Sheriff: SWAT Team Necessary Because Man Is a "Self-Proclaimed Constitutionalist"

Radley Balko | January 8, 2008, 9:21am

Nearly 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.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Send this article to:

Comments to "Sheriff: SWAT Team Necessary Because Man Is a "Self-Proclaimed Constitutionalist"":

Episiarch | January 8, 2008, 9:25am | #

Now it's SWAT teams for bruises. Is there anything a SWAT team can't do?

Isaac Bartram | January 8, 2008, 9:26am | #

But he said Shiflett was "rude and confrontational" when the paramedics arrived and entered his home without his permission.

I'm normally pretty easygoing but I can imagine getting pretty "rude and confrontational" if someone entered my home without my permission.

Reinmoose | January 8, 2008, 9:30am | #

ummmm, what?

joe | January 8, 2008, 9:31am | #

Cripes, ham-fisted much?

We're lucky they didn't kill anybody.

Balloon Maker | January 8, 2008, 9:33am | #

Radley is just making shit up now.

Episiarch | January 8, 2008, 9:35am | #

There has to be a killer lawsuit in this.

tarran | January 8, 2008, 9:35am | #

Now we see the violence inherent in the system.

Come see the violence inherent in the system!

Come see the violence inherent in the system!

Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

mike | January 8, 2008, 9:37am | #

Wait, they punched through the door? Who's on this SWAT team? Chuck Norris and his beard fist?

Jennifer | January 8, 2008, 9:38am | #

If they'd killed the kid then his wicked father would never be able to abuse him, ever ever again.

Abdul | January 8, 2008, 9:43am | #

If they'd killed the kid then his wicked father would never be able to abuse him, ever ever again.

And he'd be able to smoke in his own home without fear of giving his kid asthma.

de stijl | January 8, 2008, 9:43am | #

Umm, I can't believe I'm going to do this, but I will offer a half-hearted explanation for why this happened.

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."

These two events guaranteed that it would play out this way, not that I agree with it.

These officials have seen what happens when CPS drops the ball in Florida, et al to know that they would be royally fucked if they didn't get the kid in a doctor's office pronto. They chose to do it in the most ham-fisted (thanks, joe) manner available to them, but I understand why they desparately wanted to get the kid to the hospital.

Lamar | January 8, 2008, 9:43am | #

The only problem with respecting your authoritah, sir, is the fact that you are an EMT and have none.

de stijl | January 8, 2008, 9:44am | #

to know that they would be royally fucked if they didn't get the kid in a doctor's office pronto

Clarification:

... and he later died.

joe | January 8, 2008, 9:46am | #

de stijl,

It may have guaranteed that they would come back and insist, and even take the kid to the hospital against his father's wishes, but a SWAT team and a dynamic entry is way overboard.

joe | January 8, 2008, 9:49am | #

...which, I see, was your point. All right then.

Episiarch | January 8, 2008, 9:50am | #

Here's a question: did they have a warrant?

J sub D | January 8, 2008, 9:54am | #

I've followed my New Year's resoulution (no obscenities on the internet) for one week.

This is proving to be more difficult than I anticipated.

He's OMG, a Constitutionalist! The constitution is the supreme law of the land, isn't it?
And a home schooler! He must be violently insane because the public schools do such an exemplary job.
...Shiflett was "rude and confrontational" when the paramedics arrived and entered his home without his permission.
What self respecting citizen wouldn't be?

The Sherriff's conclusion? We had better send in the finely trained [guffaw] paramilitary force to deal with a bump on the kids noggin.

No obscenities, but it is going to be a very difficult year.

tarran | January 8, 2008, 9:55am | #

Why didn't they send over an unmarked car and offer to pay for a doctor's visit?

After all, the father stated that he didn't want to 'waste' money on what he felt to be an unnecessary visit. When the judge signed the order, it in effect committed the local government to paying for the doctor's visit anyway. It would have saved money, resulted in less risk to bystanders and officers, and prevented what is now certain to be a pretty nasty lawsuit.

That sheriff is nothing but a 'little Cartman'. Often, when government officials send 'a message' to the community, people get hurt.

Lamar | January 8, 2008, 9:57am | #

Any EMT crew will sign an affidavit saying the kid needs medical attention. That covers their asses in case there is a real injury and is no sweat off their backs if the injury is nothing. After all, it isn't their family being assaulted by SWAT cops. Even better, social workers (not doctors) reported a hematoma. That's a bruise for you lay folks.

I understand that the EMT and social workers were "just doing their job." How about this crazy idea: do your job competently.

P Brooks | January 8, 2008, 9:57am | #

And if Dad had claimed a religious exemption, what would have been the response?

And to all you nosy neighbors out there, a big ol' fuckyou!

James Ard | January 8, 2008, 9:58am | #

Shouldn't the second visit have been made by a doctor instead of a stinking social worker?

Ayn_Randian | January 8, 2008, 9:58am | #

Here's a question: did they have a warrant?

Oh come now..."exigent" medical circumstances for a child?

Rights evaporate. Fast.

New World Dan | January 8, 2008, 9:59am | #

Episiarch:

This is what they like to call exigent circumstances. In that case, they don't need one. Also, this is not a criminal investigation, so absent the exigent circumstances, they could still generally haul the kid off to a doctor without a court order.

Brian24 | January 8, 2008, 9:59am | #

I really hope he sues.

P Brooks | January 8, 2008, 10:00am | #

JsubD-
I respect and commend your resolve. Good luck to you.

Fluffy | January 8, 2008, 10:01am | #

I think it tells you just about everything you need to know about our current government that this Sheriff immediately assumed that anyone who read the Constitution and believed in the rights it purports to grant was a threat to meet his officers at the door with a bazooka.

It's his subconscious guilty conscience showing. On some level he knows that if people really believed in their rights, by now someone would have blown his ass away with a twelve gauge.

Curious | January 8, 2008, 10:01am | #

Is there anything more evil for the average citizen than a stupid and/or corrupt small town lawman?

Episiarch | January 8, 2008, 10:03am | #

Couldn't the dad have just shot the EMT for forcing his way in? Not that that would have made his life easier, but I would think he would have been within his rights.

Ayn_Randian | January 8, 2008, 10:04am | #

Is there anything more evil for the average citizen than a stupid and/or corrupt small town lawman?

A zealous one.

TrickyVic | January 8, 2008, 10:05am | #

I think there is something else in play not yet mentioned.

Bump on head + refusing medical attention = child abuse.

I'll bet that is the way they were looking at it.

I hope this guys sues big time.

Jane Doe | January 8, 2008, 10:06am | #

And the police continue to make themselves look completely ridiculous. Does anyone really still respect the police force in America? I guess we're forced to, at gunpoint.

Cracker's Boy | January 8, 2008, 10:06am | #

"I thought he had a gun."*

I mean, with all that stuff hanging off his belt it looked like he had a gun. And he was going after my child. I HAD to shoot him.

CB
*The six most important words to use after a shooting.

Reinmoose | January 8, 2008, 10:07am | #

Umm, did they think that being a constitutionalist means that you don't seek medical attention for your child when he is in need of it?

LarryA | January 8, 2008, 10:08am | #

These officials have seen what happens when CPS drops the ball in Florida, et al to know that they would be royally fucked if they didn't get the kid in a doctor's office pronto.

I agree with de stijl. Child Protective Service is under the gun in San Antonio as well. We've had a number of kids abused to death, and the media/public reaction is always "Where the hell was the government?"

That doesn't justify the SWAT team, but you also have to look at the "social workers" who filed an alarming report.

Shouldn't the second visit have been made by a doctor instead of a stinking social worker?

Or a nurse pratitioner?

JW | January 8, 2008, 10:15am | #

My son gave himslef a big 'ol knot on his forehead on Friday night, horsing around with a friend. He wacked it on the corner of the arm of the futon we have in our basement. What I can't believe is that it took him this long to hurt himself like that. I've been expecting it for years.

It swelled up to golf-ball size, was bruised and even broke the skin a bit. We iced it down, gave him some ibuprofin and kept an eye on him.

Unbeliveably, he lived. In fact, he only has slight bruising and a small cut to show for it.

After reading this story, he's going to have to lose a limb before I call 911.

And yes, I expect John Banzhaf to be out agitpropping for the dangers of killer furniture any day now....

Jeremy P. Carlo | January 8, 2008, 10:17am | #

As an EMT, let me say that a sluggish pupil is a potentially bad sign. (Why it was being reported by social workers and not the medics is beyond me.) At the least, it's something that needs to be checked out since in a case like that it can be indicative of a head injury.

(And EMTs, at least here in NY, do have the authority to require people to receive treatment in some cases, although it's the police who will actually be making them do it.)

Knowing that my signing off on an affidavit to have the kid seen by a doctor would result in a SWAT team raid in which family members could very likely have been killed, let me tell you, that would make me a lot less likely to sign off.

My guess is that the social worker who reported the "sluggish pupil," lacking medical training, probably has no idea what a normal pupil looks like, and misinterpreted the kid's perfectly normal reaction to light.

Chuck | January 8, 2008, 10:17am | #

The police then sent social workers, who according to the Associated Press reported "a huge hematoma and a sluggish pupil."

When did medical school become part of the social work curriculum? Most of the social work students I know can barely tell their heads from their asses, much less perform exams.

joe | January 8, 2008, 10:20am | #

Shouldn't the second visit have been made by a doctor instead of a stinking social worker?

Or a nurse pratitioner?

Or, absolute worst-case scenario, Barney Fife and Gomer with a polite but firm tone.

crimethink | January 8, 2008, 10:20am | #

Is there anything more evil for the average citizen than a stupid and/or corrupt small town lawman?

This is the one reservation I have about strict federalism. In some ways, a national tyrant in Washington is less capable of doing me harm than a member of my town board.

Though, as the Daninator would say, I do have the option of moving to another town if I don't like it.

crimethink | January 8, 2008, 10:25am | #

Mr. Carlo,

I have a friend who is an EMT, and he said whenever someone doesn't want to go to the hospital when he responds, he just has them sign a "refusal of treatment" form and gets the heck out. Though, I don't know if there would still be liability issues in the case of a child even if the parent signs a refusal of treatment.

In other words, even if EMTs have the authority to force someone to be treated, my guess would be they really don't want to go through the hassle that would require.

JW | January 8, 2008, 10:25am | #

Or, absolute worst-case scenario, Barney Fife and Gomer with a polite but firm tone.

They were killed when the SWAT team was called to enforce their retirement. Andy wanted to talk to them about it and they opened fire when Barney twitched.

ed | January 8, 2008, 10:26am | #

Balloon Maker | January 8, 2008, 9:33am | #

Radley is just making shit up now.

If I believed in the winning of threads--and I don't--Balloon Maker would snag this one, purely for comedic effect.

Episiarch | January 8, 2008, 10:29am | #

If I believed in the winning of threads--and I don't--Balloon Maker would snag this one, purely for comedic effect.

Sorry, ed, but I have been declared permanent winnar by Kerry.

Liberty4All | January 8, 2008, 10:34am | #

This is truly stomach turning. Cops are servants not masters. Those yahoo SWAT team members deserve community scorn not praise. They are special forces wannabes.

Lamar | January 8, 2008, 10:37am | #

"...Unbeliveably, he lived. In fact, he the patient ~~only has~~ exhibits ~~slight bruising~~ a large hematoma and a ~~small cut~~ puncture wound ~~to show for it~~ threatening infection if left untreated...."

Can I get my social work license now?

John | January 8, 2008, 10:37am | #

I would like to see this story from a different source than World Net Daily. That is not exactly an unbiased and reliable source, unless of course you are convinced the Chinese are about to invade America, which seems to be the subject of a disturbing proportion of their articles. I would be curious to read an account from a different source. Sadly, even a story this outragous is entirely possible and believable.

Seitz | January 8, 2008, 10:39am | #

This is just sloppy work by the SWAT team. The proper course of action would have been to shoot the kid in the leg or something. Then they would have had to take him to the hospital where they could have checked out that nasty bump on the head.

And ya know, if they'd missed his leg, hit his heart and killed him, well hey, shit happens.

yoshi | January 8, 2008, 10:42am | #

I agree with John - worldnetdaily should not have been the source - it should of been the AP newstory. I am surprised worldnetdaily didn't blame this raid of the lack of "god we trust" on the dollar coin or on 'the gays'.

robc | January 8, 2008, 10:43am | #

John,

The AP link not good enough for you?

LibertyPlease | January 8, 2008, 10:47am | #

Um, how the hell is a hematoma more life-threatening than a paramilitary raid!

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 10:52am | #

I dont understand what all the fuss is about ... sometimes extreme measures are necessary. I like my rights just like the next guy, but some of these mountain-separatists have been known to do some crazy things. Better to err on the side of caution and get the kid some medical attention while ensuring the safety of the officers. No harm, no foul.

Lamar | January 8, 2008, 10:55am | #

"Better to err on the side of caution."

Actually, it's better not to err at all.

crimethink | January 8, 2008, 10:56am | #

He's just lucky the SWAT didn't mistake his bulging hematoma for an AK-47.

John | January 8, 2008, 10:56am | #

"John,

The AP link not good enough for you?"

It is just fine. I didn't see that. My mistake.

John | January 8, 2008, 10:57am | #

"Better to err on the side of caution."

Translation, better to risk killing an innocent person than to risk the life of a police officer. That my friends is what the law enforcement community thinks of you; "better us than them". Sad.

Liberty4All | January 8, 2008, 10:58am | #

Morons like these SWAT teams members and Mussolinie-sque sheriff are the reason the ACLU does a brisk business!! A paramilitary raid is erring on the side of caution? How about a knock at the door? These law enforcement yahoo wannabe heroes have gotten way out of line.

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 10:59am | #

I am just a little tired of all the whining about how rights are being violated with these raids. Listen folks, most of them are necessary. They ultimately save lives. The police and the paramedics were attempting to do the right thing in this case, and they did it.

Episiarch | January 8, 2008, 11:02am | #

How about a knock at the door?

But then the uppity plebes might say something like "do you have a warrant, officer?" Can't have that. Better to go in using dynamic entry to save the kid (if you don't kill him during same dynamic entry).

Episiarch | January 8, 2008, 11:03am | #

Liberty4All | January 8, 2008, 11:03am | #

Holyrepublican - police apologists like you and the SWAT yahoos you defend are baffling. They are servants not masters, nor are they an occupying army.

TrickyVic | January 8, 2008, 11:03am | #

Radely, you should compile all these examples for a book. I would love to say I read all 2000 pages of "Another Isolated Incident - Volume One"

Well, I would prefer that these things didn't happen.

Seitz | January 8, 2008, 11:05am | #

I would love to say I read all 2000 pages of "Another Isolated Incident - Volume One"

Really? I think I'd be ready to drink myself to death after about two chapters.

TrickyVic | January 8, 2008, 11:08am | #

"""Translation, better to risk killing an innocent person than to risk the life of a police officer. That my friends is what the law enforcement community thinks of you; "better us than them". Sad.""""

Sad indeed.

It was the cops risking their life to save a person which made the job honorable. They are doing a great job of ruining that honor, and then blaming everyone else.

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 11:08am | #

Episiarch,
Yours is a typical liberal response ... instead of facing the issue head-on, you resort to name calling and accusations. FYI, I do not "troll"... my expressed views and opinions are genuine. I happen to agree with most of the libertarian creed ... but I simply do not think that we are in a so-called "paramilitary state", as some here have claimed in the past. If you want to see a paramilitary state, go to Burma, Thailand, or even Putin's Russia.

robc | January 8, 2008, 11:08am | #

TrickyVic,

I suggested that in another thread a few weeks back. The day "Yet Another Isolated Incident" appears on Amazon, Im buying.

If it isnt title YAII, I will have to think about it.

Hayek | January 8, 2008, 11:09am | #

Mr Carlo,

"And EMTs, at least here in NY, do have the authority to require people to receive treatment....."

When your judgment, augmented by your "authority", turns out to be wrong,I'm quite sure you won't mind having your malpractice insurance pay off my pissed lawyer?
I mean....after all your "insistence" would be be what started the ball rolling.

Signing a refusal form makes MUCH more sense for you, if you ever happen to be lucky enough to try and FORCE me or my family against my will.

mediageek | January 8, 2008, 11:10am | #

For those who want a source for the story that's more reliable than WND, Click here.

Aresen | January 8, 2008, 11:11am | #

But he said Shiflett was "rude and confrontational" when the paramedics arrived and entered his home without his permission.

Why does this make me think of the Sheriffs in the Old South ca. 1940 when dealing with a certain class of people who "didn't know their place?"

RE J sub D's New Year's Resolution:

Bet he doesn't make it past May.

Latest possible: the earlier of 1) McCain names Huckabee as his running mate; or 2) Obama names Edwards as his.

Episiarch | January 8, 2008, 11:11am | #

holyrepublican,

Yours is a typical "the cops can do no wrong" response. The fact that you can defend a fucking SWAT raid on a house where a kid bumped his head is mind-boggling. I just cannot comprehend how much you must daddy-worship cops to think that such an action is even in the realm of acceptable.

John West | January 8, 2008, 11:12am | #

Once again, good work Radely, keep it coming. As a resident of the state of Colorado I felt it was my duty to fire off an email to the head of the Human Services Department in Glenwood Springs, CO (the town in western Colorado) pointing out that using SWAT teams for social work is ridiculus and asking her to severly disipline the special child working for her that asked for this raid. Burrocrats have to be held accountable for gross violations of citizens rights. If we do not stand up for each others rights, none of us will have rights after a while. Think about it.

sixstring | January 8, 2008, 11:12am | #

J sub D,

Care to purchase some curse offsets? I'm having a sale.

Hayek | January 8, 2008, 11:12am | #

holyrepublican,

you might wanna take up a collection for Mr. Carlo's malpractice insurance.

Mike Espinoza | January 8, 2008, 11:12am | #

They can have my son when they take him from my cold, dead fingers.

TrickyVic | January 8, 2008, 11:14am | #

Holyrepublican

Why does the right-wing hate rights? They always complain about people complaing about losing them. They act like you're not suppose to have rights.

I'm being serious. The only candidate talking about the importance of the Constitution is getting bashed from the right. Of course I expect candidates to bash each other, but which other candidate talks in support of the Constitution?

As far as I can tell, there is no document the founding fathers created that the republican party respects.

jimmy smith | January 8, 2008, 11:17am | #

Damned Constitutionalists any way, next thing you know they'll want is to run for president.

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 11:22am | #

Episiarch, Hayek, TrickyVic ...
I do not "daddy-worship" cops, or any authority for that matter. But I do accept that our society has, in a utilitarian sense, decided that this is the best thing to do while preserving our basic liberties. What about the child's rights? Should we as a society abandon his right to prompt medical attention?
As for the founders ... as far as I can tell, this is a local matter, handled by the police in a manner which the courts have deemed Constitutional. I respect the Constitution. I love the Constitution. But I also respect the authority that has been established by the Constitution.

T | January 8, 2008, 11:23am | #

Well, this reinforces one of my primary beliefs: never let a government agent inside your home voluntarily. Especially since I'm rude and confrontational even before the gummint shows up.

Liberty4All | January 8, 2008, 11:23am | #

TrickyVic,

The Democrats hate their share of rights as well - like oh the second amendment and the desire to ban certain forms of "hate speech" for starters. I don't think it's left v. right but statists v. anti-statists. The great society dimwits are just as bad as the "national greatness" conservatives. I'm just hoping the movement started by the Ron Paul campaign keeps rolling after the election since it seems economic populism and some weird form of "state sponsored" communitarianism seems to be the political choice of the day.

Lamar | January 8, 2008, 11:24am | #

"Yours is a typical liberal response..."

More evidence that the GOP is no longer the party of liberty. Conservative doesn't mean anything but authority humping bible freak. I mean, jeeez, Ruby Ridge was soooo pre-9/11.

David | January 8, 2008, 11:24am | #

So you're using the Rudy Giuliani definition of freedom?

Aresen | January 8, 2008, 11:28am | #

holyrepublican

But I also respect the authority that has been established by the Constitution.

As a Canadian, the thing that I admire most about the US is the fact that your Constitution LIMITS the authority of the government.

Aresen | January 8, 2008, 11:29am | #

damn html tags.

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 11:34am | #

Yes, it does limit the authority ... and places most of it in the hands of the people and the states, even though it has become far too centralized for my taste. But we would be terribly naive to think that they intended chaos, that they intended a loosely-organized rabble of moral anarchists. No.
A man's home may be his castle. But no man has the right to do wrong in his castle. That is where we the people have the power to protect the good order of society by ensuring that numbskulls do not run amok with guns-a-blazin at the cops while a poor child suffers.

JW | January 8, 2008, 11:36am | #

But I do accept that our society has, in a utilitarian sense, decided that this is the best thing to do while preserving our basic liberties.

Conduct a para-military raid with drawn weapons on a peaceful family because junior bumped his head?

Are you sure you didn't bump yours a bit harder?

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 11:36am | #

Here's a tip ... just let the paramedics in. What's the problem with that? All of this could have been avoided if the man had let a medical professional do his job. What other choice did the police have?

Liberty4All | January 8, 2008, 11:36am | #

Holyrepublican: NEWSFLASH A CHILD WASN'T SUFFERING. The use of SWAT teams is becoming too common for smaller infractions. The cops are not heroes they are numbskulls.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 8, 2008, 11:36am | #

Anybody think there's a dime's worth of hope for the Republic?

TrickyVic | January 8, 2008, 11:37am | #

"""But no man has the right to do wrong in his castle. That is where we the people have the power to protect the good order of society by ensuring that numbskulls do not run amok with guns-a-blazin at the cops while a poor child suffers."""

Where was the wrong? The child was not suffering.

If you're concerned about guns amok around kids, you would be against the cops actions.

You call yourself a republican, but you have the logic of a liberal.

tarran | January 8, 2008, 11:38am | #

I do not "daddy-worship" cops, or any authority for that matter. But I do accept that our society has, in a utilitarian sense, decided that this is the best thing to do while preserving our basic liberties. What about the child's rights? Should we as a society abandon his right to prompt medical attention?

You have no right to prompt medical care any more than you have a right to prompt sex when you're feeling frisky.

Now, you may want this child to have prompt medical care, and may out of charity offer it to him. Certainly, if you showed up offerring to take the child to a hospital and pay for his visit, and the child expressed a desire to go to the hospital, then you might have a case when arguing that force could be used to ensure the child sees the doctor.

No, in this case, people decided that their good intentions allowed them to smash down doors and threaten people at gunpoint.

Nor was it 'society' making some decision a la the communist's 'collective consciousness'. A bunch of guys decided that the guy should be forced to take his child to a hospital, and when he dared to question their judgment, they kicked down his door and threatened him at gunpoint.

Again, this unpleasantness could have been avoided if the officials showed up at the guy's door and offerred to pay for the kid's visit to a doctor. My three year old has learned ho to say 'please' instead of just grabbing stuff she wants. Apparently she's more grown-up than the local government officials.

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 11:42am | #

The child was suffering ... he had a massive hematoma! Did we not settle these arguments long ago, about protecting children? Listen, we adults can argue all day long about the Constitution, rights, liberties, etc. But for crying out loud, we cannot allow children to suffer just because we are respecting some so-called right of the father/loon to deny his child medical care. There is no right. It's called child abuse!

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 11:44am | #

TrickyVic... I am NOT a liberal. I would describe myself as an O'Reilly Republican.

JW | January 8, 2008, 11:45am | #

The child was suffering ... he had a massive hematoma!

OK, you're either a troll or a moron. RTFA. The kid was treated with Tylenol and fluids.

Just like my own son, who I would say was suffering quite a bit. We treated and comforted him. He was out playing the next day.

Jake Boone | January 8, 2008, 11:47am | #

holyrepublican,

Do you know what a hematoma is?

JW | January 8, 2008, 11:47am | #

Here's the relevant passage:

Following the raid, a doctor recommended Jon be given fluids, Tylenol and ice to treat the bruises, according to a copy of the child's patient aftercare instructions.

Looks like dad was right after all. Go figure.

TrickyVic | January 8, 2008, 11:48am | #

""""Anybody think there's a dime's worth of hope for the Republic?""""

I do. But it's slowing fading.

I know the American people have a trigger, albeit a slow one. We have a lot of tolerance, that a good and bad thing. We will get fed up with it when it's shoved in our faces. It's not really in our face yet.

My fear is that it will be too late for peaceful resolve once we wake up.

Liberty4All | January 8, 2008, 11:48am | #

JW,

Holyrepublican does't deal with the fact that the kid was NOT suffering. We have an overzealous social worker class in this country empowered by people like Mr. Holy himself who think they are crusading for kids. Freedom is lost when it is given away bit by bit in the name of some good cause in this case "we are doing it for the children", that is fascist-speak for do it or we will roll over you.

Jeremy P. Carlo | January 8, 2008, 11:53am | #

Hi Crimethink,

Yes, you're right. If someone doesn't want to be treated, we have them sign a "Refuse Medical Assistance" or RMA (it's on the back of our ACR's), and we're on our way.

However, we will NOT do that in certain cases - for example, someone who is clearly mentally ill or under the influence of drugs/alcohol and not in control of their faculties, or an unaccompanied unemancipated minor (who cannot legally sign a waiver of medical care), for example.

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 11:53am | #

Well... yes, we should "roll over" anyone who gets in the way of protecting children. How many more examples of child abuse do we need before you liberals wake up and realize that we have a collective responsibility to protect those who cannot protect themselves?

The Wine Commonsewer | January 8, 2008, 11:54am | #

Tricky, my dad keeps telling me it's getting better and that it will take 50 more years.....took 75 years to get like this, isn't going to change over night.

I'd like to believe he's right but stuff like this makes me realize he isn't.

Captain Chaos | January 8, 2008, 11:54am | #

EMTs are mandatory reporters, at least here in Missouri. In other words, we are required by law to report any situation that looks like abuse. If the kid truly did have a blown pupil, and the father refused care, it could be construed as abusive. Pupils that are unequal or that do not react properly to light can indicate that the patient has suffered a serious concussion, or something worse. (Strokes, brain tumors, and a host of other neurological problems can also cause that. But there are very few conditions where a sluggish pupil reflex indicates anything other than a real problem.)

OTOH, I don't know of any circumstances where an EMT can enter a home against the owner's wishes. In a case where a parent was refusing to allow access to an injured child, the proper course of action is to contact medical control and then the police. Our job is not to break and enter.

Also, it gets very, very tricky when minors are being treated. For instance, if an EMT is called to the scene of a car accident, and the patient is a conscious and responsive 16-year-old, we can not begin treatment without first contacting the patient's parents. The only exceptions are if the patient is unresponsive or there is an immediate life threat.

If a patient refuses care, we must respect that unless they have an altered mental status or are unconscious, in which case implied consent applies.

That being said, the SWAT response was simply grotesque.

Lamar | January 8, 2008, 11:55am | #

A hematoma is a bruise. It's a case of social workers trying to sound all medical-like. Everybody knows respect comes with using big, medical-sounding words.

Ska | January 8, 2008, 11:56am | #

How about a real case and not a misdiagnosis by a social worker and an uniformed neighbor.

This guy isn't for real, c'mon.

TrickyVic | January 8, 2008, 11:56am | #

"""TrickyVic... I am NOT a liberal. I would describe myself as an O'Reilly Republican."""

Then I would describe you as a self-hating liberal. ;-) All kidding aside.

Then why are you
1. Not paying attention to the facts of this incident.
2. Whining like one.
3. Support the concept that government knows best over a parent.
4. Pick up Hillary's time honored talking point "is for the children"

Don't you think it's proper for people to complain if government is subverting their rights? Why on earth you would a REAL republican complain about that?

Captain Chaos | January 8, 2008, 11:57am | #

JW- Any head injury is worth getting checked out. However, if the kid really did have screwed up pupils, there was every reason to take him to a doctor.*

*This does not excuse the SWAT team raid. At All.

Liberty4All | January 8, 2008, 11:57am | #

JW you are right about holyrepublican. Don't engage him because he wont engage on the facts of this case - he's either trolling or a dim bulb. Let's keep the conversation among the rest of us. I hope Radley keeps up his work and publishes further volumes like this one:

Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America

By Radley Balko

http://www.catostore.org/index.asp?fa=ProductDetails&method=cats&scid=33&pid=1441318

I own a copy, you all should pick one up ASAP!

The Wine Commonsewer | January 8, 2008, 11:57am | #

Holy, my sister in law is a social services shrink, even though she's no libertarian, you talk to her for about 10 minutes and you'll realize that the idea that government protects children is an oxymoron.

Every time I get to thinking stupid stuff like that I remind myself about the boy my county took from his parents who was systematically tortured and then murdered by his foster parents. Actually, there have been two them in the last five years.

JW | January 8, 2008, 11:57am | #

L4A--I would say that the kid was suffering. Whacking your head like that is very painful. My son cried for about a half-hour. We should just be greatful that holy-boy isn't an EMT. We'd have doors kicked down on the hour, every hour. We'd probably have a lot more amputations for paper cuts on little Sally's fingers too.

Luckily, I know my neighbors and the accident happened indoors. I just never knew how close I was to having my home invaded for not reporting his minor injury to the au-thah-i-ties.

Episiarch | January 8, 2008, 11:57am | #

How many more examples of child abuse do we need before you liberals wake up and realize that we have a collective responsibility to protect those who cannot protect themselves?

Dude, that is some funny, funny shit. I think you're just doing some good trolling and pulling our collective leg, but just in case you're not, I'll spell it out.

You do get that you are taking the complete liberal position and then calling people who oppose it liberals, right? If you are for real, you are exhibit a-fucking-one in how the new "compassionate conservatives"/neo-cons are just...big government liberals.

TrickyVic | January 8, 2008, 11:58am | #

"""Well... yes, we should "roll over" anyone who gets in the way of protecting children. How many more examples of child abuse do we need before you liberals wake up and realize that we have a collective responsibility to protect those who cannot protect themselves?"""

Spoken like a Hillary liberal. Bill O'Reilly would never agree to that.

Sorry holyrepublican. The liberal shoe fits.

JW | January 8, 2008, 11:59am | #

JW- Any head injury is worth getting checked out. However, if the kid really did have screwed up pupils, there was every reason to take him to a doctor.*

Agreed. It was the first thing I checked. If he showed any signs of a concussion, he would have been taken to the emergency room, where we would have sat for the next 4 hours. ;-)

Captain Chaos | January 8, 2008, 12:00pm | #

JW-For future reference: people who come in by ambulance get priority in the ER. Now, I'm not suggesting you call an ambulance to get around the lines. I'm just saying that it would probably work if you did.*

*Local protocols and hospital policies mean YMMV.

Mike Espinoza | January 8, 2008, 12:01pm | #

O'Reilly Republican = Populist Authoritarian

i.e. "If you weren't doin' anything wrong, we wouldn't have to beat down your door, knock you on the floor, and put a gun to your neck."

Sorry, I'd rather be a constitutionalist.

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 12:02pm | #

Uhhh ... sorry, but REAL Republicans are compassionate. I may be in the minority, but I do believe the best thing for this party was George W. Bush. We needed to flush the impurities away ... i.e., the Rockefeller sorts and the others who value ANYTHING over common sense security. History has the long view, and though reviled now, he will be judged like Truman ... in any case, we MUST care for the children, and for all the obvious reasons. Must I really go into why this is necessary? This is not the 19th century...

Liberty4All | January 8, 2008, 12:02pm | #

JW,

I did not mean to imply that the child was not in pain, but that the child was not a victim of a negligent parent. I used a poor choice of words.

J sub D | January 8, 2008, 12:03pm | #

We have an overzealous social worker class in this country empowered by people like Mr. Holy himself who think they are crusading for kids.

Paging Caseworker Alice Pitney.
You are wanted at Reason.com.
Alice Pitney to Reason.com.

Captain Chaos | January 8, 2008, 12:03pm | #

I may have missed something. If the social worker was the one who noticed sluggish pupils, I'm less inclined to take her seriously. While checking a person's pupils is easy, you still have to know what's normal and what isn't. That takes at least some training and practice.

TrickyVic | January 8, 2008, 12:04pm | #

""""Agreed. It was the first thing I checked. If he showed any signs of a concussion, he would have been taken to the emergency room, where we would have sat for the next 4 hours. ;-)""""

and then receive something for the headache and be on his way.

Aresen | January 8, 2008, 12:05pm | #

~~Apparently~~ she's more grown-up than the local government officials.

Fixed it for you, tarran.

de stijl | January 8, 2008, 12:06pm | #

Aresen | January 8, 2008, 12:07pm | #

but I do believe the best thing for this party was George W. Bush

That settles the question. He's a moron, not a troll.

Jeremy P. Carlo | January 8, 2008, 12:07pm | #

For future reference: people who come in by ambulance get priority in the ER. Now, I'm not suggesting you call an ambulance to get around the lines. I'm just saying that it would probably work if you did.*

For the record: being brought in by ambulance means you get initially seen faster than if you walk in. (If for no other reason that the ambulance crew can't leave until the patient has been seen and signed for by hospital staff, and we're not going to stand around waiting for a zillion years.)

So you will get seen by someone very quickly (as opposed to sitting in the waiting room). What happens after that is anybody's guess, though; good money says you'll probably lay on a stretcher waiting for hours anyway.

Hopefully in that initial assessment they'll figure out if your abdominal aorta is dissecting or you're in the middle of a CVA and will do something about it right away. Good money on that says... maybe.

robin | January 8, 2008, 12:08pm | #

holyrepublican:
You are forgetting the fact that an MD agreed with the father. The child just got a minor bump on his head.

The facts therefore support the father's decision and DO NOT support the actions of the paramedic, police, social workers, etc. The kindest interpretation is that the authorities got carried away by zeal in "caring for the child". A less charitable interpretation is that they have no judgment and may take extreme action when it is not warranted (see "Chicken Little").

JW | January 8, 2008, 12:08pm | #

L4A--No worries. I know what you were getting at...just clarifying things.

Capt'n C.--Exactly.

That settles the question. He's a moron, not a troll.

Actually, he's both.

TrickyVic | January 8, 2008, 12:08pm | #

"""sorry, but REAL Republicans are compassionate."""

REAL republicans believe in limited government. They would never accept this incident.

If you care that much for the children then Hillary Clinton is the candidate for you. Stop denying it and vote for the children.

Warren | January 8, 2008, 12:11pm | #

BAHKACK! AGLEFRAGLE GNIFBOK SHIBBLE DRUFF !@#$%#^& #%^#&@~! *&@$%# @#$$@ *&@!
SNA GOOGLE BLECH!!!!!!

JW | January 8, 2008, 12:11pm | #

And by "exactly," I was referring to the posting where Capt'n C spoke to the social worker diagnosis.

I would have driven my son to the ER myself.

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 12:13pm | #

Well... I must say that Hillary Clinton is the best Democratic candidate on issues pertaining to security. I would NEVER vote for her ... but, we conservatives would be foolish to deny her bona fides on certain issues. However ... my vote goes to either Guiliani or Huckabee. Haven't made up my mind yet between these two ... both are fantastic and have the best interest of America at heart.
As for YOU JW ... you know nothing my friend.

TrickyVic | January 8, 2008, 12:14pm | #

Robin, you're probably beating a dead horse. In Holy's view, it's the cops vs. the father and guess who wins every time. Facts and reason be damned. I've always thought that was true of O'Reilly republicans. Holy is re-enforcing my belief.

The facts of this incident support the father, not the cops. I wonder if Holy will ever get it.

Captain Chaos | January 8, 2008, 12:14pm | #

Jeremy-Right. I've taken PTs in that were treated more or less immediately, but I've also seen chest pain PTs sit around waiting for a transfer to a cath lab, and seen frequent flyers who use us as a taxi service be sent to the waiting room.

Isn't the diagnostis and treatment for a discecting aorta something like, "Uh-oh, I feel a pulsating mass. The patient's face is turning pale. GET A CRASH CART! Actually, don't bother. Time of death..." Unless, of course, your PT is lucky enough to be at an awesome hospital with an OR room ready.

I kid...sort of. I've only seen one PT with an Aortic anuerism, and we flew him. In the meantime, we tried very hard not to jar him. Scary stuff, that.

TrickyVic | January 8, 2008, 12:16pm | #

"""Well... I must say that Hillary Clinton is the best Democratic candidate on issues pertaining to security.""""

WOW, WOW, What republican would ever say that. Especially in public. Clinton's strong on security. WOW.

thoreau | January 8, 2008, 12:16pm | #

Were it not for the SWAT team, I would call this a case of general ass covering, with all of the authority figures wanting another authority figure (ER doctor) to sign something covering them. I wouldn't support their decisions, but I would consider their decisions predictable consequences of bigger factors that need to be addressed.

The decision to use a SWAT team, however, is inexcusable, as it potentially put the kid at even greater risk than whatever it was that they feared.

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 12:18pm | #

Listen tricky... I never said I would vote for her. I think her brand of politics is loathsome. Hated Bubba, and I cant stand her. But I am a realist ... she has proven that she would keep the troops where they belong, and that happens to matter quite a bit. Having said that, I would vote for ANY Republican over her.

David | January 8, 2008, 12:20pm | #

What strikes me about this case to the strange mindset that allows people to simultaneous think "Not seeking immediate medical treatment for a child with a potential head injury is an unacceptable risk" and "Storming the house with weapons drawn, handcuffing the family and taking the child by force is an acceptable risk".

JW | January 8, 2008, 12:20pm | #

As for YOU JW ... you know nothing my friend.

You sure about that sparky? You seem to be the one who is wholly uninformed about what actually happened.

Knowledge is power, my friend. Don't fear it, just because you can't use that type of power to kick in a few doors and crack a couple of skulls in the name of AU-THAH-I-TIE.

mediageek | January 8, 2008, 12:22pm | #

Holyrepublican-

That's some good trollin' you got there.

T | January 8, 2008, 12:22pm | #

REAL republicans believe in limited government.

Is this one of those big-R little-r things like we like to do with the word "libertarian"? Because in my experience, the Republican party could give a shit about limited government anymore. Some small percentage of republicans may still be left in the GOP, but as a whole, the Republican Party is a lost cause. Look at the presidential candidates for proof.

Anonymous | January 8, 2008, 12:22pm | #

If something had gone wrong in the raid, a member of the family could have gotten killed for this bump on the head. That was quite a risk. Was it less of a risk than the bump on the head?

Bunch of country idiots, really. Apparently it isn't enough to go out shooting small game on weekends. But maybe the one poster before had it right: we're all the new nigras to your local sheriff.

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 12:23pm | #

ok Jay Dub, I'll grant that you are a funny guy ... but the facts are clear. The man caused the problem, not the police. He could have cooperated. He didn't. That creates a reasonable cloud of suspicion.

TrickyVic | January 8, 2008, 12:24pm | #

""""But I am a realist ...""""

If that's true you would have a better understanding of why the cops were wrong.

"""I would vote for ANY Republican over her."""

Guiliani, Huckabee, Hillary, what's the difference? With the exeception of Ron Paul, I agree with Rush Limbaugh, not a real republican in the field.

JW | January 8, 2008, 12:24pm | #

I dunno mg, that seems to be authentic stupidity at work.

Bobster | January 8, 2008, 12:26pm | #

My dad once fell of a ladder and hit his head. He got a big bump and a gash. My aunt found him dazed on the ground and called for an ambulance. Then she called me. I drove over to his house to find him sitting on the porch surrounded by medics and cops. He was refusing to go to the hospital and they were arguing with him about it. I went into the house to get some ice and low and behold there were two cops in there as well. They demanded to know who I was. I demanded to know who they were. They said they were there because somebody called a person falling. I directed them outside and to escorted them to the door. (I can be intimidating I'm told) The cops and the medics then tried to convince me to sign something so they could take my dad to the hospital against his will. I refused. The medic said he needed stitches. My dad said he would stitch it himself, which he did later. It took 20 minutes but eventually the "rescuers" left us alone.

Long story short, if you get hurt don't be surprised to find cops in your house. Be sure not to have anything laying around, like pot, a bible or the Constitution, as that will be grounds for a later visit by SWAT.

mediageek | January 8, 2008, 12:27pm | #

You think?

Could he possibly be so thoughtlessly stupid that we have indeed encountered a creature that is a simulacrum of a Republican stereotype?

TrickyVic | January 8, 2008, 12:27pm | #

T, I agree. It is my belief that the republicans screwed themselves when they accepted the Falwell version of republicanism. It's possible it died before that.

TrickyVic | January 8, 2008, 12:29pm | #

"""That creates a reasonable cloud of suspicion.""""

Suspicion of what?

J sub D | January 8, 2008, 12:31pm | #

However ... my vote goes to either Guiliani or Huckabee.

IOW, you support the right wing, authoritarian, dg-good, busybody, nanny-staters over the left-wing, authoritarian, dg-good, busybody, nanny-staters. A brave and principled decision there, HR.

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 12:31pm | #

Did Rush really say that? Seriously? In any case ... There is a WORLD of difference between these guys. Forget Shrillary ...like I said, I would NEVER vote for her. I like Huck for his unabashed faith in God and his advocacy of the Fair Tax ... Guiliani is good on security, but I fear he is lacking in most other areas. I do kind-of like Thompson, but he is totally uninspiring. We need a leader, a person of conviction that will do what is best for America. I haven't made up my mind yet ...

Bobster | January 8, 2008, 12:32pm | #

So if I refuse to do something just because some guy with a clip board tells me too I am suddenly in a cloud of suspicion? I better check my fog lights cause I predict a white out.

T | January 8, 2008, 12:34pm | #

Suspicion of what?

Why, refusing to fellate duly empowered authority, of course! All citizens love and revere the state, and should be happy to cooperate with agents thereof. Any refusal to do so is an inherently traitorous act! We must intervene to save the children!

I think I'm gonna go wash now. I feel dirty just typing that.

Liberty4All | January 8, 2008, 12:34pm | #

I fear that the father of Neo-Conservatism Irving Kristol was right - people will vote for bigger government. I'm hoping that the Ron Paul candidacy sparks something bigger than both parties but I'm not optimistic. I consider myself a conservative libertarian and man these seem like dark days. From the Neo-Puritans on the left and right who want to ban everything from smoking to dildos we seem to be fighting a 2 front battle. Thank God for South Park!!!! :-)

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 12:35pm | #

Suspicion of total parental incompetence and possible child endangerment, that's what ... and JSD ... it is principled. For all their faults, the Republicans believe in the bedrock values of family, faith and freedom. I will take that over moral anarchy, godlessness and the welfare state any day!

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 12:37pm | #

Liberty4all ... Paul does not have a chance. He finishes next to last tonight and his campaign falls apart thereafter ...

P Brooks | January 8, 2008, 12:38pm | #

That's some good trollin' you got there.

That's one damn good battery on his trollin' motor, too.

Happy Jack | January 8, 2008, 12:38pm | #

My, look what the cat drug in. Radley, for our amusement, could you post viewer mail every Friday? Nothing like starting the weekend with a smile.

Liberty4All | January 8, 2008, 12:38pm | #

It's obvious holyrepublican is trying to be a very very very very very very poor man's Steven Colbert. The more you engage him the more material he gets - kinda like feeding the pigeons and then wonder why they keep coming back.

joe | January 8, 2008, 12:40pm | #

Hey, that guy believes that soldiers may not be quartered in private homes!

Get 'im!

JW | January 8, 2008, 12:41pm | #

I like Huck for his unabashed faith in God and his advocacy of the Fair Tax...

...We need a leader, a person of conviction that will do what is best for America....

...Republicans believe in the bedrock values of family, faith and freedom.

Man, I just got an erection off of that stirring speech that you could hang a flag off of and throw a decent salute at. ***tears...welling...up...in...eyes***

Paul | January 8, 2008, 12:41pm | #

We're all self-proclaimed constitutionalists now...

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 12:41pm | #

P Brooks | January 8, 2008, 12:42pm | #

We need a leader, a person of conviction that will do what is best for America.

Daddy! Save us, Daddy!

Paul | January 8, 2008, 12:43pm | #

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.

It's again time to start fondling the firearms...

Jake Boone | January 8, 2008, 12:44pm | #

Ah boy, you people are simply too much ... anyone who comes to H&R with an opposing viewpoint, or contributes something that happens to be outside of your incredibly narrow view of the world is labeled a troll.

Dan T.! Forgive me... I didn't recognize you under your new republican raiment!

Tico | January 8, 2008, 12:47pm | #

I would be more interested in this story were a little more basic journalistic detail provided. What town, exactly, in western Colorado did this occur? Being familiar with the western slope of the Rockies, I could then go back and verify that this did happen and that the details are correct. However, it certainly doesn't sound beyond the scope of something a small-town sherriff with an axe to grind would do. Gotta drum up business and let the locals know who's boss!

TrickyVic | January 8, 2008, 12:48pm | #

Yeah, Rush did, and he didn't exclude anyone. Which is why I disagree with respects to Ron Paul.

I'm curious as to what you see different between them, they are all what J Sub D says. With maybe two exceptions, one being Paul, and maybe Thompson, and maybe, maybe McCain.

The ones closest to being real republicans have the lest support from republicans. Thompson is proving to be lazier than accused.

""Guiliani is good on security,"""
Really? becuase someone who is good on security would have never, ever, ever, put their emergency commmand bunker inside of a known and previously attacked terrorist target. I think you are making the same security mistake the Germans did in 1938, the inability to detect facisism.

Do you believe in the Bill of Rights? Rudy went to court over freedom of speech issues about 25 times in 8 years and lost all but two. Huckabee is the same as Hillary, except he was a preacher. Do what my Sean O'Reilly lovin' Arkansan mom did and jump of the Huckabee train, she caught him BSing about taxes. He's not what he seems. She realized it. My very conservative dad still calls him fat Mike and doesn't think he's worth a dime.

But here's the Huckabee kicker for ya. If you think our defending the father over the cops is bad, how do you really feel about a guy who paroles a rapist, and that rapist rapes again?
That's Huckabee!!

JW | January 8, 2008, 12:48pm | #

anyone who comes to H&R with an opposing viewpoint, or contributes something that happens to be outside of your incredibly narrow view of the world is labeled a troll.

No, come to us with an opposing viewpoint and a clue and we'll respect you just fine.

Our good man, joe, can give you lessons, for a small fee of course.

Steve | January 8, 2008, 12:49pm | #

He could have cooperated. He didn't.

And this is one more reason why constitionalists are leaving your party in droves. Limiting authority is a libertarian/conservative trend, used to be conservative anyhow, it's the liberals/socialists/communists who crave control and obedience. The man and his family was targeted because of his political/religious beliefs. He was a homeshooling constitutionalist and that's why they brought in SWAT. A hematome is a bruise, i have 2 hematomas on my body right now, they are not worth the hundreds of dollars an ER trip costs. He'll sue and he'll win, there was no reasonable suspicion of child abuse or it would have been reported as such. Go back to China please.

Robert | January 8, 2008, 12:49pm | #

social services workers appeared at the door and demanded to talk with John "in private."

They were so persistent Tom ended up having to get John out of the bathtub he was just soaking in, to bring him to the front porch where the social workers could see him

Report: "Family has no clothes for child. Child is cold and dripping wet (suspected diaphoresis)."

But seriously, the "sluggish pupil" was almost certainly an incorrect finding by the social service worker. Unless due to drug effects (which were not involved), a deficit in pupil reflex following trauma doesn't just correct itself. Therefore it must not have been there to begin with.

robc | January 8, 2008, 12:50pm | #

Jake,

Dan T.! Forgive me...

I was thinking the same thing.

Steve | January 8, 2008, 12:54pm | #

But here's the Huckabee kicker for ya. If you think our defending the father over the cops is bad, how do you really feel about a guy who paroles a rapist, and that rapist rapes again?

Rapes and murders, don't forget he killed that poor girl.

TrickyVic | January 8, 2008, 12:57pm | #

""""the Republicans believe in the bedrock values of family, faith and freedom. I will take that over moral anarchy, godlessness and the welfare state any day!"""""

You are supporting authority over family, and freedom. You certainly not respecting the father or the father's freedom. You promote the expansion of the welfare state and you're not aware of it. If you really understood God, you would know he wants no part of government by men. His is a higher form.

J. Louis | January 8, 2008, 12:58pm | #

Taking arms this time IS NOT the way to go...protecting your family with them is fine, but as the old saying goes and is still ever so true, "The pen is Mightier than the Sword...

Educate yourself in the REAL law, and everything they have done to destroy this country, can be be turned around right back on them... Granted, we have to take responsability for letting them get to this point for so long now, but there IS something We the People can do...it's time WE do it...!!!

Start by getting re-programmed in the truth and step out of the Matrix...if only for a while that you too may know truth...what you do with that truth is up to you...but KNOW that there are many, many others that are doing it...Namaste'

Liberty4All | January 8, 2008, 12:59pm | #

"Rapes and murders, don't forget he killed that poor girl."

Hey but Huck cares about the "regular guy"!! He's the peoples candidate. He even got Ric Flair and Chuck Norris to endorse him - what more do you need?!!! :-)

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 1:00pm | #

Ok, so you say I need a "clue" ... whatever. Your snooty disdain for opposition is evident and beyond the reach of reason. Anyways ... I posit this: We are ... healthier, live longer, more free, safer and environmentally cleaner than we have ever been. Much of this, not all of it, has to do with government providing the framework for a better society. Most of it has to do with the power of the individual making good choices, but that has been augmented by the intervention of representative, i.e., Constitutional government. Take the Surgeon General's warning labels and government funding education pertaining to the dangers of smoking. That made the dangers of smoking impossible to ignore, and contributed to the saving of millions of lives.

J. Louis | January 8, 2008, 1:02pm | #

As someone here said "It's again time to start fondling the firearms..."

"Taking arms this time IS NOT the way to go...protecting your family with them is fine, but as the old saying goes and is still ever so true, "The pen is Mightier than the Sword...

Educate yourself in the REAL law, and everything they have done to destroy this country, can be be turned around right back on them... Granted, we have to take responsability for letting them get to this point for so long now, but there IS something We the People can do...it's time WE do it...!!!

Start by getting re-programmed in the truth and step out of the Matrix...if only for a while that you too may know truth...what you do with that truth is up to you...but KNOW that there are many, many others that are doing it...Namaste' http://deprogram.us/deprogram.php

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 1:02pm | #

I see that as one of the few examples of where government has a role to play... the "general welfare".

Liberty4All | January 8, 2008, 1:02pm | #

"Much of this, not all of it, has to do with government providing the framework for a better society."

Do not resist - you will be assimilated into the borg. Only WE can decide what the good life is.

Steve | January 8, 2008, 1:02pm | #

Hey but Huck cares about the "regular guy"!! He's the peoples candidate. He even got Ric Flair and Chuck Norris to endorse him - what more do you need?!!! :-)

Paul has Kane and Val Venis, they could beat up Norris and Flair without breaking a sweat.

Regarding Huckabee, i'm still waiting for the MSM to say something, anything, about his dismal record in AK.

zig zag man | January 8, 2008, 1:03pm | #

SWAT teams are the nuclear bomb of the law enforcement arsenal. Why has the use of SWAT teams become the default response for anything? What's next? SWAT teams at speed traps?

Liberty4All | January 8, 2008, 1:04pm | #

Steve, Did Kane really endorse him? I know Val is a big time libertarian.

However I do believe you underestimate the figure 4 leg lock and the power of Walker, Texas Ranger!!! :-)

Steve | January 8, 2008, 1:05pm | #

Anyways ... I posit this: We are ... healthier, live longer, more free, safer and environmentally cleaner than we have ever been. Much of this, not all of it, has to do with government providing the framework for a better society. Most of it has to do with the power of the individual making good choices, but that has been augmented by the intervention of representative, i.e., Constitutional government. Take the Surgeon General's warning labels and government funding education pertaining to the dangers of smoking. That made the dangers of smoking impossible to ignore, and contributed to the saving of millions of lives.

Make up your mind, are you for limited government or welfare government?

Steve | January 8, 2008, 1:07pm | #

Liberty4All- yep, it's on the caimpaign site and there are pics out there. Chuck don't scare me, Kane put his brother in a coffin and lit it on fire, how can you get badder than that?

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 1:09pm | #

Steve... please enlighten me as to how the above statement is an example of welfare-statism, as it is commonly understood? Do you argue that any part of what I said is incorrect?

Liberty4All | January 8, 2008, 1:09pm | #

Steve you make a great point. It ain't easy takin' out the Undertaker. :-)

Paul | January 8, 2008, 1:10pm | #

Start by getting re-programmed in the truth and step out of the Matrix...if only for a while that you too may know truth...what you do with that truth is up to you...but KNOW that there are

But... in the Matrix they took up arms...

Paul | January 8, 2008, 1:12pm | #

Oh, and by the way, truth doesn't require "programming". Only propaganda does.

TrickyVic | January 8, 2008, 1:12pm | #

"""I see that as one of the few examples of where government has a role to play... the "general welfare"."""

So do you have a problem with welfare or not?

The general welfare clause is what promotes real welfare, give money to the poor of the country therefore increasing the general welfare of the nation. You must keep in mind that when they wrote that, the federal government had very little money. Most of us here would prefer a small purse for the feds.

Hey you can't be a compassionate conservative and say screw the poor, they don't need no welfare. A real conservative will.

Ask me for a quarter, I'll tell you to get a damn job, not very compassionate on my part.

Aresen | January 8, 2008, 1:13pm | #

zzm

Watch those lane changes, boy! ;)

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 1:16pm | #

I am a compassionate conservative, therefore I do believe in aiding the poor ... under very strict guidelines. The welfare reform that was proposed by the Contract Republicans and ultimately signed by Bubba was a perfect happy medium. We will help you get back on your feet, but we will not support you over a lifespan.

TrickyVic | January 8, 2008, 1:16pm | #

"""Regarding Huckabee, i'm still waiting for the MSM to say something, anything, about his dismal record in AK.""""

Common mistake. Arkansas is AR.

Huckabee has no record in Alaska.

Just wanted to set the record straight, carry on.

joe | January 8, 2008, 1:19pm | #

Ah boy, you people are simply too much ... anyone who comes to H&R with an opposing viewpoint, or contributes something that happens to be outside of your incredibly narrow view of the world is labeled a troll.

Eh. Just keep making substantive points, and they'll come around.

It's like anywhere else. You should have seen what happened when I said in a Think Progress threat that our plans to end the Iraq War should include defending the Kurds.

P Brooks | January 8, 2008, 1:20pm | #

Submission is Freedom.

TrickyVic | January 8, 2008, 1:24pm | #

"""I am a compassionate conservative, therefore I do believe in aiding the poor ... under very strict guidelines.""""

Wait, let me guess. Under strict guidelines that would require them to give up some rights. If the government gives you money, you must forfeit something. Is that it? To get your dignity back you must give you what you cherished rights.

How would that be compassionate?

Steve | January 8, 2008, 1:24pm | #

holyrepublican- sure.

1. Governemnt doesn't "provide the framework for a better society", that's what the libs present, the truth is(as conservatives and libertarians see it) that individuals, families, tradition and non-state social instutions(like your local church) provide the framework for a better society, the purpose of the bill of rights is to limit the amount of damage and interference the State could inflict on that society.

2. Government can only be said to be "consitutional" and "representative" if it stays within the bounds of the constitution(hence "constitutional", duh) and if it truley represents the will of the governed. No it can still be representative if some or the majority of the governed want it to do things extra-constitutional, but it would no longer be "constitutional".

3. regarding smoking, there is a difference between making info available for the public to make an informed decision and protecting the public from fraud, and supporting a national smoking ban(that would be mister huckabee) and/or taxing the hell out of the product(sin taxes, soon to be national as well) and banning the use of it based on unsopported research regarding the dangers of second hand smoke. There is a line between protecting the public from fraud and enforcing good personal health habits on people who do not nessecarily care about their health or if they do are not in need of the State to enforce good personal behaviour.

If it aint to protect against fraud and force it's most likely extra-constitutional and beyond the acceptable limits of a limited governemnt, that would make it welfare(for the good of society) based.

Are you for limited governemnt or for the welfare governemnt(granted your theocratic version of a welfare government).

TrickyVic | January 8, 2008, 1:26pm | #

"""To get your dignity back you must give you what you cherished rights.""

give up your cherished rights.

J sub D | January 8, 2008, 1:26pm | #

Suspicion of total parental incompetence and possible child endangerment, that's what ... and JSD ... it is principled.

I suspect you of being mentally unfit to care for yourself, HR. Don't bother answering the door, the state will let itself in.

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 1:26pm | #

Thanks for the good word joe ... so, you are one of the resident dissidents, huh? I suppose you are correct ... challenging somebody's dearly held views is often met with vitriol.

de stijl | January 8, 2008, 1:28pm | #

You should have seen what happened when I said in a Think Progress threat that our plans to end the Iraq War should include defending the Kurds.

Maybe if you had made it as a statement rather than as a threat, it would have been received better.

billhilly | January 8, 2008, 1:29pm | #

So I suppose holyrepublican is fine with the all knowing benevolent government providing contraception and safe sex advice to his 12 year old daughter as it is for her welfare? How about mandating a healthy diet? Teaching that all religious beliefs are inherently intolerant and therefore detrimental to the welfare of the country?

Where do you draw the line at what the government cannot do in the interest of the children?

Steve | January 8, 2008, 1:30pm | #

But the Children! Think of the Children!

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 1:34pm | #

Ok ... let's disband the police, take warning labels off toxic products and stop going after child abusers. Sounds like a recipe for a return that Golden Age known as the ... Wild West of the 19th century. That is the libertarian fantasy, isn't it? Is that not the idealized world? A place in time where there is no law, no enforceable community standards, no sense of collective purpose? I hate to tell you this, but a century of progress pulled us out of the mire, and that progress was pushed forward by some brave souls who happened to occupy high office... like TR.

J sub D | January 8, 2008, 1:35pm | #

Take the Surgeon General's warning labels and government funding education pertaining to the dangers of smoking.

How stupid could somebody be to disregard the dangers of smoking in 1964? I was 9, and knew the smoking was bad for your health prior to the surgeon general's warning. I also knew you shouldn't play in traffic. Perhaps I was a precocious youngster.

Tacos mmm... | January 8, 2008, 1:40pm | #

Ok ... let's disband the police, take warning labels off toxic products and stop going after child abusers.

Yes, because there is no middle ground. We must have either S.W.A.T. teams breaking down doors for no reason, or no police at all. There can be no other alternative.

Fluffy | January 8, 2008, 1:41pm | #

HolyRepublican:

How about making the police need a warrant to enter my home?

And how about making it necessary for the police to KNOCK, and to give me the opportunity to READ THE WARRANT, before they enter my home?

Those two are the minimum requirements before you can ask me to support police action.

I don't really care if fulfilling those two requirements makes it more difficult for the police to gather evidence, or makes it more dangerous to be a police officer, either. The convenience of the police is not my concern.

And you're sooooooo right. If it weren't for warning labels on cigarettes, no one would know they weren't healthy. Even though there's documentary evidence that the negative health effects of smoking have been well known since the 1600's.

And only the warning label on bleach keeps me from drinking it. So score one for the nanny state right there.

billhilly | January 8, 2008, 1:41pm | #

Oh now that’s a sensible argument. I just asked you to define the limits if any, that you thought were appropriate to place on the government acting in the interest of “the general welfare” of the country.

I’m guessing those limits would come down along the lines of what your personal beliefs are. Too many people don’t have any problem with the government forcing people to do things they agree they ought to be doing anyway. It gets tricky when they start forcing other folk’s priorities on you though doesn’t it?

Timothy Scott | January 8, 2008, 1:43pm | #

Well, it's official; we now live in a Police State. For the record: I am a retired Special Forces medic. I have occasionally used my professional judgement and treated family members saving everyone - including my fellow tax payers time and money.

I believe in the Constitution and legally own guns.

Any "Law Enforcement" personell who attempt to enter my house uninvited do so at their peril.

Patriot

Jamie Kelly | January 8, 2008, 1:46pm | #

More evidence that the GOP is no longer the party of liberty. Conservative doesn't mean anything but authority humping bible freak. I mean, jeeez, Ruby Ridge was soooo pre-9/11

Lamar wins, hands down.

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 1:47pm | #

call it the nanny-state, call it what you will ... it worked. Government efforts to curtail smoking through labeling and education has saved millions of lives and saved us trillions of billions of dollars in health care costs. If the dangers were so widely known for three hundred years, then why did 80% of Americans smoke in the 40's? Hmmm? You are wrong ... when the science for the deleterious effects of smoking was finally, broadly accepted in the medical community, the government embarked on a wise and very helpful program of education and regulation, which it continues to this day, saving lives and money galore.

Jamie Kelly | January 8, 2008, 1:47pm | #

HolyRepublican,
Did Huckabee breast-feed you?

Paul | January 8, 2008, 1:48pm | #

challenging somebody's dearly held views is often met with vitriol.

You can say that again.

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 1:48pm | #

"trillions of billions" ... lol ... meant billions, though I would not doubt it could ultimately save trillions.

Steve | January 8, 2008, 1:48pm | #

holyrepublican- i haven't seen a reply, do you agree or disagree with the following and pleas explain why:

1. Governemnt doesn't "provide the framework for a better society", that's what the libs present, the truth is(as conservatives and libertarians see it) that individuals, families, tradition and non-state social institions(like your local church) provide the framework for a better society, the purpose of the bill of rights is to limit the amount of damage and interference the State could inflict on that society.

billhilly | January 8, 2008, 1:50pm | #

Then we should be fine with the banning of bacon, ice cream, alcohol (again), and anything else that is bad for us. After all, we’re obviously not capable of making the “correct” choices for ourselves, much less for our children.

Shane | January 8, 2008, 1:55pm | #

call it the nanny-state, call it what you will ... it worked. Government efforts to...

And you accused us of using the "typical liberal response"?

TrickyVic | January 8, 2008, 1:56pm | #

Holy, shouldn't we just ban the making of tobacco products and the growing of tobacco?

Seriously, if smoking is so bad for the people, why is the government profiting from it?

Besides, since when was the government deciding what is right for you NOT a liberal ideology?

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 1:58pm | #

Steve... I agree with the crux of that statement. However, I also believe that it is naive, as I said before, to believe that the founders intended NO role for the government. I accept that these prescribed powers are few and limited in number... but within the individual areas that are enumerated, the powers are actually somewhat muscular.
But instead of denying this, it should be accepted, embraced, and celebrated! The founders established a separation of powers, within a framework of law that has permitted this country to become the greatest in world history. They sagaciously set forth to expand the realm of human freedom while simultaneously restraining the impulse to mobocracy. We can thank them for it.

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 2:01pm | #

Personally, I am with Huck on this one. I dont know about a full-out ban, but I must say that America would be cleaner, healthier and happier without them. That is promoting the general welfare!

Jamie Kelly | January 8, 2008, 2:02pm | #

HolyRepublican,
How do Waco and Ruby Ridge figure in your thinking about police actions?
Seriously, answer the question.
We're not nit-picking examples of rare uses of unjustified force around these parts. Balko has been the nation's leader in reporting on widespread police and SWAT abuses stemming from the "War on Drugs" and unchecked authoritarianism.

JW | January 8, 2008, 2:03pm | #

That is the libertarian fantasy, isn't it?

No, that's your fanatasy about someone else's fantasy. Stick around and try to actually learn something about libertarianism and stop coming off as a Fox News rube.

A place in time where there is no law, no enforceable community standards, no sense of collective purpose?

That sounds more like Congress than any place I know of.

I hate to tell you this, but a century of progress pulled us out of the mire, and that progress was pushed forward by some brave souls who happened to occupy high office... like TR.

Tony Robbins? And they always seem to find some poor schlub's back to carry it on, don't they? It would be nice if they actually did the work themselves.

Paul | January 8, 2008, 2:05pm | #

before, to believe that the founders intended NO role for the government

The founders did believe in a role for government. All libertarians not only accept this, they're really the only ones left on the planet who understand it. The role for government is a limited one. There's this thingy called the Enumerated Powers. Article 1, Section 8 of ye olde Constitution. You as a "Republican" should know that.

Man, as a Republican, it's almost as if Rush Limbaugh of the nineties ceased to exist.

Oh wait, I forgot, 9/11 changed "everything".

JW | January 8, 2008, 2:06pm | #

Never mind. I just read subsequent holy comments and it's obvious we're dealing with a troll Turing test.

zig zag man | January 8, 2008, 2:06pm | #

Aww, to heck with it, let's dispense with the illusion of the friendly neighborhood police officer. Make them all SWAT and problem solved. Every contact with a potential perp, er ah, citizen will be accompanied by respect for his authoritah.

Then any time you are in contact with a police officer you know your life is in peril and you should drop to the ground spread eagle until the nice storm trooper gets tired or bored and finds another victim.

Jamie Kelly | January 8, 2008, 2:06pm | #

America would be cleaner, healthier and happier without them.

Free puppies for everyone!

billhilly | January 8, 2008, 2:07pm | #

Following holyrpublican’s logic:

Smokers cause a drain on our health care rescores therefore smoking should be “regulated”

Fat people cause a drain on our health care resources therefore caloric intake should be regulated and exercise mandatory,

People who go into careers they are not compatible with and have to change fields are a drain on our economy therefore aptitude tests will be given and career choices limited appropriately.

Back problems can affect productivity therefore all will be required to sleep on an ergonomically correct bed to be approved by the government.

Physical and mental deformities as well as people too old to be productive are a drain on society’s resources therefore selective abortion will be mandated and all those too old to work will be hurled off cliffs.

Any ideas or thoughts that are contrary to the “oneness” of the nation can cause social unrest and are a drain on our cohesion and productivity therefore……..

Mike Espinoza | January 8, 2008, 2:07pm | #

Ok ... let's disband the police, take warning labels off toxic products and stop going after child abusers. Sounds like a recipe for a return that Golden Age known as the ... Wild West of the 19th century. That is the libertarian fantasy, isn't it?

Well, no, that's an exaggerration. No libertarian that I know wants to disband the police or stop going after ACTUAL child abusers (which does not apply here). Warning labels is debatable.

And you don't think that everyone lived in subhuman conditions in the 19th century, do you?

Is that not the idealized world? A place in time where there is no law, no enforceable community standards, no sense of collective purpose? I hate to tell you this, but a century of progress pulled us out of the mire, and that progress was pushed forward by some brave souls who happened to occupy high office... like TR.

No, we libertarians believe in law. Your rights end where mine start.

Enforceable community standards? I think not. Social mores take care of themselves. You don't need the police for that.

Sense of collective purpose? That's socialism. You can call it being Republican if you want. It is nanny-statism.

The progress that has pulled us out of the mire is the result of free minds and free markets. Ron Paul is one of those brave souls who still believes in that in the face of adversity.

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 2:07pm | #

Waco and Ruby Ridge ... both tragedies that were caused by a combination of nut-loon anti-government types that did not peacefully relent and overzealous FBI and ATF honchos that were trigger happy. A deadly combo ... however, once again, it was all started by folks that were doing things to kids that were very suspicious, and the community, society, government all had the right to investigate.

Bronwyn | January 8, 2008, 2:11pm | #

Puppies! Are you nuts? They'll just pee on everything and chew our slippers! Besides, some people are allergic to puppies and they'd be miserable.

There's only one thing for it:

Ban puppies for everyone!

And peanuts, too.

Shane | January 8, 2008, 2:11pm | #

How do you debate someone who holds two opposing views at the same time?

Jamie Kelly | January 8, 2008, 2:13pm | #

it was all started by folks that were doing things to kids that were very suspicious

Tell me what "very suspicious" thing Randy Weaver was doing. Enlighten me.
I only used to live in northern Idaho, and was around when all that shit went down, have met and interviewed Randy Weaver, and have read every page of the FBI and court reports on the entire disaster, as well as every book ever written about it.
So tell me, HolyRepublican, tell me what Randy Weaver did that was "very suspicious."
Go ahead. Tell me.
And then we'll move on to Waco.
Got balls? Huh?

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 2:13pm | #

oh my JW, God forbid anyone that is not in total agreement with your positions from posting! Must be a troll... as I said, lame cop-out. Is that the best you got?

Shane | January 8, 2008, 2:13pm | #

oh, i forgot, Compassionate Conservativism. The embodiement of Doublethink.

Bronwyn | January 8, 2008, 2:16pm | #

Shane, it's like arguing with an off-his-meds schizophrenic.

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 2:16pm | #

jamie ...
Randy Weaver had been claimed by the Federal government to have attended the Aryan Nations church and to have been to a rally held by the same group. Weaver was approached and asked to inform, a request he declined. Weaver was then approached at an Aryan Nations rally by an undercover ATF agent Kenneth Faderley (masquerading as a biker named Gus Magisono) wishing to buy some sawn off shotguns. Weaver supplied shotguns to Faderley / Magisono however he claims to have supplied full-length weapons and told Faderley / Magisono to shorten them himself, whereas the ATF maintain the weapons received by their agent were illegally shortened when said agent received them. Another account states that Weaver shortened them in front of the undercover ATF agent, to his requested length, and they were only slightly shorter than legally permitted. Weaver was then approached by ATF agents and told that they had evidence of his possession and sale of illegal weapons, and offering to drop the charges in return for his co-operation in infiltrating the Aryan Nations. Weaver refused. Weaver was not a member of Aryan Nations. He was initially arrested by ATF agents on minor charges relating to possession of an illegally shortened shotgun in January 1991. This was compounded by Weaver's failure to appear in court to answer these charges; he was served with court papers that incorrectly identified the date for his appearance. A bench warrant was issued for Weaver's arrest, and the U.S. Marshals Service was directed to serve it; the assistance of the Marshals Special Operations Group was requested for this purpose. During this period, Weaver isolated himself on his property and became increasingly suspicious of the federal government, vowing to fight rather than surrender peacefully.

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 2:18pm | #

There's your balls ... both smacking ya!

billhilly | January 8, 2008, 2:20pm | #

The latitude you are willing to give the government to decide “what’s good for us” and to enforce the decisions with a SWAT team is abhorrent to me. Are you able to understand that?

Observant Bystander | January 8, 2008, 2:20pm | #

This incident may be interesting if it outrages big government "conservatives," given that the victim was a religious home schooler. I have seen comments elsewhere of the, "Quick tell Fox news and Bill O'Reilly" variety.

The people who are most likely to celebrate highly aggressive police tactics and who tend to resist any second-guessing of the police may have a tough time with this one. But they'll probably just decide it was an "isolated incident" involving a "few bad applies." No reason to start thinking about the shooting in Lima, Ohio or the way in which SWAT teams are now regularly used in America.

Steve | January 8, 2008, 2:22pm | #

God forbid anyone that is not in total agreement with your positions from posting!

I think the problem lies in the fact that your views on the role of government seem to inconsistent, and in this thread contradictory.

When held accountable for that, you tend to use sarcasm and barbed comments concerning a flawed view of libertarianism, and even conservatism, after of course you announced your presence with the flaming comments accusing those who adhere to strict limitations on police action based on constitutional law and limited government of using a "typical liberal response". seems a bit trollish to me, but most likely you're probably just misinformed or confused on what it is that you believe and what it is that the people you are trying to debate believe.

Jamie Kelly | January 8, 2008, 2:24pm | #

Oh, that's fucking precious, HolyRepublican.
Apparently you've mastered the copy-and-paste.
Congratulations, but when you want to have a real debate about Ruby Ridge that isn't regurgitated from wikipedia, I'll be over here waiting to slice your balls off.

Jamie Kelly | January 8, 2008, 2:25pm | #

God, are you really that fucking stupid?

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 2:26pm | #

I posted my response ...now it's time for you Mr. Kelly to explain your position on Ruby Ridge.

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 2:28pm | #

Mr. Kelly ... your ad hominem attacks are truly unnecessary. I have offered my POV, and only my POV. You could be decent and do the same.

J sub D | January 8, 2008, 2:31pm | #

Seriously, if smoking is so bad for the people, why is the government profiting from it?

Seriously, if ~~smoking~~gambling is so bad for the people, why is the government profiting from it?

Jamie Kelly | January 8, 2008, 2:35pm | #

now it's time for you Mr. Kelly to explain your position on Ruby Ridge.

Randy Weaver was a "white separatist," not a white supremacist. He had and has black friends.
He was arrested for buying a sawed-off shotgun by an FBI infiltrator -- a minor charge.
Weaver refused to cooperate with the FBI to infiltrate the Aryan Nations, mainly because he didn't feel comfortable being around a bunch of racist, potentially dangerous yahoos.
He refused; the federal court GAVE WEAVER THE WRONG COURT-APPEARANCE DATE ON PURPOSE, then proceeded to establish 24-HOUR SURVEILLANCE on his home, including video cameras on his property hidden in trees.
Frustrated, the FBI goons eventually moved onto his property, shot his dog Spiker, and when Sam Weaver (Randy's son) shot William Degan, a federal agent, they proceeded to SHOOT HIM IN THE BACK as he ran up the hill.
In the next two days, Weaver's best friend would be nearly mortally wounded and his wife FATALLY SHOT IN THE HEAD with a sniper rifle while holding her newborn baby.
Weaver never said he was going to "fight" the FBI. He said he would never come out voluntarily.
He was eventually persuaded to come down by ex-Marine Bo Gritz.
Weaver was found NOT GUILTY of murder, and the government eventually paid his family $3.1 million because the government FUCKED UP BADLY.
So I ask you again, you sniveling little turd:
How does this fit in with your thoughts on police actions in your little fantasy Republican world?

Ska | January 8, 2008, 2:37pm | #

Seriously, if ~~smokinggambling~~ alcohol is so bad for the people, why is the government profiting from it?

Steve | January 8, 2008, 2:39pm | #

holyrepublican- i notice you make no mention of the actual Ruby Ridge incident, the Justice Department investigation, the Senate Probe, or any of the aftermath.

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 2:40pm | #

Well well Mr. Kelly ... I would have been more than happy to respond ... alas, your ad hominem invective continues apace. I will not stoop to your level nor will I respond to an individual that resorts to name calling. I am pressing the ignore button for you ...

Jamie Kelly | January 8, 2008, 2:40pm | #

I have offered my POV, and only my POV.

No, HolyRepublican, you merely
copied and pasted someone else's writing.
Jesus, you're dumb. Dumb as a stump.

Observant Bystander | January 8, 2008, 2:42pm | #

"So I ask you again, you sniveling little turd:"

Sheesh. Disagreement really isn't welcome.

T | January 8, 2008, 2:42pm | #

What is Lon Horiuchi doing with his life these days, anyway?

Ska | January 8, 2008, 2:42pm | #

Worst thread ever.

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 2:42pm | #

Steve ... what happened there was a tragedy, and the overzealous cops who fired were guilty of murder. I acknowledge that... my ultimate point is that it was entirely preventable. Both sides served up the escalation until you got a bad cop acting horribly.

Jamie Kelly | January 8, 2008, 2:49pm | #

What is Lon Horiuchi doing with his life these days, anyway?

Probably raping children and jerking off to videos on rotten.com. In any case, he's not being prosecuted for his crime.

Shane | January 8, 2008, 2:51pm | #

Both sides served up the escalation until you got a bad cop acting horribly.

The issue isn't about the cops acting horribly, it's the power they had to do so. That's the debate, how much power do we grant to law enforcement at the expense of citizens and is there a systematic abuse of fundamental rights. Is it reasonable for the police to respond to minor issues in such ways, wether that Waco, Ruby Ridge, Taser use, the Elian Gonzalez incident or SWAT teams breaking down doors over a 12 year old's bump on the head. If it were bad apple and isolated incidents that would be one thing, but it's not isolated and too many times the LEOs get no disciplinary action taken against them, usually because of people who dismiss the incidents becuase it involves "nuts", forgetting that "nuts" have constitutional rights as well and if we only seek to protect the rights of "normal people" we undermine the very reasons why we seek and have always sought to limit the power of our government.

J sub D | January 8, 2008, 2:51pm | #

holyrepublican,

FYI, a certain amount of invective, some of it containing obsceneties is quite common here at Hit & Run. I am presently abstaining from "salty" language but I expect that sometime in the near future some will be directed at me. Being a big boy, I'll get over it. The insults and attacks on your intelligence and reasoning ability ain't personal. Your support for the government running every aspect of our lives, back up with paramilitary force tends to anger people who beleive that old "Land of the Free" stuff.

I CAN count on y'all here to cuss at me when appropriate, can't I?

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 2:54pm | #

Thanks for that perspective, JSD ... at least I know what to expect!

Jamie Kelly | January 8, 2008, 2:54pm | #

J sub D,
You're fucking-A right, you asshead.
:-)

Steve | January 8, 2008, 2:56pm | #

... at least I know what to expect!

for one, expect to be held accountable for the views you express and to be held accountable if found to be inconsistent, contradictory, or just plain silly in those views

Jamie Kelly | January 8, 2008, 2:56pm | #

Sheesh. Disagreement really isn't welcome.

It wasn't "disagreement." HolyRepublican, when asked to comment on Ruby Ridge, merely copied-and-pasted content from Wikipedia.
So "sniveling little turd" is more than apropos.

zig zag man | January 8, 2008, 2:56pm | #

"I CAN count on y'all here to cuss at me when appropriate, can't I?"

Fuckin' A!

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 2:56pm | #

inconsistent, contradictory, or just plain silly ... that's all subjective.

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 2:59pm | #

Steve | January 8, 2008, 3:00pm | #

holyrepublican- to me it's based on empirical evidence. Expressing support for 2 seperate and opposing idealogies within a single thread could be considered by many many people to be inconsistent, contradictory, and just plain silly.

Jamie Kelly | January 8, 2008, 3:00pm | #

inconsistent, contradictory, or just plain silly ... that's all subjective.

Oh, God, and he's a subjectivist to boot.
Please, Jebus, have this man choke on something.

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 3:01pm | #

JK ... how do you know I am a man?

Jamie Kelly | January 8, 2008, 3:02pm | #

But Mr. Kelly acts as if I have violated one of the Holy Protocols Of Thread Etiquette

Passing off someone else's writing as your own thinking has never been cool, HolyRepublidork. In fact, it's kind of frowned upon.

Shane | January 8, 2008, 3:02pm | #

I see nothing wrong with providing a link or c/p in order to elaborate a POV. I did that to keep the thread moving. But Mr. Kelly acts as if I have violated one of the Holy Protocols Of Thread Etiquette

Actually you did violate netiguette there. you need to provide the source if you are using supporting material, not try to pass it off as your own thoughts and then try to lie about it when questioned, which is stupid because we can all copy and paste your words into google to verify.

Shane | January 8, 2008, 3:04pm | #

apologies, meant netiquette

JW | January 8, 2008, 3:10pm | #

oh my JW, God forbid anyone that is not in total agreement with your positions from posting! Must be a troll...

If flag-waving, bible-thumping, cut and paste jingoism is wrong, then I most certainly want nothing to do with it. That's Troll Country™.

Post a substantive argument (and actually RTFA) and you might lose the label. And to save you the trouble, flag-waving, bible-thumping jingoism isn't substantitive.

Mike Espinoza | January 8, 2008, 3:12pm | #

holyrepublican does seem to illustrate an interesting situation. It seems that there are now three sets of republicans now.

The Limbaugh republican, the O'Reilly republican, and the libertarian republican.

An O'Reilly republican is basically a Limbaugh republican who has embraced the nanny state, often times, in the name of God.

Of course, even Limbaugh himself has been pretty pissed off about this as of late, which is why he has not been thrilled about
any of the current crop of Republican candidates. In fact, he would be a Ron Paul supporter if Paul was an inventionist hawk, but, of course, he isn't.

What's funny is that O'Reilly republicans are the same type of people as Kennedy/Johnson democrats. You know.
The ones that were mocking Barry Goldwater.

Curious, indeed.

Fluffy | January 8, 2008, 3:14pm | #

Well, holy, perhaps the reason that smoking didn't decline during the 30 centuries its risks were known was because people prior to the Baby Boom in the US had different attitudes towards risk.

People have known for millennia that exercise will improve health. Why are there more health clubs now than in the past? Government warning labels?

People have known for millennia that overeating is bad for your health. Why do people continue to overeat? Not enough government warning labels?

Frankly, you would have a hard time convincing me that the decrease in smoking isn't more related to changing attitudes about personal hygiene that it is to health. In countries where it's still considered OK to bathe once a week, smoking rates are still pretty high.

Fluffy | January 8, 2008, 3:14pm | #

Sorry, that should read "the 3 centuries its risks were known" not "30 centuries", of course.

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 3:14pm | #

Jesus ... listen. The attack machine was already in motion before I could attribute a source. I assumed that any reasonable person would have figured that I had c/p'd, considering that the paragraphs amounted to about 300-400 words and were pasted just a couple of minutes after I had last posted. The overwhelming majority of people cannot type 100-150 wpm ... particularly when they are thinking and constructing elaborate sentences, etc. So, it's quite a leap to think that i was trying to pass it off as my own ... should I have given the source in the post? Yes. But to assume that I was passing it off as my own is to assume that I believed that all of you would not only read my commentary and react, but say ... "Super-jeezus! That guy can type!"

Eddie | January 8, 2008, 3:16pm | #

I had a similar incident with my daughter.
Our liberty vanquished a long time ago.

Miggs | January 8, 2008, 3:16pm | #

You guys do realize that holyrepublican is Dan T, no?

billhilly | January 8, 2008, 3:16pm | #

He seems to be fine with the government imposing his views on the rest of us. The problem with that is that the system put in place to do that can also impose other’s views on him with nothing more than an election.

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 3:17pm | #

I have not once thumped a Bible.

Steve | January 8, 2008, 3:19pm | #

considering that the paragraphs amounted to about 300-400 words and were pasted just a couple of minutes after I had last posted. The overwhelming majority of people cannot type 100-150 wpm ... particularly when they are thinking and constructing elaborate sentences, etc.

Actually i do it quite easily and still manage to get my work done at the office, guess it varies. though i do suffer from a lot of typos..

Any chance of you responding to my unanswered post?

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 3:20pm | #

Oh yeah? Well, I dont think your flag-burning, atheistic jingoism is substantive either.

Fluffy | January 8, 2008, 3:20pm | #

If you don't thump a Bible, why include "Faith" in "Faith, Family and Freedom"?

For that matter, why include "Family"?

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 3:20pm | #

Good for you Steve-O

Shane/Steve | January 8, 2008, 3:22pm | #

I'm bored, this troll isn't fun or playful anymore.

later all.

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 3:23pm | #

Bible = faith&family. I know the connection you are aiming for ... but... it... misses... the... mark. My personal faith could have nothing to do with the Bible and most atheists/agnostics I know have families and would readily admit that they are important. Nice try though.

billhilly | January 8, 2008, 3:25pm | #

There have been several queries as to what hr thinks the limits of government should be as it applies to “the common welfare”. It is obvious the he has no interest in getting to the heart of the issue.

JW | January 8, 2008, 3:26pm | #

jin·go·ism - n: Extreme nationalism characterized especially by a belligerent foreign policy; chauvinistic patriotism.

There, now you learned TWO new words today.

billhilly | January 8, 2008, 3:29pm | #

How about plagiarism?

Andrew | January 8, 2008, 3:32pm | #

This is one of the funniest threads ever. holyrepublican gets a 5/5 for his trolling masterstroke. Well done. Juanita, look at holyrepublican. That's how trolling's supposed to be done!

Though seeing his name I can't help but think of the "holy bartender" joke in the movie Dogma.

Dee | January 8, 2008, 3:34pm | #

HolyRepublicrap- Its simple enough, listen closely please.. YOU take care of YOUR kids and I will take care of MINE. Thankyouveryfuckingmuch!!! Whats so hard to understand about that? Your values for your family are not mine, I am not forcing mine on you yet your fine with SWAT teams raids for bruised heads because thats what you believe is right? You are a dumbass and someone needs to call a raid in at your house since you seem in favor of them for ANYTHING obviously.

As for not being able to refuse an EMT I find that hard to believe in any state. No one can force you to stay in a hospital unless your contagious as far as I am aware. Jail is the only place you can't decide for yourself you want to leave. Try to treat me if I don't want treatment and the next EMT will be treating your wounds instead.

Also one man's moral law should not extend into anyone elses home. By your logic we should install cameras in everyone home for monitoring since we can't have anyone breaking any laws no matter how victimless.

The EMT should be shit canned along with the rest of those involve with this whole incident. The dad was a paramedic in a WAR I would think that makes him much more highly qualified to diagnos his son than a social worked wouldn't you? I know if I need medical assistance and I only had a Social Worker and a Vet. Paramedic who I would be choosing.

Get real, get a hint and get a copy of the Constitution because I think like many you have no idea what it says.

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 3:37pm | #

yes, a bit of a lapse on the jingoism there... but you got my point. Do you see how it's the same? Just because I love my country does not mean that I am without substance. You impugn my words far too quickly ... and the attacks are without merit.

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 3:39pm | #

also... my POV is distinct and well-formed. It is not contradictory in any way... as i said, I am an O'Reilly republican. You may hate it, not like it, whatever ... but that is what I am.

R C Dean | January 8, 2008, 3:39pm | #

But seriously, the "sluggish pupil" was almost certainly an incorrect finding by the social service worker.

I can almost guarantee you the social worker knew to include that in her report in order to get it upgraded from "bump on head" to "probable severe concussion", the better to get this family jackbooted.

And I would strongly recommend that any EMT working for one of my hospitals who "forced his way" into someone's home be canned, immediately, for bad judgment and exposing my hospitals to liability.

VM | January 8, 2008, 3:41pm | #

Andrew - what do you think- is this our friend Dan T in another incarnation? nice "bartender" reference :)

holy - from your 3:39 post, can I take it you're a sailor?

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 3:43pm | #

sailor? Why... because of POV? holy shit you nailed me...

Sean | January 8, 2008, 3:43pm | #

also... my POV is distinct and well-formed.

Then present it as such. Presentation is almost as important as substance, so far it appears that you are lacking in both. "yes the State should have limited powers except in the instances where it shouldn't". That seems to sum up your posistion.

JW | January 8, 2008, 3:45pm | #

VM--He's no sailing man. That's for sure.

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 3:47pm | #

Sean ... wrongo buddy. The state can promote the general welfare. That is all I have ever claimed. I will add this for clarification. The courts we have, like em or hate em, were Constitutionally established. They have interpreted these actions as being in accord with the Constitution. Ergo ...

Sven | January 8, 2008, 3:49pm | #

The state can promote the general welfare.

They have interpreted these actions as being in accord with the Constitution.

That first statement taken alone is meaningless, what constitutes "general welfare"?

And which of the actions in particular have been interpreted as being constitutional?

Mike Espinoza | January 8, 2008, 3:51pm | #

This is one of the funniest threads ever. holyrepublican gets a 5/5 for his trolling masterstroke. Well done. Juanita, look at holyrepublican. That's how trolling's supposed to be done!

What! She's a troll! Jeezus, I forgot. I just thought I was doing great with her.

Theophanes | January 8, 2008, 3:51pm | #

The Garfield County All Hazards Response Team (AHRT) AKA Goon Squad Website
Do the right thing, call the Garfield Country Sheriff's office and the Glenwood Springs Police Deparment (who these goons work for when they're not playing soldier) and complain.
Sheriff's office: (970)945-0453
Police office: (970)384-6500

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 3:53pm | #

what constitutes general welfare... go ask James Madison. Kind of vague, huh? I suppose it means whatever we want it to mean...and what the Courts say it means. But hey ... that was the way the system was set up!

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 3:54pm | #

Thanks for the numbers ... I am going to call and give them a hearty congrats!

Miggs | January 8, 2008, 3:56pm | #

Bravo, Mr. Tarrant. Just when I think you've reached the absolute pinnacle of trolldom, you yet again take it to the next level. I am in awe of your super troll abilities.

*bows*

TrickyVic | January 8, 2008, 3:58pm | #

""" caused by a combination of nut-loon anti-government types that did not peacefully relent """

Sounds like our founding fathers?

The problem with your ideology, is that you think everyone should obey authority even when authority is wrong. Government is not daddy and should not tell us what to do in life, with few exceptions. You seem to have a problem when people stand-up for their rights in the face of abusive authority. You have made that case well. However if you look at any world history book, you will see that when the citiznery accepts that belief, freedom falls.

That fact of the matter is that you do not believe that rights are ordained by the creator, but with the ebb and flow of power. If you did believe that rights come from God, you would be taking the father's side.

If we didn't stand-up to abusive authority, we wouldn't be America.

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 3:58pm | #

Wow, I have ALL of you convinced I am a troll... I must be doing something right!

P Brooks | January 8, 2008, 4:01pm | #

is this our friend Dan T in another incarnation?

He reminds me a lot of Mr Nannytarian Guy. Particularly the whole "The government is the only thing between us and 'Lord of the Flies' -style anarchy!" routine.

Jake | January 8, 2008, 4:02pm | #

what a waste of taxpayer money

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 4:03pm | #

FYI...I am not a sailor ... I was being facetious.

TrickyVic | January 8, 2008, 4:08pm | #

No I don't think your a troll. That makes your all statement incorrect.

I think you haven't really thought it out, and your ability to understand the issues and debate is weak (as most people). And you have no problem with contradictory points of view. Like, claiming not to support welfare while arguing FOR welfare.

I recommed a couple of things.
1. Get any book about critical thinking. This will turn on some lights.
2. Search for Judge Napolitano's speech on reasontv. A google search will find it. Wait.... Here it is.
http://reason.tv/video/show/178.html

Simon | January 8, 2008, 4:12pm | #

what constitutes general welfare... go ask James Madison.

Well according to Madison in the federalist papers the General Welfare Clause doesn't grant any extraordinary power to the Feds IN extra-constitutional areas, it's a statement qualifying the power the Feds power to tax in regard to the specific areas outlined such as interstate commerce and the armed forces.

So again, what do YOU mean by "general welfare"?

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 4:14pm | #

ok hold on I am going to watch the vid

Samuel | January 8, 2008, 4:16pm | #

In other words it means what it says in regard to providing for the general Welfare of the United States. The Welfare and Defense of the States, not the citizenry.

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 4:20pm | #

No samuel ... that's not what the duly appointed courts have ruled

TrickyVic | January 8, 2008, 4:25pm | #

"""No samuel ... that's not what the duly appointed courts have ruled"""

Holy you make it too easy for us. You can't be a O'Reilly republican if don't think that the courts are nothing but liberal activists. Why care what they think? ;-)

Scott | January 8, 2008, 4:25pm | #

That's what Madison wrote, that's what the constitution states. Unfortunately it's all gone down hill since U.S. v Butler, but that's what happens when you have activist judges who read more into something than is actually there. and precedent is set. Someday hopefully we'll get people in there who are far more reserved in their interpretation. One of the reasons i'm a libertarian minded fellow is to work toward that goal. The courts can rule how they like, the text is plain for anyone with an eyeball to see what it actual says.

TrickyVic | January 8, 2008, 4:26pm | #

"""ok hold on I am going to watch the vid"""

Outstanding.

BTW, anyone who hasn't seen it yet, should.

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 4:28pm | #

tricky ... yes, it is true that there are activist judges with a SP agenda. But where O'Reilly and I think the problem is is with the secularist imposition, not with the welfare clause.

Saul | January 8, 2008, 4:29pm | #

"... It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution... "

- U.S. v Butler

god i hate activist judges.

Bobster | January 8, 2008, 4:32pm | #

Holyrepublican at 2:56
inconsistent, contradictory, or just plain silly ... that's all subjective.

I totally agree with 100% disagreement. That may seem inconsistent, contradictory and silly but that's because it is subjective.

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 4:37pm | #

Bobster ...you've proven nothing other than your capacity for being a bit clever. Nice try.

TrickyVic | January 8, 2008, 4:46pm | #

"""tricky ... yes, it is true that there are activist judges with a SP agenda."""

Then why are you supporting their view of general welfare.

TrickyVic | January 8, 2008, 4:54pm | #

"""But where O'Reilly and I think the problem is is with the secularist imposition, not with the welfare clause."""

I hate to break it to you, but O'Reilly does not have a christian view of things. Unless sexual harrasment is Godly. He simply panders to the religious right for ratings. Which is his choice. There is no attack on christianity in the U.S. It's made up to get people mad and watching. Christians are trying to push their lifestyle onto non-christians, and non-christians are pushing back.

I know, you have no problem with other people trying to tell you how to live. You've already made that clear, which, in my opinion is against God's plan. God's plan was for us to have freewill, and obey him through faith within our hearts. To be forced to obey God's way by rule of law is anti-God. God demands your soul by your will, not the governments.

Bobster | January 8, 2008, 4:55pm | #

holyrepublican
You think I'm clever? Sweet. What are you wearing?

Shilo | January 8, 2008, 5:22pm | #

To be forced to obey God's way by rule of law is anti-God. God demands your soul by your will, not the governments.

Tolstoy would be proud, but the modern theocrats aint much different than they have been since Nicea, it's much easier for some to use force and coersion than it is to humble themselves and be a light by example. They all pander.

Kool | January 8, 2008, 5:24pm | #

Holy Crap! I have too many appointments in one day and look what happens! Edward/Juanita/HolyRepub... whatever it's name is, sure knows how to angry up the blood.

1st of all, I love when democrats call me conservative. The only thing more funny is when a Republican calls me a liberal. Further, one of the first things to learn on this board, is to limit the "all of you..." While the majority of us may be libertarian (big or small "L"), there are certainly those who post regularly, who hold opposing views and debate their respective points with intelligence. Moreover, most libertarians I know don't like to be grouped as a principle.

Second, of course people will shout "Troll!!" when you start posting whatever contrarian views you have out of nowhere, especially in conjunction with the fact that your handle lacks a valid email address (that usually reeks of trolldom).

As for my personal response to your comments (shortened by the fact that I have to go to one more appoinmet now): As many have said before me, you do hold opposing views.

One of the first things my father taught me was that there can be no inherent paradox.

Shane | January 8, 2008, 5:40pm | #

especially in conjunction with the fact that your handle lacks a valid email address (that usually reeks of trolldom).

Yikes! I'll have to remember that one.

Dave Greiman | January 8, 2008, 5:42pm | #

Protecting the Constitution is now a crime.

holyrepublican | January 8, 2008, 6:05pm | #

Protecting your Mom is a crime.
Now isn't that an example of what a troll would write?

Boluke | January 8, 2008, 7:03pm | #

Since when did World Net Daily become a credible source for Reason writers?
Pathetic

russbo | January 8, 2008, 8:03pm | #

You read one article and accept it as gospel. I guess its easy to believe a small town sheriff would do anything as long as it was bad. when you consider the propaganda fed to us by the movie industry for the last 4 decades I'm surprised the press isn't telling us that our elected leaders are eating babies. Just remember that you should never check facts and everything the press tells you is true. For what its worth I'm from the south and have never had sex with my sister, mother, brother or blue tik hound. All of which have good teeth and bachelors degrees. Just trying to warn you about stereotypes. They have a tendency to come back to you.

man | January 8, 2008, 9:02pm | #

Welcome to the american-nazi-fascism state. Where the government takes your kids by force, where neighbors tell about you to the authority. Where guns are used agaisnt self proclaimed constitutionalists.

This is nothing but you seeing the snow path to the antartic, where the point of the iceberg lies. You will see that with time, this will be much more present, as we aren't run by the people that we should be ran by.

M | January 8, 2008, 9:12pm | #

Would someone please explain man's second paragraph?

gus | January 9, 2008, 12:57am | #

Sue the contemptible fools into a financial crater.

Unfortunately in the USA these days it takes a lawsuit and financial ruin to teach interfering morons like this fuckwitted sheriff and the unqualified social workers that they have no right to treat their fellow citizens like this.

Alex | January 9, 2008, 1:29am | #

There is no way in hell that any person enters my house without my consent and I do not defend the sanctity of my home.

The US has no civil rights, has no privacy, allows the police and anyone with a government job to rifle through the private possessions of American citizens and the public at large and uses the infamous Patriot Act to obliterate the most sacrosanct rights people have and Americans think they live in a free country?

I puke at the thought of American Liberty. The Eiffel statue in New York must just weep inside.

Rugby | January 9, 2008, 3:37am | #

"The greatest free country in the world."

ROFLMAO.

Doug | January 9, 2008, 3:38pm | #

What? They didn't taser anyone? Shenanigans!

economist | January 9, 2008, 8:13pm | #

As a moderately libertarian Republican, I would like to say that holyrepublican is an ignorant fool. NEWS FLASH: George Bush is the absolute WORST thing to happen to the Republican party. We were, in fact, better off when a Republican Congress (which at the time remembered what it stood for) was paired with Clinton. I would trade that situation for our current presidents free-spending, warmongering, Bible-thumping regime any day.

brian lundeen | January 10, 2008, 3:29am | #

the devil may care,
lundeen, '08

Larry | January 11, 2008, 6:35pm | #

Rude and confrontational? The guy is lucky he didn't enter my home by force, because I would have shot his ass!

Jeffrey Maselli | January 11, 2008, 7:05pm | #

Chalk another one up for the do-gooders! At what point are we going to say enough is enough here, folks, and take control of our own lives without the government needlessly intervening!

Sam Stadler | January 11, 2008, 9:51pm | #

Do police ever ring the door bell anymore? Guess it's not as fun as kicking in doors. Are they really feeling that they are at war with the people? I sure wouldn't want that if i was One of them.

Evan Hughes | January 11, 2008, 11:46pm | #

At what point do we stand up and fight back?????? It will to late soon.

Tom | January 12, 2008, 12:29am | #

I live in Garfield county where this happened and this is what we live with every day. The police do not know how to investigate crime so they just milk what they do know. Which is D.U.I.s and domestic violence. We have unsolved murders and bank robberies in which the people got away on foot or bicycle. If they would of been in a car and drunk the police might have caight them.

artkeep | January 13, 2008, 1:15pm | #

Ok, the smoke has cleared and everyone is thinking straight once again, so I'd be pressing charges against EVERYONE INVOLVED for:

Traumatizing my entire family
Destroying my property
...and millions in punitive damages!!!!!!!!

Are we still living in AMERICA???

DC | January 13, 2008, 9:05pm | #

Examples like this is the beginning of the end of America. It is not Democrats or Republicans.
It's the Elite Globalist destroying our country with the New World Order. Run by the Council on Foreign Relations. www.greatdreams.com/cfr2.htm
America's Police Brutality Pandemic
www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts224.html
Everyone better get the Constitution our and start standing up or it.

Brett Harlan | January 16, 2008, 9:44pm | #

What is the douche bag sheriff's name? I do not see it in the article. Doesn't he want re-election publicity? He does not deserve to wear the badge entrusted him by the Garfield County, Colorado voters. Glenwood Springs, Colorado is the county seat.

Brett Harlan | January 16, 2008, 11:02pm | #

It has been a few years since my meeting 2 Garfield County, Colorado deputies at the Rulison exit (way west Garfield County) late one night. I thought that sleeping under a street light had become illegal in Garfield County, Colorado, or the US, and ,somehow, I had missed the news. Neither deputy knew Colorado firearms laws. In my opinion, Deputy Ken Baker is a good man, an appropriate person as a law enforcement officer. In my opinion, Deputy Breuer, or Brauer, should not wear a badge until his "I'm all powerfull/push people around with my badge" attitude is eradicated from his character. I bought a firearm one week later in Grand Junction (Mesa County), Colorado. The seller, knowing Baker personally, having met Breuer (Brauer?) on more than one occasion, was in agreement with my assessments of both men. I do not know if state troopers know the laws they enforce. I believe that county and local level officers know little of the laws they enforce. I believe that few law officers ,on any level (local, county, state) have read the Constitution of The United States, although they swear to uphold the document and its' tenets when becoming a law enforcement officer. If one reviews the news the criminal behavior of some percentage of law officers becomes apparent. In my opinion Breuer (Brauer), is/was one step removed from a criminal.

Site Search

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Hit & Run Archives

RSS Feed

Sheriff: SWAT Team Necessary Because Man Is a "Self-Proclaimed Constitutionalist"

Comments to "Sheriff: SWAT Team Necessary Because Man Is a "Self-Proclaimed Constitutionalist"":