Posted on 01/09/2008 10:56:27 AM PST by GSWarrior
Says use of response team appropriate because of father's confrontational history
GLENWOOD SPRINGS - Use of the Garfield County All Hazards Response Team (AHRT) was appropriate to seize Tom Shiflett's son for medical care because of Shiflett's confrontational history and repeated lack of cooperation, according to Garfield County Sheriff Lou Vallario.
"I wouldn't have done it if I didn't think we would have been able to accomplish it with just the deputies we had on duty," Vallario said. "The end result of what happened was based on (Shiflett's) decisions, not mine."
The team used force to break into Shiflett's home Friday night in Apple Tree Park near New Castle, and seized his 11-year-old son, Jon Shiflett. The boy was examined and returned hours later with the recommendation to ice his bruises and take Tylenol.
Paramedics alerted the Garfield County Department of Social Services about their concerns for Jon's health, leading to a search warrant and order for medical care. The boy had injured his face and head Thursday during some horseplay after grabbing onto the door handle of a moving car.
The family criticized the manner of entry and said their rights were violated because they wanted to care for Jon themselves and never asked for paramedics or invited anyone into their home. Shiflett also said authorities never told him they had a warrant, and he would have let them in if he did.
Vallario said Shiflett's statements that his family members were thrown to the ground and that the warrant was never announced are false. He said two Garfield County deputies arrived Friday before the AHRT and explained the warrant and that they would need to take the 11-year-old boy in for medical evaluation.
"He was rather vulgar in his response," Vallario said Tuesday. "I was given a court order, and I really don't feel I have any choice but to comply with that court order."
The AHRT also announced its presence and asked for the door to be opened before breaking it in, Vallario added. He said he would not have changed his decision to use the AHRT.
Two different stories have emerged about what happened.
On Tuesday, Shiflett said again that no one told him there was a warrant until after he was in handcuffs and guns were pointed in his daughters' faces.
"What (Vallario) gives you is a half-truth," Shiflett said. "The sheriff's going to tell you something, but you better make sure you have both sides of the story, because they're only going to give you part of it."
Vallario said Shiflett was arrested in 2005 on suspicion of felony menacing after chasing someone down the street with an ax.
"We have had encounters with him indicating that he's potentially violent, certainly agitating, confrontational," he said.
The 2005 arrest was never prosecuted. Former 9th Judicial District Attorney Colleen Truden signed an order simply stating her office did not wish to prosecute Shiflett in District Court for the alleged crime at the time.
Vallario said he didn't know why the decision was made. Shiflett said he did.
"I was completely within my rights under the Make My Day law," he said.
That Colorado law allows homeowners to use deadly force defending themselves from an intruder who is considered to be a threat.
Shiflett said he picked up the ax and chased the man out of his yard after 40 minutes of listening to his threats. He said he was the one that called the sheriff's office.
"You don't want to come to my house and tell me you're going to do something in my house and I can't stop you," Shiflett said. "I'm a violent person if you come into my house and start pushing me."
The Garfield County Combined Courts office said that 2005 case was Shiflett's only felony case in the county.
"Our history with him shows that he can be violent," Vallario said. "I knew he wasn't going to comply with us, I knew he had to comply with this order, so I felt like for the safety of everybody that the All Hazards Team should be called and help to support the Sheriff's Office on this."
Shiflett has said he will sue everyone on the warrant for violating his rights if an attorney will take the case pro bono, since he doesn't have the funds. On Tuesday he said no attorney has yet taken the case.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado said it couldn't comment without knowing all the facts involved.
I guess you call them when you break one of the new CFL bulbs.
But we will never know as the Sheriff decided to take the law into his own hands and escalate it to a confrontation with out even trying to do it the correct way.
______________________________________________________
I don’t see anything the Sheriff did that was wrong or “taking the law into his own hands”. He executed a lawful Court Order. He used overwhelming force to avoid a potential confrontation. Every one walked away. There is nothing in the law that says he has to play fair or nice. If you want nice play nice with the system.
If skepticism of the accuracy and completeness of an MSM report makes one "raised to be a serf," what sort of fool does it make the person who trusts what the MSM says?
I wasn’t basing my opinion on a single post. You are consistent.
Sounds like a practice session. If there is a dearth of armed drug dealers to raid you have to keep these guys in shape somehow.
The FACT probably was his troops needed some practice. Any dogs get shot? If not then they need yet more practice.
I'll bet the father gets a bill for the medical treatment.
If he ranted and raved on the phone the SWAT option would still be available and the sherrif would have his own first hand testimony to give the magistrate. Instead of the word of some arrogant paramedic and some nosy neighbors. IOWs he could have conducted a semblance of an actual investigation.
But even at that this man's rights would have been violated. Except in Hillary World where the village raises your children.
Children are holy to liberals. It is because they aren’t having very many and they feel they have to do everything they can to program and reprogram everyone else’s children. Somebody has to support them in their dotage. They have no kids to raise so they are damn well going to raise yours.
“He used overwhelming force to avoid a potential confrontation. Every one walked away. There is nothing in the law that says he has to play fair or nice. If you want nice play nice with the system.”
The overwhelming force that he used created the confrontation that we are now discussing. If the system wants people to “play nice”, they have to “play nice” with the citizens. Overwhelming force is not “playing nice”.
Hm. And you are a fool.
Yeah, right, pal. I’ll match my “substanceless” comments against yours any day. You can diddle yourself all you want — just don’t let your sticky hands come anywhere near me.
I knew if I pushed you a little bit you would post one of your typical mindless rantings. ; )
Hm. You’re clearly incapable of looking at my posting history. You may not agree with me, but it’s unlikely that a rational person would call them “mindless.” You, on the other hand....
On this thread you're posting a mindless acceptance of police state tactics being used to force a family to give a child a Tylenol.
Just wait, they're gonna try to bill the family a few thou for the emergency room visit.
Are you nuts? Here is the only opinion I posted on the topic:
No -- we don't have many facts to work with. To assume that the MSM is giving you all of the facts on this story, or any story like it, is contrary to experience.There appears to be more to this story -- it's best to avoid hasty conclusions.
As noted above, I have a healthy distrust of media reporting on stories like this, gained from cases in which I actually knew the real story, vs. what the media reported. The reporters/editors leave out a lot of the facts and backstory that helps to provide context to the event reported -- facts and context which would completely change how the reader perceives the situation. So no -- I don't trust the reporting on this story. I have a strong suspicion that there's a past history here that is not part of the reporting, but helps to explain what happened.
It would be difficult for a reasonable person to translate my comments about the MSM, into "mindless acceptance" of anything. If you want to mindlessly accept this media account, that's your problem, not mine.
Your last post to me was a pretty good example of it.
Have a nice life.
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.