• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Is this America or Nazi Germany?

Red Robin

Well-known member
POLICE STATE, USA
SWAT officers invade home, take 11-year-old at gunpoint
Cops demand boy go to doctor because of fall during horseplay
Posted: January 7, 2008
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com

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.

Someone, apparently the unidentified paramedic, called police, the sheriff's office and social services, eventually providing Leoniak with a report that generated the magistrate's court order to the sheriff's office for the SWAT team assault on the family's home in a mobile home development outside of Glenwood Springs, the father, Tom Shiflett, told WND.

(Story continues below)

WND calls and e-mails to Garfield County Social Services were not returned, and Leoniak, who earlier served as a water court clerk/referee, also was not available.

Sheriff Lou Vallario, however, did call back, and told WND he ordered 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.

According to friends of the family, Tom Shiflett, who has 10 children including six still at home, and served with paramedics in Vietnam, was monitoring his son's condition himself.

The paramedic and magistrate, however, ruled that that wasn't adequate, and dispatched the officers to take the boy, John, to a hospital, where a doctor evaluated him and released him immediately.

The accident happened during horseplay, Tom Shiflett told WND. John was grabbing the door handle of a car as his sister was starting to drive away slowly. He slipped, fell to the ground and hit his head, Shiflett said.

He immediately carried his son into their home several doors away, and John was able to recite Bible verses and correctly spell words as his father and mother, Tina, requested. There were no broken bones, no dilated eyes, or any other noticeable problems.

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.

The paramedics were allowed to see the boy, and found no significant impairment, but wanted to take him to the hospital for an evaluation anyway. Fearing the hospital's bills, the family refused to allow that.

"This apparently did not go over well with one of the paramedics and they started getting aggravated at Tom for not letting them have their way," a family acquaintance told WND.

"The paramedics were not at all respectful of Tom's decision, nor did they act in a manner we would expect from professional paramedics," the acquaintance said.

So the ambulance crew, who also could not be reached by WND, called police, only to be told the decision was up to the Shiflett familiy.

The paramedics then called the sheriff's office, and officers responded to the home, and were told everyone was being cared for.

Then the next day, Friday, 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, the family reported.

Then, following an afternoon shopping trip to town, the family settled in for the evening, only to be shocked with the SWAT team attack.

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.

The sheriff also admitted that the injury to the child had been at least 24 hours earlier, because the fall apparently happened Thursday afternoon, and the SWAT attack happened late Friday evening.

Officials with the Home School Legal Defense Association reported they were looking into the case, because of requests from family friends who are members of the organization.

"While people can debate whether or not the father should have brought his son to the ER – it seems like this was not the kind of emergency that warrants this kind of outrageous conduct by government officials," a spokesman said.

Tom Shiflett said when John was evaluated by the physician, "they didn't find anything wrong with him."

He said the paramedics never should have entered his home, but they followed his wife in the front door when she came in.

"My attention was on my son," Shiflett said.

He said the SWAT team punched a hole in his door with a ramrod, and the first officer in the home pointed a gun right in the face of Tom's 20-year-old daughter.

"I don't know where social services ever got started, or where they got their authority," he said. "But I want to know why we have something in this country that violates our rights, that takes a parental right away."

He said he saw a multitude of injuries in Vietnam, and while he recognized that his son needed to be watched, he wasn't willing to turn his child over to the paramedics.

With 10 children, most of them older than John, it's not as if he hasn't seen a bruise or two, either, he said.

"Now I'm hunting for lawyers that will take the case … I'm going to sue everybody whose name was on that page right down to the judge," he said.

Mike Donnelly, a lawyer with the HSLDA, told WND the case had a set of circumstances that could be problematic for authorities.

"In Doe V. Heck, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that parents have a fundamental right to familial relations including a liberty interest in the care, custody and control of their children," he said.

He also said many social services agencies apply "a one size fits all approach" to cases, regardless of circumstances.
 

passin thru

Well-known member
This is downright scary

This family had three things against them
1 Religious
2 Home schoolers
3 Constitutionalist

I hope he sues for all they are worth
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Is this America or Nazi Germany?


Thats what I've been saying for the last several years Red Robin-- when you start eroding away at the Constitution it carries over to everyone....

The Constitution was meant to be followed by everyone-but when the Leadership of the country sets the standard by treating it as toilet paper- its natural that it will continue to be shredded and weakened.... :roll: :( :(

This is one place where Ron Paul is not a kook--and speaks a lot of wisdom.......
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
I think you're wrong Oldwhiner. It looks more like a small town sheriff or judge has got the bit between his teeth and is trying to prove he has a set of nuts. He'll pay for his mistake. I'm like passin thru, I hope they make him pay. BTW Janet Reno and Waco was a long time before GW.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Red Robin said:
I think you're wrong Oldwhiner. It looks more like a small town sheriff or judge has got the bit between his teeth and is trying to prove he has a set of nuts. He'll pay for his mistake. I'm like passin thru, I hope they make him pay. BTW Janet Reno and Waco was a long time before GW.

While I don't agree with the manner he did it--In most (all?) states if the Sheriff followed an order by a legally appointed Judge/Magistrate he is probably free from any liability, since he is required/ordered by law to follow court orders--altho all the facts of the extent of past history and extremism of the person they are dealing with are not known- so the reasons for the methods used.....
The judiciary/magistrate are also free from liability when acting upon sworn probable cause or probable suspicion- especially when we have no details of the true extent of injury... The courts have ruled that when acting for health or safety of an individual they give much greater leeway.....

Years of eroding our Constitutional rights -- like the government sticking their nose into the family matters of the Terri Schiavo case have brought these rulings and laws about....Many times family matters the government should not even be involved in......What has brought about some of my Libertarian beliefs.....

And you are right RR--Janet Reno and Waco was much before GW's time... So you feel those persons that were following a nut professing himself to be Jesus Christ who was violating felonies by raping children under the guise of God telling them it was OK-- and violating federal firearms laws-- and then when confronted with legal court orders/search warrents to investigate such, killed federal agents-- before he decided to martyr himself and his followers is just fine :???: :( :( :( ....

I think that there are many things involved with this incident that have not been brought forward or are known to the media or public- but everytime we let a Judge or a President make precedence with a Constitutional ruling we seem to give up more of our freedom and rights...
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Could the Colorado authorities have sent out a social worker? Seems much more reasonable that the swat team. You won't catch me defending the cultist and child rapist Koresh. Neither will I defend the actions of your beloved law enforcement officer Janet Reno whose actions brought about the end of life for 17 children less than 10 years old. My point was then , like now, government acted foolishly. You can rationalize it and possibly there are more circumstances that are unknown but I fail to see a reason to hold small children and parents at gunpoint in this case. I do find it a little self serving that you allow the local sheriff the trust where you say he could know more than us but in the presidents case in Iraq, you say we shouldn't have went to war. How do you know? I guess I've let this get more political than I intended. You can have the last word.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Red Robin said:
Could the Colorado authorities have sent out a social worker? Seems much more reasonable that the swat team.
Like I said--I won't defend or challenge the actions of the Sheiff until I know what the past history of this fellow/father is...If he's done like Koresh did and threatened to kill social workers or any law enforcement- and deny them court ordered access-- then I'd say taking the precautions they did were correct...The 6 P's-- Prior Planning Prevents P*ss Poor Perfromance....Normally a Sheriff doesn't go spending the budget on SWAT team callouts unless they have reason to justify it ....
You won't catch me defending the cultist and child rapist Koresh. Neither will I defend the actions of your beloved law enforcement officer Janet Reno whose actions brought about the end of life for 17 children less than 10 years old.
Apparently you never read any of my posts-- or you would know that I think Janet Reno did more to discredit the criminal justice system and demoraliize the federal law enforcement than anyone prior to GW and the Bush appointed Attorney Generals who then took over- and instead of representing the American citizen/public as they are sworn to do- allowed GW and his neocon administration to tear away more of the liberties and rights we have guaranteed to us under the Constituion...I've also said that I personally think that if Reno/Clinton hadn't tore apart and demoralized the FBI and federal investigative agencies by cutting budgets and manpower- the same as they did with the military- 9/11 may have been avoided....
My point was then , like now, government acted foolishly. You can rationalize it and possibly there are more circumstances that are unknown but I fail to see a reason to hold small children and parents at gunpoint in this case. I do find it a little self serving that you allow the local sheriff the trust where you say he could know more than us but in the presidents case in Iraq, you say we shouldn't have went to war. How do you know? I guess I've let this get more political than I intended. You can have the last word.
We don't know any of the facts of this case- just one article from one news-source....As far as GW- I supported him and his going to war- until it was proven that the facts that led to his justification were either only in his mind, greatly embellished, or fabricated....And Constitutionally -- No President has the Constitutional right to take us into war or declare war--especially under a foreign (UN) treaty or agreement.... Only Congress under a declaration of war, which there never has been- a lot bigger erosion of Constitutional Rights than one where a childs welfare may be at question ....
 

I Luv Herfrds

Well-known member
Just got done with a great EMS course this weekend and this story brings to mind the LAWS in our state concerning this type of situation.
1. NO person can be forced to be treated unless they show signs of impairment in which the person cannot make a consious decesion. In other words a drunk who has been in a wreck, a mentally impaired person or someone unconsious.
As for MINORS, unless a legal guardian, parent or parents are present we would normally transport that minor to the hospital. If the parent REFUSES treatment the only thing we can is TRY to convience the parent to seek treatment. If they still refuse then we have them sign a paper refusing treatment. If they refuse to sign it then we have a bystander or other person present sign it.

The SWAT team to force treatment on a person NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE IS WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! That family has a strong case against everybody involved.
If the paramedics were in a mind set of "Here we are, we know best and you are wrong." nothing short of a kick in the butt will get them out of it.
yes I have dealt with paramedics before, some are pretty good and then you get the "I am better then you" ones.
I hope the family wins.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I Luv Herfrds said:
Just got done with a great EMS course this weekend and this story brings to mind the LAWS in our state concerning this type of situation.
1. NO person can be forced to be treated unless they show signs of impairment in which the person cannot make a consious decesion. In other words a drunk who has been in a wreck, a mentally impaired person or someone unconsious.

.

Yep-- and thats where the medical people and law enforcement sometimes are caught in a Catch-22--Damned if you do-- Damned if you don't....

I know because I was involved in a lawsuit-- where one of my deputies backed up the Police Dept to a bar disturbance (unruly customer) call one March night....As they walked down the sidewalk to the bar, they encountered and talked to a young man that had just left the bar...He told them that he was heading for home- and they let him go as they were heading in to check out the disturbance....They saw him walk across the street toward the railroad track and another bar about 2 blocks away.....After going in the bar- they found out that he had been the unruly customer-- but had left on his own...While taking statements the officers found out that the fella had forgot his jacket in the bar- and since it was blizzarding out- my Deputy (actually a volunteer Reserve) took the jacket and went out to find him and give him his jacket-- with no luck...Even drove around town and checked the other bars- where they thought he might have went, since he was a stranger and they did not know where he lived... No luck...

Next AM when the sun came up-- he was found about 3 blocks away lying in an alley roadway froze to death....In investigating it was found he probably was hiding from the officers, maybe thinking he was going to be arrested- as one gal had seen him hiding under a truck....

Anyway the family screamed that he should have been taken into protective custody- because he was too intoxicated to care for himself- and they sued EVERYBODY....City/County argument was that he was walking, talking, within distance of several open business establishments and his own actions led to his death....Luckily a Federal Judge saw it our way- after a couple years of hearings and thousand of $ of city/county (taxpayers) attorney and court costs....
 

I Luv Herfrds

Well-known member
Well OT unless you get all of the facts right in the beginning you have no idea of what has happened or gone on there. Too bad for that guy
The only case I was on in which the people refused treatment was this last summer and 2 visiting men decided to jump off of the walk bridge into the Missouri River. they didn't realize that it was only between 5-6 feet deep. One either dislocated his ankle or broke it. Never heard. Second one has a sore back.
They both wanted the equipment, but not the help or transport. Couldn't do that because it would be abandonment on our part to treat then let them leave or us leave. Another catch-22.
They signed the refusal form and all the other EMS personal left except for 2 of us. We helped load them into their car and they went to the ER by themselves.
Going to talk to the city council about a warning sign, because one of these days they could be sued for not having a "No Jumping" sign there. too many local people said they should have known. Not true. I used to think the Missouri was deeper until then.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The rest of the Story-- I figured there was more....

The last time I had contact with someone like this was with a "minister" who refused access to Social workers or law enforcement to talk to or examine this daughters- after the oldest daughter (19) spilled the beans on how her father had had sex with the daughters since they were age 13-and had even made the mother perform "marriage ceremonies" with him and the daughters....The daughter talked to save the youngest (12) from the same years of hell with a nut she and her sisters had gone thru......

Sounds like the Sheriff handled it the same way I would have when dealing with a nut......To do anything else would have been negligent and could have unduly endangered other family members, the neighborhood and especially the officers......

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLICE STATE, USA
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


By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com


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."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59654
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Oldtimer this guy sounds like a nut. As far as I know it's not against the law to be a nut. I don't read a shred of evidence of the man being a child molester or in any way harming his children. Holding children at gunpoint and roughing up teenage girls in Arkansas gets a sheriff unelected. I didn't realize you favored so much government intervention. Not very libertarian of you.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Red Robin said:
Oldtimer this guy sounds like a nut. As far as I know it's not against the law to be a nut. I don't read a shred of evidence of the man being a child molester or in any way harming his children. Holding children at gunpoint and roughing up teenage girls in Arkansas gets a sheriff unelected. I didn't realize you favored so much government intervention. Not very libertarian of you.

Nuts many times teach much of their thinking to their kids- and kids can kill you just as fast as an adult...Many a law enforcement officer has been shot dead by a teenager....

Do Sheriff's in Arkansa have to carry out Court Orders? They sure as heck do in Montana.....

RR- If this kid had been injured- and had died-- then you and the public would be down the throats of the government for not doing something...
Like I said- Damned if you do- Damned if you don't....

These folks sound like they did it the legal way after getting a complaint- investigated (which under most state laws they are required to do)- when confronted/denied access for their investigation took their probabl cause to a duly sworn Judge and got a Court Order- carried out that court order without anyone getting hurt....What more do you want? Would you prefer the GW method- no court order :???:
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
What more do you want? Would you prefer the GW method- no court order :???:
Yep. It'd be very, very hard in my county to get a court order for a bumped head investigation. We're a little more reasonable.
 

passin thru

Well-known member
The last time I had contact with someone like this was with a "minister" who refused access to Social workers or law enforcement to talk to or examine this daughters- after the oldest daughter (19) spilled the beans on how her father had had sex with the daughters since they were age 13-and had even made the mother perform "marriage ceremonies" with him and the daughters....The daughter talked to save the youngest (12) from the same years of hell with a nut she and her sisters had gone thru......

This has no business in this discussion, the guy might be different(goofy to you and me) and make claims but until he does something, what do you do. Making a statement like this is like say that there are cops and judges that are corrupt and overstep their authority.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
passin thru said:
The last time I had contact with someone like this was with a "minister" who refused access to Social workers or law enforcement to talk to or examine this daughters- after the oldest daughter (19) spilled the beans on how her father had had sex with the daughters since they were age 13-and had even made the mother perform "marriage ceremonies" with him and the daughters....The daughter talked to save the youngest (12) from the same years of hell with a nut she and her sisters had gone thru......

This has no business in this discussion, the guy might be different(goofy to you and me) and make claims but until he does something, what do you do. Making a statement like this is like say that there are cops and judges that are corrupt and overstep their authority.

My point-- which seems to have zinged right over your head :roll: --is that how a person presents themselves to some or to the public, may not be how they live their life....And many times law enforcement have information that the general public does not have....
In the instance I described-- there was a totally shocked congregation- who knew the guy was a little strange but probabably would have been down the throats of the courts and the Sheriff (just like RR is with these folks)- if all the girls when given the opportunity to speak without their father present, hadn't came forward with like stories- the mother admitting to her involvement- and the father confessing and pleading guilty to his crimes....
 

passin thru

Well-known member
My point-- which seems to have zinged right over your head --is that how a person presents themselves to some or to the public, may not be how they live their life....And many times law enforcement have information that the general public does not have....
In the instance I described-- there was a totally shocked congregation- who knew the guy was a little strange but probabably would have been down the throats of the courts and the Sheriff (just like RR is with these folks)- if all the girls when given the opportunity to speak without their father present, hadn't came forward with like stories- the mother admitting to her involvement- and the father confessing and pleading guilty to his crimes

Oh no it did not slip by me............but what seems to have slipped by you is, that a different case has no bearing whatsoever on this case. I w2ould hate to think that you as a judge would consider evidence on a completely different case in order to render a verdict.
Simple unless you have evidence all the supposition is of no bearing. Nail the guy for what he did..............not what you think he could have done, or what joe blow did.
evidence ever heard of it?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
passin thru said:
My point-- which seems to have zinged right over your head --is that how a person presents themselves to some or to the public, may not be how they live their life....And many times law enforcement have information that the general public does not have....
In the instance I described-- there was a totally shocked congregation- who knew the guy was a little strange but probabably would have been down the throats of the courts and the Sheriff (just like RR is with these folks)- if all the girls when given the opportunity to speak without their father present, hadn't came forward with like stories- the mother admitting to her involvement- and the father confessing and pleading guilty to his crimes

Oh no it did not slip by me............but what seems to have slipped by you is, that a different case has no bearing whatsoever on this case. I w2ould hate to think that you as a judge would consider evidence on a completely different case in order to render a verdict.
Simple unless you have evidence all the supposition is of no bearing. Nail the guy for what he did..............not what you think he could have done, or what joe blow did.
evidence ever heard of it?

Passin- Now your slipping off the subject and spinning----There is nothing in the articles about anyone not having the evidence relative to the facts and the situation....In fact it appears to me like the Court and the Law Enforcement had the evidence- which was not presented in the article and is often not known by the public immediately- which was what I tried to show in my comparison....

If not- like was said earlier-the family has recourse back thru the courts (altho it sounds like the health care providers/social workers/L.E. covered their butts quite well with the court order)-- but at least there is no worry that some little kid is dying (or dead) because of neglect- which you seem to forget- is not always the case!!!
 
Top