Posted on 01/07/2008 4:04:46 AM PST by driftdiver
Queue the police apologists and the sympathy for the poor frightened misunderstood cops crowd..........
If a person refuses treatment, paramedics need to honor it - (theoretically) no questions asked. They *will* ask the person (or guardian) to sign a form to that effect - it's for responders' protection. Please note - I say "theoretically" because drunks are #%^^# hard to reason with, and a person with their arm hanging off by a thread needs to go to the hospital, whether he thinks he's OK, or not. One of the things EMTs can do is wait for the drunk to pass out (usually from blood loss), then they have "implied consent" to treat the patient.
I know of many instances where patients refused treatment. Usually becuase they were drunk, on drugs, or engaging in some sort of activity (illegal or immoral) that they didn't want to make public. This doesn't smell like that, though.
There's a whole lot more to this story than is being reported.
Why hasn’t anyone mentioned the do-gooder neighbor (anonymous) who got the authorities involved in the first place?
Has Neighborhood Watch turned into Neighborhood Witch?
“The family, whose members live by faith and homeschool, decided not to call an ambulance. But a neighbor did call Westcare Ambulance, and paramedics responded to the home, asking to see and evaluate the boy.”
fyi
Where’s Janet?
I actually missed that whole statement. I was focused on the paramedic. Now, probably wrongly.
Are "constitutionalists" still being allowed to run loose in Colorado???</sarc>
that wuz funnie...
How bout just use the original thirteen idea ???
Then Hitler defense? I agree the judge who authorized this crap should be kicked out, but the LEO’s should know better than to play SEAL team 6 in that situation.
I’m pretty sure that Social Services don’t need a warrant - but the cops do. My family is under strict orders not to let an officer or anyone from the state into the house after hearing some of these unbelievable horror stories.
However, I did let an officer in the other day so she could get some prints off of something that was left in my truck after it was broken into. It was raining hard and I invited her inside as long as she didn’t mind all the kids watching.
As we walked through the cluttered kitchen I quipped “I don’t mind you seeing this as you’re not social services” and she gave a knowing laugh and looked around and said “I think you’d be all right”.
I don't know.... The 'just following orders' worked so well in Nuremberg... </sarc>
Same story, same apparent facts, in the Denver Post by the AP no less.
There is one difference.
Garfield County sheriff's spokeswoman Tanny McGinnis said two deputies were first sent to notify Shiflett of a court order for his son's medical treatment and that Shiflett did not comply..
And that is, I guess, "more to the story", just not much more.
See Post 133
Probably, but it seems to me that before you go breaking into people's houses and perhaps pointing guns at them, you ought not to be assuming anything, you should know.
That's the standard you or I would be held to, so should they.
Bob Jones is Joe Smith's employer. Smitty was acting in Jones' name. Jones paid for Smith's actions. Jones is liable.
Just because your paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
Just drag the old 49 star flags out of storage, they shouldn't be in bad shape, since they were only used from January to August of 1959.
Or make Guam or sumpin else a state, problem solved.
Nixon wasn't blind to the dangers of communism. He just thought, correctly at the time probably, wrong in the long wrong perhaps, that the Bear was more dangerous than the Dragon, and was playing them off against one another, but tilting toward the Dragon.
That's what I get for being too cryptic. I was referring to th fact that there was a frenzied core of people who wanted the war in SE asia to continue predicting the world as we know it would end if we let communism win. Of course no such thing happened.
The same sort of armchair heroes are giving away their rights with both hands to government crying "protect us from islamic terrorism" The government is all to happy to abrogate rights for the false promise of security. The government isn't doing anything about the invasion from Mexico. More US citizens have been killed by illegal Mexicans that by islamic terrorists, but King George II wants to give them amnesty. Remember "See you at the signing?" When I look at King George II, I see many similarities to LBJ. Massive increase in government (read taxpayer) funded health care. Endless war. Huge increases in spending. etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.