for doing a tough job that needs to be done, I have several friends who are cops. It is not an easy job, that being said it is unfortunate but true that there are good cops and there are bad cops, just like everyone else. I don't have an issue with the handcuffing as a precaution for the safety of everyone at the seen. I do however have an issue with the warrant ever being issued. The man broke no laws to necessitate a warrant being issued. Justice seems to be quite fickle in Colorado lately, we break down this mans door because his soon has a bruise, but let Midyette have free reign when we already have a dead infant. And I have been in situations where someone is trying their best to kill me, and are very well armed, and no it is not fun but I signed on for the job and did the best I could to survive. So like I said at the beginning I respect you for what you are doing, and owe you my thanks for you efforts.
January 10, 2008
1 p.m.
Suggest removal
newsjunkie writes:
logan5 - just a witness, huh? should've been minding his/her own business, i suppose. the person saw a child hit the pavement while trying to hang on to a moving vehicle. that not serious enough for you to call 911?? or just close the curtains and blow it off?
not qualified to evaluate the kids' condition? please tell me how these paramedics were not qualified to evaluate this kid - err on the side of caution (as they are trained) and take the kid in for further examination?
oh and to answer your question, devil - under CO law, you are entitled to use deadly force to defend your property. i'm not disputing that. but that does not mean that is what happened with the ax incident - not convinced here and apparently the authorities were not either since they chose to file felony menacing charges. in fact, i believe an earlier poster indicated it may have been a domestic dispute. the authorities later determined they just didn't have enough to go forward so they dropped the charges - but that doesn't mean the guy was not breaking the law. not enough here for anyone to conclude one way or the other.
justajob - thank you for setting people straight on just exactly what law enforcement faces in these situations and for emphasizing the facts many are choosing to conveniently ignore. you seem to be the only person on here with a lick of sense and perspective.
January 10, 2008
1:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Devil_Dog writes:
newsjunkie
"not enough here for anyone to conclude one way or the other"
You are the one coming to conclusions not me. You choose not to believe one person but to believe the other, I choose to whish that the authorities follow the law and in this case a warrant should not have been issued. Perhaps (I do not know and am not claiming this) someone was a little over zealous in this situation due to the previous one. But for example just because something ignorant comes out of your mouth one time, it would not be correct for me to assume that everything that comes out of your mouth after that will also be ignorant. You are, although, deserving of praise for you concern over a child's well being, and I commend you for it. I do not, however, trust the motives of many bureaucrats, especially social services. I saw what they did to one of my neighbors, who later were proved innocent of any wrong doing, they weren't even given an apology, but their lives were destroyed. Lost money (lawyers) lost income (lost job) lost respect.
January 11, 2008
10:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Franklin writes:
The comments here break down into 2 varieties. Pro-liberty versus "The dad was a butthead and got what he deserved"
Guess what, folks? Our freedoms were designed TO PROTECT BUTTHEADS (or hardheads, or hotheads). NOT the "reasonable" or meek or mild, but rather the dissidents, the irritating, and those we "know" are "just plain wrong." In other words, our freedoms were designed to protect Mr. Shiflett from those of you who find him disagreeable and want to use the power of the state to invade his home and terrorize his family.
And really, your casual dismissal of his rights is by far the scariest, most unpatriotic, most BUTTHEADED thing going on in this country. Scary, because once we lose our rights we won't be getting them back without a civil war; unpatriotic, because our entire country's existence and way of life depends on the rule of law and the Bill of Rights, not on all-powerful paramedics and sheriffs and neighborhood informers; and BUTTHEADED because the rights you think Mr. Shiflett doesn't deserve are YOUR rights, too, and only a BUTTHEAD would believe that in undermining Mr. Shiflett's fundamental rights you aren't also destroying your own liberty.
So who is really thinking with their rear end in this discussion?
January 12, 2008
7:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
newsjunkie writes:
I am the first person to say that our rights are being eroded one by one in the scariest fashion. the post-9/11 erosion of our freedoms from heavy-handed gov't intrusion is frightening indeed (thanks, W). but THIS is not representative of that. THAT is the point I'm trying to make. we didn't have a gov't here taking questionable action to ferret out so-called terrorists - here we had a child who may have been in danger and in need of immediate medical attention. therein lies the difference. BIG difference.
January 12, 2008
10:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
YuriOrlov writes:
Wow, I can't believe the amount of sheeple willing to dispense with their rights for a little security. As a wise man once said, you deserve neither freedom or security. And for those of you who refuse to submit, good for you!
The nine scariest words in the English language are: "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help!"
And as always, when the nanny state seeks to increase their power, it's for the children.
[illustration of the government helping the children follows]:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ywh3hn