The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. – Ayn Rand
Quote of the Day
Please overcome your irrational fear. Please find a range, and learn to shoot. Please try to buy a gun, if your jurisdiction allows, and find out how hard you’ve made it to exercise a fundamental human right, how hard you’ve made it to defend yourself against goblins who have never given two lumpy farts for your laws, your principles, or your feelings.
Please, please, please, learn that it’s OK to be free. – DJMoore, The Nonviolent Lie
RTWT
There is an interesting discussion going on in the comments to a post at Snowflakes in Hell on a letter to the editor written by Mike Vanderboegh. Mr. Vanderboegh is a strident voice for the right to arms, an extremist’s extremist. He is, as I described him in my own comment at Snowflakes, the Malcolm X of the gun-rights movement.
He’s the guy who wants to, as SayUncle puts it so wincingly, “frighten the white people.”
Mr. Vanderboegh is currently writing a book, one that makes John Ross’s Unintended Consequences look like a trip to Disneyland. It’s entitled Absolved, and it’s being published, chapter by chapter, on various gun blogs. David Codrea, a member of the Black Rifle Panthers himself, has a link to all the chapters posted so far. You might find it an interesting read. Mr. Vanderboegh is a pretty good writer.
The general consensus of the 66 (so far) comments at Sebastian’s is that actually telling people that gun owners are willing to kill over the right to arms is counterproductive in the struggle to convince a majority that having a right to arms is a good thing. Of course there are those who think Mr. Vanderboegh is off his rocker, or that anyone who doesn’t agree wholeheartedly with him is a traitor, but generally the middle-of-the-road position is “he’s right, but we shouldn’t say things like that out loud.” Most believe that we’re turning back the tide of gun control, and that the Heller decision illustrates this emphatically, so tossing verbal hand-grenades is more than a little counterproductive. Others argue that incidents like the David Olofson prosecution and conviction prove that the government is still coming after us, and they’ll keep doing it retail until they figure out how to do it wholesale.
I’d like to point out that Mr. Vanderboegh is not the only person out there who has stated, seriously, that lethal force against government officials isn’t off the list of possible responses. In fact, in January of 2007 SayUncle (in all seriousness) and Tamara (you never can really tell) made it plain that that was a position they both took.
Mr. Vanderboegh wrote in his letter to the editor:
There are some of us “cold dead hands” types, perhaps 3 percent of gun owners, who would kill anyone who tried to further restrict our God-given liberty. Don’t extrapolate from your own cowardice and assume that just because you would do anything the government told you to do that we would.
SayUncle wrote:
What makes me a gun nut?
Not the number of guns I own. For someone who yammers on so much about guns, I probably own considerably less than the average reader here. I own the following: Ruger 10/22, a Walther P22, Kel-Tec 380, an AR in 9mm, Glock 30, an AR in 5.56. I think that’s it. Six firearms. I have a lot on my to buy list but they always get pushed back due to other priorities or whatever. And here lately, I’ve actually sold a couple of firearms. One, because I didn’t care for it and one because I was offered too much to turn it down.
It’s not that I like how they work mechanically or tinkering. I do that with other stuff and I’m not nuts about that. I like to do woodworking but I am not a woodworking nut. And I don’t blog about woodworking.
It’s not hunting. I don’t hunt.
It’s not the zen of target shooting. I zen playing cards, golf, and other activities as well.
So, what is it? I thought about it long and hard. And it’s this simple truth:
If you fuck with me bad enough, I’ll kill your ass.
Simple. Not elegant. But that truth is what scares the shit out of others and it’s that truth that makes people look at you like you’re crazy. It won’t be a NRA slogan any time soon. But it’s what you’re asserting when you claim to be a gun nut, whether you like it or not.
SayUncle is one of Mr. Vanderboegh’s “3 percent.” So am I. But SayUncle made his statement on a blog, a site read mostly by others who share, largely, the same beliefs. Mr. Vanderboegh made his statement in a newspaper, where people who don’t think the way we do are in the majority.
I’m ambivalent on the topic, myself. I think those who really need to understand that some of us are willing to kill already do. That’s why they go after people like David Olofson – to frighten the rest of us. I think that the 97% of the gun owning population that isn’t on the same wavelength as Mr. Vanderboegh and SayUncle and myself needs to be reminded from time to time that the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting and target shooting and gun collecting. There’s a reason they enumerated an individual right to arms, and it had to do with watering the Tree of Liberty, if necessary.
Where Mr. Vanderboegh and I differ is on when (or whether) that watering needs to be done. I suspect that SayUncle and I are in more agreement that Mr. Vanderboegh and I would be. As I said in my own comment at Snowflakes in Hell:
There’s a group of people, and as far as I can tell it’s growing, that not only believes that we’re headed for violent revolution, they want it.
And what scares me is, sometimes I think they’re right.
Your thoughts?
Quote of the Day
I am lucky enough now to be able to say that yes, I do have a small purpose in my life, such as it is. I go to work, love my family and then, in my spare time, send some words out into the universe hoping that they will help a woman realize that yes, she is free – free enough to fight and be feminine at the same time. Free enough to choose to live. – Breda
Still MORE on “What is a Right?”
A new (to me) blogger at a new (to me) blog, Gun Values Board, linked to my recent CNN post, and through that link I found an interesting piece by Sailorcurt at Captain of a Crew of One: First time for everything. Curt says:
If your only argument is “that’s not a right because it’s not in the Constitution”, all I have to do is show you the 9th Amendment and your argument goes out the window.
So…what DOES constitute a right?
It’s very simple really. A right is something that you can do, obtain, produce or provide that does not infringe upon another’s rights and requires no outside intervention for you to do so.
That’s a different approach than I took in the eight-part “What is a Right?” series over there
<—-
on the left sidebar, but he makes a good argument for his position.
It’s interesting (to me) that discussions of this type are still going on 200+ years after the ratification of the Constitution.
Thanks for the link, Nancy!
23 Is Old Enough
Old enough to own a firearm. Old enough to get a CCW permit. But not in Manhattan. And not if you attend Columbia University. No, in that case you have no option but to rely on the State for your protection.
And the State failed a 23 year old woman, a student at Columbia and resident of Manhattan. And, like Linda Riss, she has no legal recourse against the state for that failure to protect.
Bad things happen to good people, but read what she had to endure:
Over many torturous hours, she had been repeatedly raped, sodomized and forced to perform oral sex, a prosecutor told a jury on Thursday. The accused, Robert A. Williams, 31, had doused the woman’s face and body with boiling water and bleach, forced her to swallow handfuls of pills and to chase them with beer, sealed her mouth with glue, and bound her wrists and legs with shoelaces, cords and duct tape, said the prosecutor, Ann P. Prunty. And now, Ms. Prunty said, he was asking the woman to gouge out her own eyes with a pair of scissors.
And so the woman, sitting on the floor of her studio apartment in Hamilton Heights and holding a pair of scissors between her knees — the blade pointing toward her face — tried to stop the suffering. She lowered her face to the blade, but turned her head at the last moment, trying to stab herself in the neck instead of her eyes.
The scissors slipped from her grasp, the suicide attempt failed, and the woman suffered several more hours of torture, Ms. Prunty said.
But wait, there’s more.
The woman survived the nearly 19-hour ordeal, which ended, Ms. Prunty said, when she used a fire started by Mr. Williams to burn the cords that secured her wrists to a futon.
Mr. Williams went on trial Thursday in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, where he faces 71 criminal counts, including attempted murder, rape, arson and assault. If convicted, he could spend the rest of his life in prison.
Could but probably won’t. Here’s his previous rap sheet:
Mr. Williams, who was homeless at the time of his arrest about a week later at the scene of a burglary in Queens, has a lengthy police record dating to his childhood, the authorities have said.
He was charged in a murder as a juvenile, though the outcome of that case is sealed, a law enforcement official said, and he spent eight years in prison for an attempted-murder conviction in 1996.
Why was this guy even on the street?
Here’s how he got her:
On the night of the attack, the victim, a month from graduating with a master’s degree, was at Columbia, putting the final touches on her résumé for a job fair the next day, Ms. Prunty said. When she arrived at her apartment building, she got on the elevator and found Mr. Williams inside, Ms. Prunty said. She rode with him to her floor, and could hear him follow her as she navigated the long L-shaped hallway to her apartment.
As the woman entered her apartment, Ms. Prunty said, Mr. Williams asked her if she knew where a Mrs. Evans lived. The woman stopped to answer.
“Her kind moment of hesitation would cost her,” Ms. Prunty said.
Mr. Williams forced his way into the apartment, Ms. Prunty said, put the woman in a chokehold, and slapped her cellphone from her hand. Mr. Williams slammed the door behind him, and “her Friday the 13th nightmare began,” Ms. Prunty said.
The anti-gun people tell victims to “give their attacker what they want.” He wanted her body. He wanted her to gouge out her own eyes. Instead, she attempted to end her own life.
How can anyone believe that it is morally superior to submit to a rapist rather than carry a gun and have at least the chance to shoot the bastard?
This could be you, your sister, daughter, wife, mother. Please, take a “Refuse to be a Victim” course. Learn how to spot the danger signs. Learn how to protect yourself, even if you are unable to be armed. Don’t let anything like this happen to you, or someone you love. No one should have to endure this. No one should have to deal with its consequences.
Would the Sixteen Regular Readers of This Blog…
…please go vote in the poll at azcentral.com? It won’t last much longer. The question is:
Do you think allowing guns on college campuses is a good idea?
As of this posting there have been 3646 votes, and “Yes” is losing 33% to 67%.
NOTE: Scroll down. It’s near the bottom of the page, and you may have to refresh the page to get the “vote” button to show up. I did.
Better Connected to Reality.
Zendo Deb links to a truly surprising Cincinnati Enquirer piece on concealed carry, Concealed-carry course graduates are armed but not dangerous. Apparently the editors of the CI didn’t get the Editor & Publisher 1993 memo that urged other editors to “step up the war against guns.”
I’m going to reproduce the whole thing here for archival purposes:
On a cold and early Saturday morning, the class at Scarlet Oaks in Sharonville begins the usual way. Students take their seats and the instructor introduces himself.
Then he makes an announcement: “No guns today.”
“Did anyone bring their gun in?” he asks. Nobody raises a hand. Good. The shooting starts Sunday morning.
A few plan to bring .22 revolvers. A man with a neatly trimmed gray beard says he and his daughter will use .38s. Others mention Colts, Smith & Wessons, a .32 Beretta. A big man across the room says he’s bringing a 1911 Colt .45, and he’s not talking about malt liquor.
“That’s a man’s gun,” says the instructor, retired FBI agent Dennis R. Lengle.
I don’t have a man’s gun. I don’t even have a woman’s gun or a “mouse gun,” which is what serious shooters call .22s. I don’t have any gun at all. But the Great Oaks Police Academy Concealed Carry Course has a great deal. For $25, I can rent a Smith & Wesson .38 revolver and get 200 rounds – cheaper than cartridges alone.
There’s a 20-something couple in the back, but most of my classmates are 40s and 50s, I’d guess. A man in bib overalls wants to legally carry the gun he uses on his farm. A husband and wife own a business. One man tells me his kids are grown and he’s interested in shooting. Another guy says during a break that he worries about being mugged when he goes for walks. He says he has no doubt he’d use a gun if he has to.
But a few hours later, after we’ve been through the legal minefield and gritty details of what “controlled expansion” hollow-points do to a body, someone half jokes, “I’m not so sure I want to do this anymore.”
I understand.
The course is excellent. We start by naming the parts of a cartridge, a revolver and a semi-automatic pistol, then move on to 25 true-false questions on dozens of topics. “Being armed is a tremendous responsibility,” it says. True.
And while police cadets open fire at the indoor range across the hall, making muffled bangs like someone pounding a file cabinet with a ball bat, Lengle targets safety, safety and more safety.
He tells true stories of stupid gun tricks by trained lawmen who shot the carpet in their office, or put a 9mm round into their neighbor’s car – through their own house and the garage next door. Lengle has our attention. During the state-mandated 12 hours of instruction, all 17 students are riveted.
This surprised me – using stupid cop tricks to illustrate that even supposedly well-trained people can be idiots, and a badge is no guarantee of infallibility.
In cover and tactics, Lengle warns that a doorway is a “vertical coffin,” a “fatal funnel” for anyone silhouetted in its frame. If an intruder ignores warnings and keeps coming, “immediate incapacitation is your only goal.”
And that requires accuracy.
So Sunday morning we go to the range. I start out jumpy, but get the hang of it and pass all the tests, hitting paper outlines of bad guys from five, 10, 15 and 20 feet.
Safety is drilled in as loud and clear as that booming 1911 Colt, which barks with deep authority, even through ear protection.
Everyone passes. Nobody gets hurt. From what I can tell, legal concealed carry is nothing like the anti-gun crowd made it sound when Kentucky and Ohio passed laws in 1999 and 2004. There are no cowboys. No wild shootouts. No blood in the gutters, as gun-banners predicted. Just law-abiding adults who want to exercise their Second Amendment right to self-defense.
(Emphasis mine.) That floors me, coming from a big-city newspaper.
As we’re leaving, classmate Jim Hansel, who lives “out in the country,” tells me about the night he woke up to a break-in. He called 911, told his son to take cover and waited on his couch with a shotgun. He warned he would shoot, but the guy kept coming until the cops arrived, 40 minutes later. “He had seven outstanding warrants for automatic weapons use,” Hansel says, shaking his head.
Now Hansel has a certificate to get a concealed carry permit from his county sheriff. “It gives me knowledge and confidence,” he said. “Most people are afraid of guns because of what they don’t know.”
Ditto.
If every gun owner took a class like this, we’d all be safer. But meth-heads, crack junkies and street muggers don’t take classes. They don’t get permits or certificates like the one Lengle gave me Sunday. They just grab a “nine” and use it against defenseless victims.
Each month another concealed-carry class graduates from Scarlet Oaks. And the bad guys are a little less sure their next victim is defenseless.
Perhaps there is some hope of sanity after all.
The author is Peter Bronson, [email protected] if you’d like to drop him a thank-you note.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need – Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program – 1875
Sounds nice, doesn’t it? It sounds fair. It sounds equal.
I was reminded of this by a comment (again) by our lone Leftist, Markadelphia. Specifically, this partial line:
My point was that if you want to have true equality in this country…
Interesting point.
Interesting because I don’t want “true equality”.
That may shock some of you. Let me explain.
The Declaration of Independence states:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
All men are created equal. We are all born equal. It’s a fundamental founding principle of this nation and one I expounded on a bit in That Sumbitch Ain’t Been BORN! a while back. It’s the belief that no man, no matter how much he’s worth or how far back he can trace his ancestors is better than anyone else because of it. But this concept has been distorted by the philosophy of egalitarianism, coming out of revolutionary France and, at a guess, the writings of Rousseau. For far too many people, “egalitarianism” means equal in all things. That’s the meaning Mark has.
In a comment before the first one referenced he said this:
I would have no problem if the rich paid the same amount of taxes next year that they did this year. In fact, how about if they pay less? No problem….only it has to be a law that every taxpayer…and I mean EVERY FUCKING TAXPAYER…regardless of how much money they make gets the exact same level of legal and financial advice that the top 5 percent get.
So, Joe Smith, annual salary of 20k a year gets the same legal team and financial team that Warren Buffet gets as a buffer between anyone or any institution trying to take their money. Now, I know that you are thinking that I am thinking that the government should be pay for it…but no sir, not at all. All of the white collar criminals (lawyers, accountants etc) serving time in our prisons will be put to work, for time off their sentence, to help these people for free. It’s a win-win. And here’s the best part…
Joe Smith will be able to rip off the government, sneak around laws, fuck people over and end up with all the same perks that rich folk get. Well, what do you think?
Well, what I think is that’s a raw and blatant example of the politics of envy. It’s also an example of someone with absolutely no grasp of economics (as other commenters proceeded to point out.)
But it’s apparent that Mark thinks the unequal distribution of wealth in this country is unfair, dammit!
In short, Mark is convinced that rich people are rich only because they “sneak around laws” and “fuck people over.” I hate to say it, but this is typical of my experience with people on the Left, especially ones who believe that they’ve chosen a career that’s meaningful and important (and woefully undercompensated because of RICH FUCKING REPUBLICANS!). Typically these people are journalists, teachers, Federal Park employees, etc. They believe they fulfill a crucial role in public life – in those examples, informing the electorate, educating the electorate, and defending the environment – that is underappreciated. It’s a sacrifice they’re willing to make for the betterment of society, but that doesn’t stop them from wondering why they can’t afford a 52″ plasma TV, or why the NEA can’t negotiate a better health care plan.
We’re all supposed to be equal, right?
Well, no.
You see, nobody seems to pay much attention to the last part of Thomas Jefferson’s immortal line.
We have, Jefferson says, inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That’s a modification of the inalienable rights list that philosopher John Locke wrote of in his Two Treatises on Government. Locke listed them as “Life, liberty, and property,” but I think Jefferson’s genius won out. In Dinesh D’Souza’s What’s So Great About America he writes:
In America your destiny is not prescribed; it is constructed. Your life is like a blank sheet of paper and you are the artist. This notion of being the architect of your own destiny is the incredibly powerful idea that is behind the worldwide appeal of America. Young people especially find the prospect of authoring their own lives irresistible. The immigrant discovers that America permits him to break free of the constraints that have held him captive, so that the future becomes a landscape of his own choosing.
If there is a single phrase that captures this, it is “the pursuit of happiness.” As writer V. S. Naipaul notes, “much is contained” in that simple phrase: “the idea of the individual, responsibility, choice, the life of the intellect, the idea of vocation, perfectibility, and achievement. It is an immense human idea. It cannot be reduced to a fixed system. It cannot generate fanaticism. But it is known [around the world] to exist; and because of that, other more rigid systems in the end blow away.”
More of that “jingoism,” eh, Mark?
An inalienable right to “pursue happiness” means freedom. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” means control. No one can tell you what will make you happy. You may, in fact, never find it. Your life may serve only as an example to others of what failure looks like, but you are free to pursue whatever you think might bring you happiness.
That freedom, that immense human idea, is what has made America what it is. It is responsible for the vast wealth we have made here. It has drawn the best minds from every culture around the world, fired their imaginations, and it has made people rich.
Instead of admiring this, instead of pursuing it themselves, the Left hates it, because everyone is not equal. Milton Friedman had something to say on the topic:
A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.
Guaranteeing equality requires management. Someone must be in charge of determining inequality and righting it. It is, as I mentioned to Markadelphia, an old and well recognized problem. It is the Procrustean bed, and someone must take the role of Procrustes. Human nature being what it is, well, “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” But freedom? It merely requires people to get the hell out of the way.
There’s still a role for government. Enforcing contracts, settling disputes, establishing reasonable limits. Friedman had something to say about that as well:
The existence of a free market does not of course eliminate the need for government. On the contrary, government is essential both as a forum for determining the “rule of the game” and as an umpire to interpret and enforce the rules decided on.
But that government should be strictly limited:
Political freedom means the absence of coercion of a man by his fellow men. The fundamental threat to freedom is power to coerce, be it in the hands of a monarch, a dictator, an oligarchy, or a momentary majority. The preservation of freedom requires the elimination of such concentration of power to the fullest possible extent and the dispersal and distribution of whatever power cannot be eliminated — a system of checks and balances.
And we forget this at our peril:
Because we live in a largely free society, we tend to forget how limited is the span of time and the part of the globe for which there has ever been anything like political freedom: the typical state of mankind is tyranny, servitude, and misery. The nineteenth century and early twentieth century in the Western world stand out as striking exceptions to the general trend of historical development. Political freedom in this instance clearly came along with the free market and the development of capitalist institutions. So also did political freedom in the golden age of Greece and in the early days of the Roman era.
History suggests only that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition.
I don’t want “equality,” but I’m not for going back to the days of serfdom, either. I want freedom, because with it can come a level of equality you can’t get any other way.
All people are born equal – squalling babies unable to care for themselves – but they don’t stay that way. America was founded as the nation where everyone gets to pursue happiness, to avoid having your life prescribed for you. It may not lead to “true equality,” but there is literally no such thing. There can’t be. “True equality” requires someone to decide what each person’s abilities are (put the peg in the designated slot, whether the peg wants to go there or not) and what each person’s needs are.
But who gets to be the “equal” of the person or people who make those decisions? Orwell understood that problem well. Some are, under that system, inevitably “more equal” than others.
UPDATE: Markadelphia responds. I reply.
I… Um,… Err,… WTF?!?!?!
As SayUncle said, I’m speechless.
UPDATE: Here’s a news piece on it, via Tam.
UPDATE II: I’m archiving the story here for the future:
County seizes son for medical care
Father says his family’s rights were violated
By Pete Fowler
January 8, 2008
NEW CASTLE – The Garfield County All Hazards Response Team broke down Tom Shiflett’s door Friday night and, following a court order, took his son for medical treatment.The doctor’s recommendation: Take Tylenol and apply ice to the bruises. The boy was back home a few hours later.
Authorities said they had reason to believe Shiflett mistreated his 11-year-old son, Jon, by failing to provide him proper medical care for a head injury. But Shiflett says his privacy and his rights were invaded, and that he has the right and the skill to treat his son himself. Shiflett, 62, said he served as a medic in Vietnam during the Tet Offensive.
“Who in the world puts a stipulation on how adequate a person is to care for an injury?” Shiflett asked.
Speaking about the incident from his home in the Apple Tree Park on Monday, Shiflett was very upset. Perhaps most offensive, Shiflett said, was that law enforcement didn’t announce there was a warrant before breaking into his home south of New Castle.
“I would have let them in,” he said. “It was traumatic to my children, and it’s unnecessary.”
His spouse, Tina, and his six of 10 kids who are still at home were shocked at the manner of entry. Tina said law enforcement, wearing masks, broke down their door with a battering ram and pointed guns in her children’s faces.
“They didn’t need to bash into my home and slam my kids to the floor,” Tina said, adding later, “I think they get a kick out of this.”
She said law enforcement threatened criminal charges should the family even try to follow Jon or find out where he was taken. Jon was returned hours later, around 2:30 a.m. Saturday.
“In all there was not one shred of evidence found that we had done anything wrong or that Jon had not been properly cared for at home,” Tina said.
According to a copy of Jon’s patient aftercare instructions, a physician recommended Jon drink fluids, take Tylenol, use ice and keep his cuts from his injury clean. Jon still had a nasty-looking black eye and visible bruising on his face Monday after having been hurt in a fall on Thursday.
Jon injured himself by grabbing onto the handle of a moving car his sister was driving and falling. Shiflett and his family said Shiflett ran down the street, checked Jon for injuries and brought him back into their home, where they prayed, applied ice to his head and monitored his condition.
Someone – possibly a neighbor – called paramedics. Shiflett said paramedics looked at Jon after coming through an open front door uninvited. Shiflett told them he didn’t want them to treat Jon and asked them to leave.
Friday morning, caseworkers from the Garfield County Department of Social Services arrived. Shiflett allowed them to look at Jon briefly but refused to allow them to take his son for treatment or medical evaluation.
Ross Talbott, who owns the Apple Tree Mobile Home Park and rents to Shiflett, said, “I thought it was an incredibly stupid power move by people who went in there misinformed and ill-informed. I think they violated their personal rights, their constitutional rights and their rights to family.”
Talbott also writes a freelance column for the Post Independent.
“I’ve been (Garfield County Sheriff Lou Vallario’s) longtime supporter, but I tell you what, to send a SWAT team down there was just absolutely over the hill,” he said. “Inappropriate is not nearly strong enough a word. It was gross irresponsibility and stupidity. … Is this Russia? I don’t know what we’re coming to when they think your kid needs medical help and they send a SWAT team.”
Community relations sheriff’s deputy 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.
Phone messages to Vallario were not returned Monday afternoon.
A search warrant and order for medical treatment says there was good reason to believe Jon needed treatment. It states that two social services caseworkers tried to explain to Tom Shiflett they believed the boy needed medical treatment after observing injuries including a “huge hematoma” and a sluggish pupil. They offered to pay for treatment, and said they would have to obtain a court order for treatment if they couldn’t get Shiflett’s consent, the warrant says.
“Shiflett shouted at this worker and advised this worker that if he obtained a court order, he better ‘bring an army,'” the warrant states.
A first responder with West Care Ambulance wrote in an affidavit that she and others in an ambulance crew also believed the boy needed medical treatment.
The responder wrote that paramedics left the residence for fear of their safety after Tom Shiflett refused to let them treat his son and became “verbally abusive” to the ambulance crew.
But Talbott said he was there when paramedics responded, and that Shiflett was not yelling or acting abusive. He only asked them to leave, Talbott said, and paramedics were in fact acting belligerent. Shiflett says authorities had no right to enter his home uninvited and without announcing they had a warrant.
“When American law allows federal and state agencies to come in a home and confiscate family, there is something wrong with our system,” Shiflett said. “If I can find a law firm or lawyer that can take this pro bono, because I have no money, I’m going to sue everyone on that warrant.”
Garfield County Director of Social Services Lynn Rennick said social services is legally required to intervene when it receives a report about possible mistreatment of children, and that sometimes court orders are necessary. She wouldn’t discuss any specific case.
Asked what he thought of being taken for medical treatment after the break-in, Jon said, “I think it’s ridiculous. There’s no reason for it.”
Unbelievable. Right there is South Park’s Cartman yelling RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAH!!
Or Strother Martin from Cool Hand Luke – “What we’ve got here is failure to communicate.“
“The Government Must Have a Monopoly on Force”.
A few days ago AlanDP made a slideshow everyone needs to watch, and posted it at Blogonomicon. My apologies for being so late in linking it.
Ladd Everitt? You can kiss my gun-owning ass. Apparently you never read the Declaration of Independence.
Alan? Outstanding job.