SWAT team terrorizes family whos 11yr son fell at school and didn't go to a hospital

This is a discussion on SWAT team terrorizes family whos 11yr son fell at school and didn't go to a hospital within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by Tye_Defender Opfor- I think a no-knock warrant is ridiculous for most things! I would say, the burden of justification should be on ...

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 100

Thread: SWAT team terrorizes family whos 11yr son fell at school and didn't go to a hospital

  1. #46
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,706
    Quote Originally Posted by Tye_Defender View Post
    Opfor- I think a no-knock warrant is ridiculous for most things! I would say, the burden of justification should be on the pro-no-knock side of this argument. In my opinion, the reason we have these situations is because we have SWAT teams out there that get all this training and nowhere to use it. Leadership starts to feel like they need to justify the training so they use the SWAT team to do things that SWAT has no business doing.
    I agree 100%. NKWs should be a method of last resort, and should be held to the absolute highest standards of pre-service intelligence and planning.
    This is where I lost it. How on earth were they "rebuffed"? How do you "rebuff" 2 deputies at your house with a warrant? Perhaps this is one reason crimes still happen, the officers keep trying to arrest the criminals and are told "nope, not going with you" and they just leave feeling "rebuffed"!
    Well, we don't know the particulars. Perhaps the deputies felt that persuing the service at that time would be too dangerous for everyone involved. I can't speculate as to the why, but we know they didn't enforce the court order.
    I re-read all the links posted here and I found nothing that said he has a history of threatening behavior. Please back this up with a link. Maybe he has a criminal past that I did not see, but all I saw was a statement that he was a "known constitutionalist". If that means a history of threatening behavior, then there are quite a few people on this board that are in trouble!
    "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." This was in the linked articles and has been posted in other threads on this board - perhaps part of the problem is we aren't reading what we're commenting on all the way through? We are certainly focussing on the 'constitutionalist' part and ignoring the 'threats' part....
    Only 6 of the 10 children still live at home, so that is a total of 8 in the house, 4 of them minor children. However, even if all 10 of the kids were at home, doesn't that make this a worse scenario for a no-knock warrant? The more people in the home, the more likely someone will get hurt.
    I know four of the kids don't live at home, but we don't know where they live. The father has had plenty of time to call his kids to the house to repel the "army" that he has challenged the police to bring.
    I agree that sending over two more deputies may not have helped, but maybe it would have. Maybe the next two would have known how to serve a warrant!
    Quite possibly. Like I've said, there was certainly a better way to handle this.
    There is a lot about this situation that I don't understand. Paramedics illegally entered the house and demand to treat this kid. Legally, I can refuse medical care if I'm in an accident. I understand we want to protect the kids from all those idiot parents, it takes a village and all, but this paramedic over-stepped his bounds. The dad grudgingly allows them to look at his son then kicks them out of his house. Then social workers come to the house and look at the child. The dad again grudgingly allows them to look at his child and then tells them to leave as well. These 2 social workers provide false testimony (blown pupil, etc.) to the court and get a court order. Now 2 deputies come to the house and demand the child. I don't know what happened at this point but if I was the dad, I would be pissed. This is the third set of people to come tell me how to take care of my kid. But again, how did he get rid of them? This is the first group that had a LEGAL right to enter his house but don't? WHAT?
    Wait a minute, your going a bit out into left field here... Paramedics typically don't need express permission to enter the scene of an injury - when the homeowner told them to leave, they left. Who says the social workers provided false information? You certainly have no proof of that - this is the sort of grandstanding jumps in illogic that I'm trying to counter. And yes, it would be irritating for a decent, concientious parent to be told that they MUST treat their child's injury in a particular way, but guess what - there are a whole lot of uncaring, downright crappy parents who don't do the right thing. A very poor family living 8 (at least) in a trailer might lead you towards thinking it might be the latter sort of family, no?

    And perhaps my use of the word "rebuff" had distracted you from the meat of the discussion - I don't know what actually happened there to prevent them from enforcing the court order (and neither does any of us), so I picked the best word I can think of. Perhaps you can look past my word choice to the actual meaning...
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #47
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,706
    Quote Originally Posted by matiki View Post
    Let's not go crazy here, using a hematoma as justification for their actions...

    he·ma·to·ma (hē'mə-tō'mə) Pronunciation Key
    n. pl. he·ma·to·mas or he·ma·to·ma·ta (-mə-tə)
    A localized swelling filled with blood resulting from a break in a blood vessel.

    In other words: A Bruise

    Now... the sluggish pupil is concerning, but accompanied by no other real issues... I don't think I'd go to the Doctor myself, I might with my kid but that's because I'm overly protective, paranoid and a first time parent.
    Thanks, I know what a hematoma is. I also know that a "huge" one on a child's head, coupled with a sluggish pupil, coupled with whatever other injuries were there (remember, these two were "included," not inclusive) means there is a good chance of serious injury. Head injuries are difficult to diagnose and can be very, very serious - the fact that this one turned out not to be is information that NO ONE HAD until after he was examined. Do you need to see bits of skull and brain matter before you'd insist that the child be seen by an actual medical professional? Maybe if the father had simply let the paramedic do a 5 minute exam at the start, all of this could have been avoided...
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  4. #48
    Member Array Arisin Wind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    450
    "In the end, the injury wasn't as severe as caseworkers from the Garfield County Department of Social Services thought when they went before a judge seeking a search warrant and order for medical treatment.
    The doctor recommended fluids, Tylenol and ice to treat the bruises, according to a copy of Jon's patient aftercare instructions."


    So the kid is OK. And that is good.

  5. #49
    Member Array Arisin Wind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    450
    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    Maybe if the father had simply let the paramedic do a 5 minute exam at the start, all of this could have been avoided...

    The paramedics did examine the child at the beginning, found no significant injury, but wanted to take the child to a hospital for further observation.

    Maybe after the father said no, they felt slighted or thought perhaps their butts weren't covered enough and decided to escalate the issue.

  6. #50
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,706
    Quote Originally Posted by Arisin Wind View Post
    The paramedics did examine the child at the beginning, found no significant injury, but wanted to take the child to a hospital for further observation.

    Maybe after the father said no, they felt slighted or thought perhaps their butts weren't covered enough and decided to escalate the issue.
    That isn't made clear. The parents did not call the paramedics, someone else did. The parents did not invite the paramedics in to examine the injury - they came in through an unlocked/open door. The parents stated that they didn't want the paramedics there, and demanded that they leave. Assuming that the paramedics were able to do a cursory exam, they believed that the child needed more than the parents were willing to allow. I'm sure some of our EMT/paramedics/doctors on the boards can tell you how unpredictable, hard to diagnose, and dangerous head injuries can be...

    Also, I just noticed who the author of the opinion piece quoted earlier is: Radley Balko is a pundit and anti-police author who wrote a book condeming no-knock warrants and other police tactics - not exactly the "man on the street" opinion...
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  7. #51
    VIP Member Array friesepferd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    east TN
    Posts
    2,341
    WOW. i dont even know what to say about this. our country is going downhill fast.

  8. #52
    Member Array Tye_Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    Wait a minute, your going a bit out into left field here... Paramedics typically don't need express permission to enter the scene of an injury
    But this wasn't the scene of the injury, the child was injured outside and taken home. This was someone's house and they are not the ones that called.

    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    Who says the social workers provided false information? You certainly have no proof of that - this is the sort of grandstanding jumps in illogic that I'm trying to counter.
    According to the news report the social workers used the words "huge hematoma" and "sluggish pupil" in the affidavit that was used to get the warrant. The hematoma (ie bruise) does not surprise me, but based on the doctor's findings I have a hard time believing the social worker truly saw the sluggish pupil that was reported. That is the basis for my "false information" statement.



    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    And yes, it would be irritating for a decent, concientious parent to be told that they MUST treat their child's injury in a particular way, but guess what - there are a whole lot of uncaring, downright crappy parents who don't do the right thing. A very poor family living 8 (at least) in a trailer might lead you towards thinking it might be the latter sort of family, no?
    I don't think the size of the family or the amount of money they have should have any bearing on whether I would put them in the "decent" or "crappy" parenting box. I understand that it is human nature to equate poor with bad parenting, but we must get past that because it is not based on facts.

    Based on what I have read so far, I don't believe the family being poor entered into the decision to not treat the injury. I come to that conclusion because the social workers offered to pay for the doctor visit. If it was simply an inability to pay for the doctor then that would have been the end of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    And perhaps my use of the word "rebuff" had distracted you from the meat of the discussion - I don't know what actually happened there to prevent them from enforcing the court order (and neither does any of us), so I picked the best word I can think of. Perhaps you can look past my word choice to the actual meaning...
    I think you picked the perfect word to sum up my problem with this situation. The Sheriff dept. had two interactions with this family to serve the warrant. On the first one they sent 2 deputies and it sounds like this response was on the passive side. These deputies were rebuffed, as you put it and they left. Their second response was aggressive to the extreme with a forceful entry made by SWAT. There has got to be some response between the two that would have been more appropriate. I am flabbergasted that the original set of deputies left the house without serving the warrant that they were sent to serve! I can't imagine any scenario that justified leaving the scene if SWAT was the next response. I can understand calling backup and escalating to SWAT if he was that much of a threat to the officers or his children and I can see leaving the scene because you are satisfied that he is not a threat.

  9. #53
    Member Array airworthy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Lansing,Michigan
    Posts
    92
    Since when is a social worker qualified to be a doctor and make medical determinations!

  10. #54
    VIP Member Array matiki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    N.W.
    Posts
    2,918
    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    Thanks, I know what a hematoma is. I also know that a "huge" one on a child's head, coupled with a sluggish pupil, coupled with whatever other injuries were there (remember, these two were "included," not inclusive) means there is a good chance of serious injury.
    Not directed at you so much as the author of the second article that you happen to be referring to.

    Head injuries are difficult to diagnose and can be very, very serious - the fact that this one turned out not to be is information that NO ONE HAD until after he was examined. Do you need to see bits of skull and brain matter before you'd insist that the child be seen by an actual medical professional? Maybe if the father had simply let the paramedic do a 5 minute exam at the start, all of this could have been avoided...
    The only other article says that he was examined... again, not directed at you. As usual your advice is spot on but I think this particular situation is rife with CYA type statements from the folks involved.

    Journalists are trained to write in a manner that invokes emotion, here they are playing with two: fear of child abuse/neglect, and fear of excessive force/abuse from the Government. From the reaction this thread has generated so far...

    Journalists: 2

    Readers: 0

    Just my $.02.
    "Wise people learn when they can; fools learn when they must." - The Duke of Wellington

  11. #55
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,706
    Tye Defender - it was the scene of the injury - the injury was on the child's head. And it doesn't matter who called, that's where the victim was.

    Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the social workers lied. We tend to like things like evidence when we make assertions in the courtroom, but I know such things are wholly unnecessary on a message board...

    No, money doesn't always enter into it, but it can. Plus, there are 10(!) kids in that poor family, and the father doesn't seem to be a highly respected member of the community... Again, not absolutes, but indicators. And the original article said that the father was worried about medical bills, and that was his reasoning for refusing to take the kid to the hospital. Why he still refused after the social workers volunteered to pay for it is anyone's guess.

    Agreed on the 'intermediate' step between asking nicely and launching a SWAT team.

    Airworthy - social workers aren't qualified to act as doctors - that's why they wanted the kid to see a doctor. By the same token, the dad (who may have been a medic 30 years ago) isn't a doctor either....

    matiki - Spot on. Sensationalism sells. I wish folks would appreciate that fact in cases like this, and not just when a reporter calls an SKS an "automatic assault rifle."
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  12. #56
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    25,767
    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    "... how adequate a person is to care for an injury?" and the answer is the law.
    Where, exactly, is it required by law that people submit to medical care? Where, exactly, is it justified by law that medical care may be forced at the point of a gun?
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  13. #57
    Member Array state6three8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by TerryD View Post
    As a Paramedic in Kentucky, we are taught that the Medic is in charge on any scene if it's something medical, and "almost" everything else is secondary.

    I can only think of one instance of a cop asking too many questions, and we needed to go. All I had to do was explain what was going on "professionally", and he agreed, and we left. Took 10 seconds of my time, which wouldn't have mattered anyway.

    There are only a few situations where I could "imagine" get mouthy with a cop, especially at work. Me no likey no jail.
    TerryD,

    I should have qualified it as a non-life threatening minor injury. I agree if the persons health is in jeopardy my interrogation comes second... or third... or fourth. That was not the case in my story.

  14. #58
    Senior Member Array MR D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Central PA
    Posts
    864
    one of the guys on the Ohioans for concealed carry (OFCC) site has had an E-mail conversation with the Sheriff... pretty interesting

    The Paramedics are probably "mandatory" reporters to child services whenever they suspect that a child has been the victim of abuse or neglect

    when they were ordered to leave, and services were refused they probably called it in or just filed their paperwork...

    children's services (not being qualified medical practitioners) went to a magistrate and got a court order...

    the sheriff is required by law to serve orders, he sent two deputies and the Dad allegedly refused to allow them to have his son, and allegedly told them to "bring an Army"

    I guess they did

    the Sheriff says the hospital also treated the boy for an ankle injury

    the problem I have is that the injury took place on Thursday, the seizure was on Friday and the kid was not returned home until (IIRC) 2:30 AM Saturday...

  15. #59
    Distinguished Member Array AutoFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Arid Zone A
    Posts
    1,561
    What I don't understand is the contention that the social workers or the paramedics report to the social workers reported a blown pupil. The cause of those generally don't heal over the course of a day or two. So I'd say either someone is incompetent or lied to get a court order (which is a criminal offense, no?).

    Is it OK for paramedics to enter a house unannounced? Seems like in some parts of the country that's a good way to get injured themselves.

    I'm also with the group that wants to know how one senior citizen can turn two sheriff deputies away when they have a court order.

  16. #60
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,706
    It was a "sluggish" pupil, not a "blown" one, at least as reported. Since the social workers weren't allowed to really look at the kid, it's hard to say how they came to that conclusion. It's possible they made it up, they exaggerated, or they honestly believed that they saw the symptom.

    As for the first two Deputies... All I can think is that they felt it wouldn't be prudent to 'press the point' when they went to enforce the order. Perhaps, in their view, it was unsafe (or simply unfeasible) to take the kid by force at the time. I'd be interested to know the exact circumstances, but it's unlikely that we ever will.

    At the end of the day, no one got hurt, the order was enforced, and the only damage was to a trailer door. I'm concerned about the level of force used, too, but all we have is the "victim's" side, so we really can't make any fully informed decisions.
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. SWAT Team Members Kid Gets School Suspension For Crayon Drawing
    By QKShooter in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 9th, 2010, 10:51 PM
  2. 84 year old vs. SWAT team
    By mr.stuart in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 25th, 2010, 11:28 AM
  3. Ny shooting and the swat team
    By zachgry in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: April 7th, 2009, 12:23 PM
  4. VIDEO: SWAT TEAM UNLOADS on CAR
    By Rob99VMI04 in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: July 22nd, 2008, 02:19 PM
  5. SWAT Team (Maybe some LEO's can help)
    By elrey718 in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: September 16th, 2006, 07:09 PM

Search tags for this page

boy terrorizes family
,

our government terrorizes a florida nurse with a swat team

Click on a term to search for related topics.