Author Topic: Sheriff defends capture of boy by SWAT team  (Read 3863 times)

Desertdog

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,360
Sheriff defends capture of boy by SWAT team
« on: January 12, 2008, 05:14:30 PM »
Sheriff defends capture of boy by SWAT team
Says father challenged officers to bring 'army' upon their return
Posted: January 12, 2008
1:00 a.m. Eastern
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59654

By Bob Unruh



The Colorado sheriff who dispatched a SWAT team to break into a family's home, hold them at gunpoint and take custody of an 11-year-old boy for a medical exam sought by Social Services is defending the actions, saying the boy's father told officers to "bring an army" if they returned.

The 11-year-old, Jonathan Shiflett, had suffered bruises while horsing around in a mobile home park near New Castle where the family lives. But his father, Tom Shiflett, refused to allow paramedics who arrived after a neighbor apparently called 911 to treat his son, and refused to allow the ambulance crew to take Jonathan to a hospital.

Multiple visits by police officers and sheriff's deputies brought the same response, as did a visit from Social Services employees, who reported to court authorities: "Thomas Shiflett shouted at this worker and advised this worker that if he obtained a court order, he better 'bring an army,'" according to an affidavit filed by Matthew McGaugh, a caseworker for the Garfield County Department of Social Services.

Sheriff Lou Vallario used that alleged threat in an e-mail response to a WND reader who questioned his actions. Vallario also criticized WND reporting on the events to a local newspaper, without contacting WND with any concerns.

"Thank you for your concerns. I have had personal confrontations with Mr. Shiflett and he has been threatening, agitated and violent. In 2005 we arrested him for chasing a man down the street with an ax and his statement in the report was, 'if he didn't run faster than me I would have planted the ax in the back of his head.' He was not convicted because of our 'Make my day' law (self defense of your home), but none the less he clearly demonstrated violence in this case as well as others. Further, when we requested his cooperation he said, 'if you want my son, bring an army,'" the sheriff responded via e-mail.

However, what the sheriff left out of his response was what McGaugh reported happened just before the alleged threat. McGaugh confirmed he had delivered a not-so-veiled threat to Shiflett.

"This worker explained that the Department had an obligation to investigate the report, that it appeared the child needed medical attention, and that if he didn't consent, the Department would have to obtain a court order to get a medical evaluation for the child," McGaugh stated in a sworn affidavit.

The "report" he was referring to was left undefined in his document. He wrote, "Caseworker Maria Hernandez-Lee and I went to the residence of the minor child, Jonathan Shiflett, & to investigate allegations of medical neglect that had been reported to the Department."

Cindy Fuqua, who is on the ambulance crew summoned by the neighbor, also submitted an affidavit in which she explained how she and others with the ambulance crew went into the home where Tom Shiflett said they could look at Jonathan but not treat him.

Fuqua confirmed, "I was asked to go get the jump kit from the ambulance and take it inside. When I arrived inside I took out the stethoscope and blood pressure cuff to get vital signs and the father stated, 'I said you can check him out but that is all you will do.'"

She continued, "The pt's [patient's] father became very agitated and verbally abusive to all the ambulance crew. We were told by the pt's father that we were trespassing and that we needed to leave. I explained & that per our medical/legal protocols that we would have to contact medical control to get a refusal cleared and that if the ER DR cleared it we would have to have a family member sign the refusal."

"The father stated, 'I will not or anyone else here will not sign anything,' that we could have the person that called 911 sign the refusal form because he didn't call us."

Tom Shiflett has told WND he didn't give the crew permission to enter his home  they just entered when the door was open, and that with his medical experience in Vietnam, he already had evaluated his son and was treating him with an ice pack on his bruised head.

He also told WND he made the comment about the "army" because social workers had upset him by threatening a court order. And he explained the charges from years ago, which were dropped by the prosecutor, stemmed from a confrontation in which a man came into Shiflett's home and started making demands, and refused to leave.

Fuqua reported that the ambulance crew left "because we were worried about our safety," and when they left, they waited nearby for an officer from the Garfield County sheriff's office to "talk to him about this call."

The sheriff's e-mail response also continued:

"Finally, a very important part of this that NOBODY wants to report is that we sent 2 deputies to his door to explain the seizure warrant (a warrant generated by social svcs but ordering ME to do this unfortunate deed) and ask for his cooperation. He refused, became vulgar and broke off contact. Based on the previous history I felt I had no choice but to elavate (sic) our response to comply with this court order. The good news is that nobody was hurt and the boy was not seriously injured, as believed to be by the ambulance crew and social svcs," the sheriff wrote.

"I hope this helps give you an accurate acount (sic) of the events, not the media-biased reports or even the Shiflett's accounts who clearly have a biased perception," he wrote.

But Vallario also told WND he simply told his officers to do exactly what the magistrate demanded.

"I was given a court order by the magistrate to seize the child, and arrange for medical evaluation, and that's what we did," he said.

However, the "Search warrant and order for medical treatment" that was issued by the court ignored the parental treatment of Jonathan's injury, instead finding he was injured, and "Thomas Shiflett, refused to allow the minor child to have medical attention. &"

"The court finds that there is probable cause to believe & Thomas Shiflett, the biological father of the minor child, Jonathan Shiflett, has mistreated the minor child due to his failure to provide the minor child with proper or necessary medical care &" the document said.

Eventually, the court-ordered doctor's exam resulted in instructions to the family to treat Jonathan's injuries with ice and painkillers, the exact treatment they already had been doing before the ambulance even arrived, they have told WND.

But the order included no recommendation for a SWAT team campaign, only directing the sheriff's office to "search the home & and to take the minor child, Jonathan Shiflett, into immediate custody."

Tina Shiflett, Jonathan's mother, wrote in a letter sent to WND that she considered the actions "Nazi" tactics and reported that the SWAT officers told her her "rights" were "only in the movies."

During the attack, his mother wrote, "One (officer) grabbed my daughter Beth (18 years), who also had a gun to her face, slammed her down and kneed her in the back and held her in that position& My sons Adam (14) and Noah (only 7) lay down willingly, yet they were still forced to put their hands behind their backs and were yelled at to keep their heads down.

"My daughter Jeanette was coming out from the back bedroom when she was grabbed, drug down the hallway, across a couch and slammed to the ground," she said. "The officers then began throwing scissors and screwdrivers across the room (out of our reach, I suppose) and going through our cupboards.

"I asked if I could make a phone call and was told, 'no.' My daughter asked if that wasn't one of our rights. The reply was made, 'That's only in the movies,'" she said.

"To the SWAT Team members & how far will you go in 'just doing your job?' If you feel no guilt busting into an innocent family's home, traumatizing young children and stomping the security found therein, will you follow more horrific orders?" she wrote.

"May I remind you that in Nazi Germany, outrageous, monstrous crimes were committed by soldiers 'just doing their job?' What will be next? Where will this stop?" she wrote.

A WND message left for Deborah Quinn, the assistant Garfield County attorney who requested the court order, was not returned. Westcare Ambulance officials have declined to allow WND to ask question about the case, and court officials declined to allow WND to leave a message for Magistrate Lain Leoniak, who signed the order.

The family also added details to the sheriff's explanation of having two officers knock on the family's door and ask for cooperation.

"Between 10 and 11 & a sheriff came to the door. My husband met him at the window and he began to question my husband. My husband spoke with him and answered all his questions. The sheriff then said if Tom would just let him speak with Jonathan (our 11-year-old son) this whole matter (story following) would be closed," Tina Shiflett wrote.

"Tom said, 'You are saying if I let you speak to Jonathan this whole matter will be closed?' Then Tom called for Jonathan to come to the window," she said.

"As soon as Jonathan was visible to the sheriff, a SWAT team appeared shining lights on Jon's face and others were bashing at the door with a ramming device. My daughter resisted and pushed against the door to stop them as she didn't know who they were. I told her to back up and not try to fight them. They then entered our home, held a gun to my daughter's face and others of them, five or more, rushed into the living room and physically forced my other children to the ground."



HankB

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,673
Re: Sheriff defends capture of boy by SWAT team
« Reply #1 on: January 12, 2008, 05:44:11 PM »
Quote
. . . I explained & that per our medical/legal protocols that we would have to contact medical control to get a refusal cleared and that if the ER DR cleared it we would have to have a family member sign the refusal."

"The father stated, 'I will not or anyone else here will not sign anything,' that we could have the person that called 911 sign the refusal form because he didn't call us."
Be careful about signing "refusal" forms - in some places, they use your signature as the basis for sending you a bill.

For example, get involved in a fender bender, and besides police, paramedics and a fire truck you didn't call show up. No fire, no leaking gasoline, no injury . . . but they shove a clipboard in front of you anyway and ask you to sign "just the standard forms."

Bingo - Payday!
Trump won in 2016. Democrats haven't been so offended since Republicans came along and freed their slaves.
Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it. - Mark Twain
Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction in stolen goods. - H.L. Mencken
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. - Mark Twain

InfidelSerf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 884
Re: Sheriff defends capture of boy by SWAT team
« Reply #2 on: January 12, 2008, 08:32:22 PM »
Quote
Be careful about signing "refusal" forms - in some places, they use your signature as the basis for sending you a bill.
Precisely what I'm sure the family was trying to avoid in the first place.
I have to say I still side with the family.

I think this is the point the wheat and the chaff are separated.

There are going to be those that think they are just "liberty nutters" and there are those that are going to side with the state.
Let's call them "statist nutters" not to be confused with "liberty nutters" whom believe in states rights over federal mandates.

It's the slippery slope of government power in action.

The hour is fast approaching,on which the Honor&Success of this army,and the safety of our bleeding Country depend.Remember~Soldiers,that you are Freemen,fighting for the blessings of Liberty-that slavery will be your portion,and that of your posterity,if you do not acquit yourselves like men.GW8/76

Tecumseh

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 729
Re: Sheriff defends capture of boy by SWAT team
« Reply #3 on: January 12, 2008, 09:22:34 PM »
The Father was part of an extremist religion and tried to prevent his boy from being helped.  And why do so many peoplehave a problem with LEO helping the kid? 

He went on to threaten the LEOs for doing their job and chest thumping makes him look worse.

vernal45

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
Re: Sheriff defends capture of boy by SWAT team
« Reply #4 on: January 12, 2008, 11:11:27 PM »
I side with the family.  These cops, "just following orders" should be fired, that is a mild as I can put it.  The child was not in any danger, the state social services were not needed.  The swat team was overkill.  Probably needed to use swat to justify their budget.  Let the ninjas play in their gear.  I am at a loss for words that this can happen in the US, and some think its ok, just fine.  "They were only doing their  jobs, BS.  Over at that other forum, plastic gun talk, you can read all of what LEO's think of this, and ite chilling that they blame the father.

gunsmith

  • I forgot to get vaccinated!
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,185
  • I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Re: Sheriff defends capture of boy by SWAT team
« Reply #5 on: January 13, 2008, 01:09:18 AM »
Quote
The Father was part of an extremist religion and tried to prevent his boy from being helped.  And why do so many peoplehave a problem with LEO helping the kid?

Yeah, like the gov.com "helped" the dead children at Waco, and "helped" Elian Gonzalous.

& what extremist religion? First I've heard.
Dad treated with ice and aspirin , son gets dragged away only to be told use ice and aspirin!?

The Sheriff just seems to have it in for the dad. So What? he used violence against a home intruder?
Big deal, LE uses violence too! Seems like local LE do not want unpaid competition.
Politicians and bureaucrats are considered productive if they swarm the populace like a plague of locust, devouring all substance in their path and leaving a swath of destruction like a firestorm. The technical term is "bipartisanship".
Rocket Man: "The need for booster shots for the immunized has always been based on the science.  Political science, not medical science."

Tallpine

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 23,172
  • Grumpy Old Grandpa
Re: Sheriff defends capture of boy by SWAT team
« Reply #6 on: January 13, 2008, 10:02:38 AM »
Quote
Eventually, the court-ordered doctor's exam resulted in instructions to the family to treat Jonathan's injuries with ice and painkillers, the exact treatment they already had been doing before the ambulance even arrived

 rolleyes

It seems a wonder that all us old farts ever survived long enough to become, well - old farts. 
Freedom is a heavy load, a great and strange burden for the spirit to undertake. It is not easy. It is not a gift given, but a choice made, and the choice may be a hard one. The road goes upward toward the light; but the laden traveller may never reach the end of it.  - Ursula Le Guin

Dntsycnt

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 539
Re: Sheriff defends capture of boy by SWAT team
« Reply #7 on: January 13, 2008, 11:13:35 AM »
The Father was part of an extremist religion and tried to prevent his boy from being helped.  And why do so many peoplehave a problem with LEO helping the kid? 

He went on to threaten the LEOs for doing their job and chest thumping makes him look worse.

Define "extremist" religion.  Is it extremist because it could possibly have lead to some form of harm to the child?

Well...an atheist might view ANY religion as "extremist" and harmful to your children.  So should an LEO with such a perspective send in a SWAT team to take the children of religious families?  They'd just be "helping the kid" anyway, right?

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: Sheriff defends capture of boy by SWAT team
« Reply #8 on: January 13, 2008, 05:34:39 PM »
The Father was part of an extremist religion and tried to prevent his boy from being helped.  And why do so many peoplehave a problem with LEO helping the kid? 

He went on to threaten the LEOs for doing their job and chest thumping makes him look worse.

I assume you have additional data on their religion?  Please share which sect/denomination/whatever and the extremist elements of it for those of us without the data.

Thanks.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

vernal45

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
Re: Sheriff defends capture of boy by SWAT team
« Reply #9 on: January 14, 2008, 08:46:49 AM »
You wont get any information on their religion.  This is a case of PO'd government.  How dare a man tell someone that he decide on what to do for HIS child. 

RichK

  • New Member
  • Posts: 7
Re: Sheriff defends capture of boy by SWAT team
« Reply #10 on: January 14, 2008, 09:02:30 AM »
You wont get any information on their religion.  This is a case of PO'd government.  How dare a man tell someone that he decide on what to do for HIS child. 

Exactly. The little"Paragoddess" didn't like being told her services were not needed by someone who did't have her medical background. And yes I am aware of that attitude, having been a Paramedic for 15 years.

griz

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,060
Re: Sheriff defends capture of boy by SWAT team
« Reply #11 on: January 14, 2008, 09:42:41 AM »
On the other thread I said that they were wrong to use a SWAT team. Since this:

Quote
we sent 2 deputies to his door to explain the seizure warrant and ask for his cooperation. He refused, became vulgar and broke off contact.

is in the article, it specifically addresses my concerns.  The SWAT team MIGHT have been overkill (no pun intended) but I think I'll lean toward the Sheriff's side on this one unless even more info turns up.
Sent from a stone age computer via an ordinary keyboard.

Ex-MA Hole

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,976
    • The Brown Bomber
Re: Sheriff defends capture of boy by SWAT team
« Reply #12 on: January 14, 2008, 10:07:16 AM »
I hate to play devil advocate here, but...

The 11-year-old, Jonathan Shiflett, had suffered bruises...

A neighbor apparently called 911...

Multiple visits by police officers and sheriff's deputies brought the same response, as did a visit from Social Services employees, who reported to court authorities: "Thomas Shiflett shouted at this worker and advised this worker that if he obtained a court order, he better 'bring an army...

Thank you for your concerns. I have had personal confrontations with Mr. Shiflett and he has been threatening, agitated and violent...

In 2005 we arrested him for chasing a man down the street with an ax and his statement in the report was, 'if he didn't run faster than me I would have planted the ax in the back of his head.' ...

Fuqua reported that the ambulance crew left "because we were worried about our safety,"

Tom Shiflett has told WND he didn't give the crew permission to enter his home  they just entered when the door was open...

--------------------------
I'm confused buy all of our armchair quaterbacking....We have a case where a child has some sort of physical signs of abuse/ bruising/ accident , a neighbor calls DYS to report it (why does the neighbor get involved?  Is the Dad yelling?  History of abuse?)...The child's father, who has a history of violence, refuses treatment, threatens EMS workers and police, so the police forcefully go in to check on the child?

Mind you, EMS walked in through an open door?   Not very secure?  

Hmmm.....let's say they didn't go in, and left it.  The kid shows up dead in a year or so, no what?  We'd all be bitching about the poilice doing nothing in this case....think about it......
One day at a time.

Matthew Carberry

  • Formerly carebear
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,281
  • Fiat justitia, pereat mundus
Re: Sheriff defends capture of boy by SWAT team
« Reply #13 on: January 14, 2008, 10:34:13 AM »
Quote
Hmmm.....let's say they didn't go in, and left it.  The kid shows up dead in a year or so, no what?  We'd all be bitching about the poilice doing nothing in this case....think about it......

I wouldn't be bitching, because, in the context of this incident, there was no harm.

The paramedic was wrong at the time.

The father, who had nearly equivalent medical training (Army medic), training at the very least sufficient to do the same field tests the para would do, determined that he was okay, and simply refused, not any sort of treatment, but simply a precautionary and expensive an, in the end, medically unnecessary trip to the ER.  One assumes an Army medic can observe the boy following his initial tests, and, if it seems a brain injury did occur, could then make the decision to take him into the ER.  Ya know, when and if it actually needs to be done.

The local police initially refused to respond to the paramedics request.  She only, after 48 hours, got the Sheriff's office to accede to "helping" them.

Given the time involved, and the fact that there were no active threats toward the authorities, in reference to this particular incident, until those authorities started talking about seizing the child two days later-

The fact the local police dept. did not view the issue as worthy of dealing with nor the man as a "threat"-

The fact that the Sheriff himself was quoted saying no actual laws were broken and he, in fact, agreed in general with the man's position-

It sure looks very reasonable to see this as a defied public servant (the paramedic) being offended at being first contradicted and then perhaps insulted and argued with when she got pushy and seeking big daddy law enforcement to punish teh father for his defiance and insults.

Especially because the paramedics themselves only recommended the trip to the ER as precautionary in the first place.  They themselves did not view it as medically necessary.

The father may be a jerk and a bit nutty, but that is not illegal.  If the stuff they are dragging up after the fact to support how "dangerous" he is didn't actually result in jail time or conviction, it is merely a ham-handed attempt to smear him and cover the paramedics unprofessional revenge kick.
"Not all unwise laws are unconstitutional laws, even where constitutional rights are potentially involved." - Eugene Volokh

"As for affecting your movement, your Rascal should be able to achieve the the same speeds no matter what holster rig you are wearing."

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: Sheriff defends capture of boy by SWAT team
« Reply #14 on: January 14, 2008, 11:11:45 AM »
If the stuff they are dragging up after the fact to support how "dangerous" he is didn't actually result in jail time or conviction, it is merely a ham-handed attempt to smear him and cover the paramedics unprofessional revenge kick.
Father was arrested, but let go as he did not commit a crime, as determined by the authorities.

So, yeah, it is an attempt to smear him and CYA.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 33,821
Re: Sheriff defends capture of boy by SWAT team
« Reply #15 on: January 14, 2008, 11:22:08 AM »
I agree with carebear.

The stuff they are saying this father did previous does NOT constitute a history of violence.  I have seen nothing to make me thing otherwise.

If some local govt guy starts threatening to get a court order to haul your kid away, I doubt any of you would be that calm. 
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

MrRezister

  • I resist. It's what I do.
  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 373
  • Shank, shank, shank mommy's ankles!
Re: Sheriff defends capture of boy by SWAT team
« Reply #16 on: January 14, 2008, 01:04:30 PM »
The Father was part of an extremist religion

Which one: "Anti-Authoritarian"?  Yeah, all those whackos need to be taught a lesson.
He never brought you an unbalanced budget, which is a perennial joke. He never voted himself a wage increase and, to this day, gives back part of his salary every year. He has always voted to preserve the Constitution, cut government spending, lower healthcare costs, end the war on drugs, secure our borders with immigration reform and protect our civil liberties.