Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/28/us/arizona-police-toddler-with-fever/index.html

You know I'm not sure exactly how i feel here.

The parents were anti vaxx idiots, the kid was sick, the doctor was willing to break confidentiality to tell authorities, and a welfare check was definitely called for. If the parents refused I can see calling cops, but dd they have to go in with guns drawn? Do they constantly have to have their guns out in every situation? Do you feel threat of deadly force was justified?

If you don't live in america I am curious how your police would have handled this. Would they have felt compelled to pull their guns?

It's somewhat of a clickbait title I think.

First up the article outlines later that the police spend 2 hours prior to breaking in with negotiations in attempting to get the family to take the children to hospital themselves and/or release them into police custody to do so.

So the police did try, for quite a long while, an alternative non-force based approach.


Secondly if the gun which was found in the house, is registered then police will have a log of that. That in itself likely prompts police to use specific polices when forcing entry to such a property and cannot be sure of the location of the gun nor its current status.
Ergo rather than break in with just an officer who then takes a barrel to the belly with no chance to return fire, they instead take the assumption that the gun is ready and loaded and treat it accordingly. It's the worst-case scenario for the police designed to keep them safe and alive whilst performing their job.
I believe its the same in the UK that if police are aware there's a gun on the property and they are going in with warrants/challenges to the occupants then police gun teams/individuals are on scene. Of course context and local knowledge come into play, but it sounds like police had little to know about these people. That said the article makes no mention of any prior engagements or involvement with the police so we don't know if either partner has any history or not.



The worrying bit to me is the "$3K bill" that one of the occupants mentions not wanting. Ergo that part of (possibly not all) their resistance to taking their children to the hospital was financial concerns. They don't sound very affluent (though its very hard to tell by the article) so money troubles could be a major consideration for them and the worry of a potential $3K bill might be crippling to them (esp if they already had many outstanding debts).

To me THAT is the part one should be focusing on. The police using SWAT to force entry into a building with a known or likely gun on site is perfectly fine - freaking scary yes - but sensible.

 Overread wrote:
It's somewhat of a clickbait title I think. The police using SWAT to force entry into a building with a known or likely gun on site is perfectly fine - freaking scary yes - but sensible.

The reason it's such clickbait is that Rep. Townsend gets to give her opinion on it first. Apparently she thinks police should be required to have a warrant in a case like this - then later in the article it's stated they had a court order for temporary custody. Likewise SWAT just rushing the place vs police negotiating for two hours first. The police handled it well, no one was shot and the baby was taken for treatment. A golden star sticker for the Chandler Police Department!

Worrying about a 3K bill, well, hospitals do throw a lot of extra dollars on their bills - one reason being they try to cover the costs from providing critical lifesaving aid for patients that can't pay, ever. But you can try negotiating that. If you're really desperately poor (and the hospital isn't super rich) they could accept a payment plan where you at least pay something.

110% fine. The only problem is that the police didn't shoot the parents for being abusive idiots. Had the parents "resisted arrest" the world would now be a better place.

 Peregrine wrote:
110% fine. The only problem is that the police didn't shoot the parents for being abusive idiots. Had the parents "resisted arrest" the world would now be a better place.

Whilest i agree on the statement that the parents were atleast highly questionable in their methods, shooting them won't solve the issue about anti vaxxers.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
110% fine. The only problem is that the police didn't shoot the parents for being abusive idiots. Had the parents "resisted arrest" the world would now be a better place.

Whilest i agree on the statement that the parents were atleast highly questionable in their methods, shooting them won't solve the issue about anti vaxxers.

It would solve the issue with those particular anti-vaxxers, and it's a solution that can be applied more broadly if needed.

 Peregrine wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
110% fine. The only problem is that the police didn't shoot the parents for being abusive idiots. Had the parents "resisted arrest" the world would now be a better place.

Whilest i agree on the statement that the parents were atleast highly questionable in their methods, shooting them won't solve the issue about anti vaxxers.

It would solve the issue with those particular anti-vaxxers, and it's a solution that can be applied more broadly if needed.

And that way you would play into the nutjob conspiracists hands by pointing them out that the government clearly uses excessive violence to repress them therefore their unvalidated claims are rightfull.

Also shooting people is somthing that should happen in a last ditch not just casually.

I read the article. I think y'all are asking the wrong questions. The fever was receding, the child was showing obvious signs of getting better, a fact that seems to be left out of the discussion. Then the doctor, whom in my opinion over steps, set into motion a series of events that ends in SWAT breaching the house of a family that was in fact not breaking any laws. The real question is, why is it acceptable? I am all about vaccines. The empirical evidence is IMO indisputable. You know what else is indisputable, individual liberty.

 redleger wrote:
You know what else is indisputable, individual liberty.

I recall a quote about "your right to swing your fist ends at my face". Personal liberty does not give you the right to endanger your children, nor does it give you the right to endanger the people you put at risk by reducing herd immunity. Vaccination should be mandatory except in the case of legitimate health risks (a tiny, tiny minority of cases) and if you refuse the state should arrest the parents and take the children away.

 redleger wrote:
I read the article. I think y'all are asking the wrong questions. The fever was receding, the child was showing obvious signs of getting better, a fact that seems to be left out of the discussion. Then the doctor, whom in my opinion over steps, set into motion a series of events that ends in SWAT breaching the house of a family that was in fact not breaking any laws. The real question is, why is it acceptable? I am all about vaccines. The empirical evidence is IMO indisputable. You know what else is indisputable, individual liberty.

If your liberty encroaches on the liberty of others, you are a tyrant.

In this case you are encroaching on the liberty of letting people live that can't vaccinate by not accepting vaccination yourself.

Ergo, what is more important: Personal liberty vs liberty and right to live of others that can't vaccinate themselves due to medical conditions.

In this case the right to live is directly threatened. In a way the ultimate liberty of a individum.

Not Online!!! wrote:
And that way you would play into the nutjob conspiracists hands by pointing them out that the government clearly uses excessive violence to repress them therefore their unvalidated claims are rightfull.

The nutjobs are going to be nutjobs regardless. Perhaps with sufficient repression they can simply be removed from the population.

Also shooting people is somthing that should happen in a last ditch not just casually.

This is true. The state should first work within the court system to remove custody of their children and put the parents in prison, deadly force should only be involved when (as in the OP) the parents refuse to comply with the legal system.

The nutjobs are going to be nutjobs regardless. Perhaps with sufficient repression they can simply be removed from the population.

Repression won't solve the issue of non thematisesd things in school.
What really needs to happen is that certain medical things should be thaught in school, preferrably at an somewhat early age, in order to "enlighten " the populus.
(radical religious nutjobs that deny the right to blood transfusion to their underage child can be enlightened in other ways.)

 redleger wrote:
I read the article. I think y'all are asking the wrong questions. The fever was receding, the child was showing obvious signs of getting better, a fact that seems to be left out of the discussion. Then the doctor, whom in my opinion over steps, set into motion a series of events that ends in SWAT breaching the house of a family that was in fact not breaking any laws. The real question is, why is it acceptable? I am all about vaccines. The empirical evidence is IMO indisputable. You know what else is indisputable, individual liberty.

There's no evidence that the fever was receding. The only information, in the article, that is provided is that the parents claimed the childs temperature had reduced and thus was provided whilst the police were seeking to gain entry to the home so might well not be considered a reliable source of information. The condition of the other two children was unknown and they'd not seen a doctor at that time, only one child had.

The doctor acted as is proper; they recommended that the child be taken to hospital (doctors rarely do this unless its potentially serious) and the doctor showed good practice in following this up after the event. When it was found that the child had not been taken to hospital the doctor advanced this up the chain to the next level. Doctors do have a duty of care and there are measures in place for children and vulnerable adults to help protect them from potentially negligent supervision by their guardians. At this stage it was only a welfare check by the police; there wasn't a warrant or such. Had police gained access and seen the child showing marked improvement it might well have been enough to turn them away.

However the parents refused access to the child. Whilst they might well have a right to refuse entry, there are limits on that and the duty of care for the child kicked in which prompted the escalation to a warrant to gain entry to the property for access to the child.



As I noted above if the gun was registered and thus known to be in the house or the police had reasonable reason to believe that the couple could be, in any way, armed; then it also stands to good reason that police policy would see that those gaining entry would be suitably armed and experienced for potentially dealing with a firearm.

Lots of alerts here, so locking to sort out later...