# âMessyâ House Gets Parents Tasered, Handcuffed



## J.T.M. (Mar 2, 2008)

I hope they become millionaires over this .... 
" A Sheriff and his deputy used pepper spray and a Taser on a Missouri couple in front of their young children while trying to seize the kids without a warrant, a federal lawsuit charges" .

http://www.offthegridnews.com/2014/...uffed-and-their-children-kidnapped-by-police/


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

We need more organizations like HSLDA to take on bullies like this. They need to be held legally accountable for treating people and families with no respect. 
Of course, we only see one side to every story, but God put children in families. He did not give them to schools, social workers, or government. He placed them in families to raise.


----------



## SkizzlePig (May 14, 2006)

Yep! THAT'S gonna help police/public relations :rollingeyes:

What's with the clear abuse of power and over-reach? I really don't get it.


----------



## V-NH (Jan 1, 2014)

On that note, I better do the dishes! :viking:


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

This happened back in 2011. Some of the "agenda driven" web sites are re-running the original story like it just happened, or has happened to the same family over again. 

Those parents have filed a lawsuit against the sheriff and deputy. That's what brought it back in the news, the lawsuit. 

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper...ssouri-homeschool-family-sues-after-home-raid


----------



## SkizzlePig (May 14, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> This happened back in 2011. Some of the "agenda driven" web sites are re-running the original story like it just happened, or has happened to the same family over again.
> 
> Those parents have filed a lawsuit against the sheriff and deputy. That's what brought it back in the news, the lawsuit.
> 
> http://news.heartland.org/newspaper...ssouri-homeschool-family-sues-after-home-raid



Just proof that the media outlets have no soul ... other than the one that cashes checks.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Of course, the "story" ignored the part, about where earlier, the family told CPS, to _get lost_.

That always goes over big.


----------



## TriWinkle (Oct 2, 2011)

Better to tell CPS to get lost...they're not more reliable than the cops.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ya many things get the rerun effect on the internet and makes it sound like it just happened. Yuppers if it is on the net it must be true.:facepalm:


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> Of course, the "story" ignored the part, about where earlier, the family told CPS, to _get lost_.
> 
> That always goes over big.


So what? We have a right to tell uninvited visitors to get lost. If they had a legitimate reason to get in, they could have gotten a warrant. Ticking off the "authorities" is not a valid reason to violate someone's rights.

This type of case is the reason I don't like the whole idea about "don't resist the police, deal with it in court later." In many cases that's the best approach, but people should absolutely resist having their children taken away without due process. That is a parent's job. They weren't trying to take the kids yet in this case, but presumably they could have gotten to that point if they didn't like how messy it was inside.


----------



## J.T.M. (Mar 2, 2008)

plowjockey said:


> Of course, the "story" ignored the part, about where earlier, the family told CPS, to _get lost_.
> 
> That always goes over big.


âThe Fourth Amendment strikes a carefully crafted balance between a familyâs right to privacy and the governmentâs need to enforce the law,â said HSDLA senior counsel James Mason. âIn most situations, government agents cannot simply force their way into a home. Instead, they must explain to a neutral magistrate why they need to enter the home, and *they must provide real evidence to support that need.* This rule applies to all government agents.* Court after court has agreed that there is no social services exception to the Fourth Amendment.â*
*" Parents are within their legal rights if they ask a social worker for a warrant before a âwelfare check.â
*
Why do lefties hate the 4th amendment ...:facepalm:


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

> Why do lefties hate the 4th amendment ...


Many lefties are the biggest supporters of the 4th amendment...it's moderates you really have to watch out for.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

arabian knight said:


> Ya many things get the rerun effect on the internet and makes it sound like it just happened. Yuppers if it is on the net it must be true.:facepalm:


Who cares WHEN it happened?! It happened! It isn't untrue because it happened 3 years ago.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Since when is a "messy" house a danger to children? If the family were hoarders, or rats were running across the floor I could understand, but "messy"?

I guess if someone reports us the SPCA they'll come to get our cat, but I can guarantee all 3 of us would put up a fight.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

J.T.M. said:


> âThe Fourth Amendment strikes a carefully crafted balance between a familyâs right to privacy and the governmentâs need to enforce the law,â said HSDLA senior counsel James Mason. âIn most situations, government agents cannot simply force their way into a home. Instead, they must explain to a neutral magistrate why they need to enter the home, and *they must provide real evidence to support that need.* This rule applies to all government agents.* Court after court has agreed that there is no social services exception to the Fourth Amendment.â*
> *" Parents are within their legal rights if they ask a social worker for a warrant before a âwelfare check.â
> *
> Why do lefties hate the 4th amendment ...:facepalm:


Call out Conservative non-sense and you are automatically a "leftie:" (actually, I am right-handed )

I like the 4th just fine.

The difference is that I can fathom what is reasonable and what is not.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Ozarks Tom said:


> Since when is a "messy" house a danger to children? If the family were hoarders, or rats were running across the floor I could understand, but "messy"?
> 
> I guess if someone reports us the SPCA they'll come to get our cat, but I can guarantee all 3 of us would put up a fight.



You were reading a "news" report, not a CPS report.

We have no idea what the facts are.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

jtbrandt said:


> So what? We have a right to tell uninvited visitors to get lost. If they had a legitimate reason to get in, they could have gotten a warrant. Ticking off the "authorities" is not a valid reason to violate someone's rights.
> 
> This type of case is the reason I don't like the whole idea about "don't resist the police, deal with it in court later." In many cases that's the best approach, but people should absolutely resist having their children taken away without due process. That is a parent's job. They weren't trying to take the kids yet in this case, but presumably they could have gotten to that point if they didn't like how messy it was inside.


Calling CPS and the Sherrif "unwanted visitors", does not change the fact that they can investigate, if there is _probable cause.

_We all know that getting sued for _Civil Right violations_, means virtually nothing any more.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Sorry but CPS does not just get to come in to anyone's home. Any lawyer I've spoken to is adamant about _not_ letting them in without proper paperwork in hand. My private property is my private property and some random anonymous person making a phone call is not probably cause it's terrorism.

CPS is not about helping children, they even have financial incentive by way of additional funding to be actively looking for even the littlest reason to take a kid into the system. It's just another over reach at this point. I hope everyone involved with this action get their tail-less ends handed to them.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> You were reading a "news" report, not a CPS report.
> 
> We have no idea what the facts are.


 So true the guy writing this is nothing but a doom and gloomer ought to check out the rest of what this dude has written. You can just by searching:
Articles Written By Daniel Jennings


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> Calling CPS and the Sherrif "unwanted visitors", does not change the fact that they can investigate, if there is _probable cause.
> 
> _


Probable cause to GET A WARRANT. Without a warrant, they are uninvited visitors. They are not ABOVE us just because they are government employees.



plowjockey said:


> We all know that getting sued for _Civil Right violations_, means virtually nothing any more.


The lawsuit is the news part of this story, but it's already been established by a court that their civil rights were violated.


> A state judge later determined that Glidden and White violated the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution by entering the Hagan home without a warrant.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> Call out Conservative non-sense and you are automatically a "leftie:" (actually, I am right-handed )
> 
> I like the 4th just fine.
> 
> The difference is that I can fathom what is reasonable and what is not.


You're insane if you think this was reasonable.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

arabian knight said:


> So true the guy writing this is nothing but a doom and gloomer ought to check out the rest of what this dude has written. You can just by searching:
> Articles Written By Daniel Jennings


Again with the nonsense...look for another source if you don't like this one...the facts are not in dispute.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

J.T.M. said:


> deleted post was quoted here


LOL, this is exactly what is wrong with America nowadays.

If you don't like a law, just break it and then blame the Cops for enforcing it. 

I have great neighbors,who have had dozens of foster children (some they adopted) and most were* home schooled*. They work closly with CPS and for some strange reason, have NO problems with them, especially ones requiring a visit from the sheriff Deputy.

Although i have never home-schooled, i also have never had a visit, either from CPS or the Sheriff, regarding my children's welfare. if i did, I would allow access, because i have nothing to hide, plus I'd want to know what the problem was, so that I could either comply, or dispute, what ever I deemed appropriate - in accordance to the law. 

FWIW MIL had neighbors who "home schooled", which meant they kept the grand-kid at home, watching tv. I was in the home 1 month after they moved in. i have never seen anything so disgustingly filthy.

It all about rights though, huh?http://www.homesteadingtoday.com//www.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Arabian Knight, so what if the guy writes about doom and gloom.. HE IS EDUCATING THE PUBLIC... He's telling the story of why these people are suing the police. He's letting people know they should always ask anyone wanting to come in your home to "investigate" for a warrant. He's showing that the police do not always follow the law.... 

I'm glad people like him don't coddle the "establishment" and that people like him point out every time "the man" over steps his boundaries.

If more people would wake up and express their rage too, then maybe we'll stop getting abused by the rich and powerful who want to do nothing more than suppress the masses.. 

You should try and wrap your head around what part of my signature means... KMFDM...


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

J.T.M. said:


> You do know that the homeschollers did not break one singel law ... right ?
> You do know that they did comply with CPS don't ya.... are you sure we read the artical :facepalm:
> " The Hagans complied with the first investigation and submitted to an in-home inspection.
> I can't belive you and the sack  have no problem with this :
> ...


Actually, I don't know the original story at all and I don't think you do either. If so please share.

A lot of people have a house that is "messy", that does not warrant a call to CPS. maybe there is more to the story.

If they allowed CPS the first time, what was the problem, with a follow up visit? Are they just another group of idiots, that think, if you tell the Government to "go away", they are simply going to go away?

The Deputies were doing what is allowed under current law.

Pepper spray and teaser seemed a bit much, but again we only heard one side of the story.

Same old same old. fight the Cops then act surprised, when you get your butt handed to you..


----------



## J.T.M. (Mar 2, 2008)

According to the Judge this is the whole story : The court will not allow [an] exception to sanction warrantless entry into a private residence by pepper spray and Taser,&#8221; the Missouri judge declared. &#8220;If the officer had a warrant in hand and such force was necessary, that is a different story, but those are not the facts of this case.&#8221;


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

J.T.M. said:


> According to the Judge this is the whole story : The court will not allow [an] exception to sanction warrantless entry into a private residence by pepper spray and Taser,â the Missouri judge declared. âIf the officer had a warrant in hand and such force was necessary, that is a different story, but those are not the facts of this case.â


It sound's like there werent any facts presented at all, to support the case, in which probable cause, or exigent circumstances, may have been implemented, which has been upheld by the Supreme court.

Does not sound like anyone put up much of a fight - at least at the trial.




> âThe State has not offered sufficient, if indeed any, evidence of an exception that would justify a warrantless entry,â the trial court judge noted.


----------



## k9 (Feb 6, 2008)

J.T.M. said:


> I hope they become millionaires over this ....
> " A Sheriff and his deputy used pepper spray and a Taser on a Missouri couple in front of their young children while trying to seize the kids without a warrant, a federal lawsuit charges" .
> 
> http://www.offthegridnews.com/2014/...uffed-and-their-children-kidnapped-by-police/


 
I wonder when all is said and done who's back pocket the money is coming out of?


----------



## J.T.M. (Mar 2, 2008)

I think they deserve the pay out the states insurance company will have to pay ... don't you :shrug:


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Plow.....giving away rights makes them harder to maintain ones rights.

Nothing to hide right .....
Well imagine if a child is asked if YOU drink....if you drink everyday.....when do you start drinking....how much do you drink.


See, my son was once asked those questions ....I was not allowed to be present when the questioned him. 

But I would not allow them in my home till I got a witness and advocate for our family. 

My son informed them that I drink when I wake up and all day all the time. That looked good for me.

Next drugs..does anyone one in the house use them. Yep everyday daddy.
Great.

Having an advocate ask questions after the cpa were ready to toss the book at me. All because if the school district was going to force me to send my child of to school were a minor who sexual adultery him I was and did state would send my son to my brother to keep him safe......minior on minor are sealed records and though I know what was in the records the school could not view it per the school so it was me against them

Oh the advocate asked oh he could show everyone were the drink was.....coffee pot
Where the drugs were.....prescription drugs for and illness and vitamins.

How a quest is stated determine the answer and can be a set up.

Nothing to hide ....I had everything to protect including my rights. The line about hiding is a slanted argument to push and agenda.


----------



## J.T.M. (Mar 2, 2008)

kasilofhome said:


> Plow.....giving away rights makes them harder to maintain ones rights.
> 
> Nothing to hide right .....
> Well imagine if a child is asked if YOU drink....if you drink everyday.....when do you start drinking....how much do you drink.
> ...


Sorry to hear of your hassles 
The old saying " death by increments " Do it slow enough and no one will notice certainly is true . Seatbelts and cigarettes come to mind .


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> Actually, I don't know the original story at all and I don't think you do either. If so please share.
> 
> A lot of people have a house that is "messy", that does not warrant a call to CPS. maybe there is more to the story.


I'm sure there's more to the story than a "messy house." Doesn't matter to me.



> If they allowed CPS the first time, what was the problem, with a follow up visit? Are they just another group of idiots, that think, if you tell the Government to "go away", they are simply going to go away?


That is the law. You tell someone to leave your property and they are required to leave. If they are agents of the government, they are free to swear out an affidavit and seek a warrant to return to the property and enter the home, but they are not free to stay and/or force entry just because they feel like it. There are very limited exceptions, which according to the judge did not apply to this case.



> The Deputies were doing what is allowed under current law.


Which law is that? Apparently you know more than the judge in the case.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> It sound's like there werent any facts presented at all, to support the case, in which probable cause, or exigent circumstances, may have been implemented, which has been upheld by the Supreme court.
> 
> Does not sound like anyone put up much of a fight - at least at the trial.


According to this, they did present evidence...it just didn't meet the standard of exigent circumstances. I don't know the veracity of this source, but it seems reliable.



> Although the prosecutor at the Haganâs criminal trial offered evidence that the Hagansâ home was unsafe, the trial court judge ultimately concluded that even if all the evidence was viewed in the light most favorable to the state, the alleged conditions of the home still did not give rise to exigent circumstances which would have permitted the officers to enter the Hagan home, and remove the Hagan children, without prior judicial authorization.â
> http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/12/19/missouri-homeschool-family-sues-after-home-raid


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Wow does this thread blow my mind... I can't believe how many people defend a corrupt system... 

I think since everyone is so for the police and all that. they should all just let the DCFS or CPA or what every they are called in your state, and let the police too, walk through your house to just take a look around any time they feel like it.. 

And if you don't want them too.. then just try and stand in their way when they don't have a warrant, and see what happens... 

Blows my mind so many people take the side of the state... Too many times the state, especially when concerning children, and concerning home schooling, step WAY over their boundaries..


----------



## k9 (Feb 6, 2008)

J.T.M. said:


> I think they deserve the pay out the states insurance company will have to pay ... don't you :shrug:


 
Guess who pays the insurance premium? Guess where all the money comes from? The working persons back pocket. And no based on the banter on here I would not make a million dollar payout.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> Of course, the "story" ignored the part, about where earlier, the family told CPS, to _get lost_.
> 
> That always goes over big.


And how is that in any way relevant or excuse the police, who are supposedly trained to know better, for violating the rights of the family? 

If you did what those cops did, you would be in jail. Why should the cops get a free pass?


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

simi-steading said:


> Wow does this thread blow my mind... I can't believe how many people defend a corrupt system...
> 
> I think since everyone is so for the police and all that. they should all just let the DCFS or CPA or what every they are called in your state, and let the police too, walk through your house to just take a look around any time they feel like it..
> 
> ...


To be fair, it's only a few in the thread defending this...but it's mind boggling to me, too. I think everyone who defends it should post their home address so we can all call in anonymous "tips" about their illegal activity to their local police.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

J.T.M. said:


> Im with Simi ,I don't get it , how in the world can you ignore what happened here in defense of the LEOs ( they slapped the " glassed look " off the wifes face for (deleted in original post) sake ) .Im not anti cop at all , but come on ....


Exactly. I'm pro good cop; I'm anti-bad cop. It seems kind of stupid that that needs to be said, but the statements of a few bad cop defenders has my head spinning. I'm anti cops who violate the laws the are supposed to enforce. Allowing cops to get away with violating the rights of citizens invites more bad cop behavior. I can't imagine why ANYONE would not understand that. And citizens who are jerks, rude, or simply uncooperative are not in violation of any law just for those behaviors. It might be smarter to be nice to cops, but there is no legal mandate. 

If the facts in this case are true as presented, and I do allow for the fact that reporters and bloggers spin at times, then the cops broke into someone's home and committed assault and battery upon them. The fact that they did this in the name of the gov't should not give them a free pass. In fact, it should make the punishment for their crimes all the greater. 

We will never get better gov't until we stand up and demand it.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

What we found was the people in schools and child protective services are about destroying a family to push themselves up, make themselves feel important. 
The "we got the better of this family so we must be good and powerful." The nurse and guidance counselor at the middle school went on a witch hunt with us. My daughter at 11 had ulcerative colitis, the nurse asked how we knew, my wife said she was bleeding from the rectum. The nurse immediately said "that doesn't happen there is something else wrong here" and went on to imply we had sexually abused our daughter. I told the secretary at the doctors office to be sure and not give them any records since they were on a witch hunt. The surgeon did one better, she called the school. The first time the school ever got a call from a surgeon. Let me just say you don't want some one who does colonoscopies for a living reaming you out. She got the vice principal, he got an ear full. She said the nurse didn't know what she was talking about and pretty much chewed the vice principal out. The guidance counselor wouldn't even look at us but ran in the other direction. It turns out these two regularly accused families of such things and caused a lot of trouble for people. We were fortunate to have the doctor we did else it would have gotten nasty.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

k9 said:


> Guess who pays the insurance premium? Guess where all the money comes from? The working persons back pocket. And no based on the banter on here I would not make a million dollar payout.


Sit back and think about your rights sometime. What are they worth to you? I'd want several million . A violation of rights from the people who are supposed to be protecting them is most serious.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

plowjockey said:


> Of course, the "story" ignored the part, about where earlier, the family told CPS, to _get lost_.
> 
> That always goes over big.


A judge determined their rights were violated. That's not good enough for you?


----------



## HOTW (Jul 3, 2007)

I homeschooled and was a member of HSLDA and they would send all members a defined boklet kf how to react to social workers and LEO visits. All within the legal parameters of how to act when visited by them. It seems that the social worker got in the door the first time but did not lime the fact that the parents called HSLDA after the visit most likely and got legal advice. As a parent who homeschooled many of the issues brought to HSLDA invovled illegal entry by social workers and LEO, or illegal bullying by the schoool system in the district . It was always a worry becaus the predjudice against homeschooling was always apparent when we mentioned it. The crazy part was many of the people who mentioned socialization as an issue for puttin my kids back in school had just spent time talking with my kids about things that impressed them that my children could hold a conversation on that level!


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

plowjockey said:


> The Deputies were doing what is allowed under current law.


No, they were not, something a judge had to clearly point out to them.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

BlackFeather said:


> Let me just say you don't want some one who does colonoscopies for a living reaming you out. .


Funniest line of the year.:thumb:


----------



## BohemianWaxwing (Sep 13, 2014)

Wow. Lively thread!

I have to say that if the facts of the case stand and the officers so far overstepped their bounds, it seems to me that they should pay personally and not have the payments come from the state or state insurance. The way to reign in this kind of power-crazy behavior is to make the perpetrators pay the price personally, which happens all too rarely. Even if the family gets a smaller payout, the law breakers are made to suffer more directly for their law-breaking. That IS the goal, is it not? Not encouraging people to be rude to LEO on the hopes that LEO will respond badly and open the chance for a law-suit and big payout at taxpayer expense.

Just my 2 cents....


----------



## k9 (Feb 6, 2008)

bowdonkey said:


> Sit back and think about your rights sometime. What are they worth to you? I'd want several million . A violation of rights from the people who are supposed to be protecting them is most serious.


 
I do not want to be victimized twice, the payouts come from the working people. Many times the governmental offical that generated the wrong doing is not held accountable for the action, and they continue to behave in the same fashion. Come up with a solution that ends the offending behavior by the offical and have some common sense about making the victim "whole" from the improprities perpeterated by the government offical and I would agree. The mindless thought of throwing a huge sum of money at them to "fix" it doesn't make sense. Taxpayer get to suffer twice, once at the hands of the official and another by a burdensome payout.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

If they had not ''resisted'' they could have had the matter cleared up in court. At least there were no choke-holds used to get them to comply. It is odd how folks opinions of why police use excessive force changes so quickly.


----------



## J.T.M. (Mar 2, 2008)

Before you people think ol' J.T.M. must have snapped and gone off the deep end and said such horrible things that Angie had to step in and delete before some innocents eyes see it and is for ever deranged ,I assure you thats not the case .


----------



## J.T.M. (Mar 2, 2008)

Wanda said:


> If they had not ''resisted'' they could have had the matter cleared up in court. At least there were no choke-holds used to get them to comply. It is odd how folks opinions of why police use excessive force changes so quickly.[/QUOTE
> did you read the story ... The mods might construe this as a personal insult but it is a serious question


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Wanda said:


> If they had not ''resisted'' they could have had the matter cleared up in court. At least there were no choke-holds used to get them to comply. It is odd how folks opinions of why police use excessive force changes so quickly.


Guess you approve of search and frisk huh?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

BohemianWaxwing said:


> Wow. Lively thread!
> 
> I have to say that if the facts of the case stand and the officers so far overstepped their bounds, it seems to me that they should pay personally and not have the payments come from the state or state insurance. The way to reign in this kind of power-crazy behavior is to make the perpetrators pay the price personally, which happens all too rarely. Even if the family gets a smaller payout, the law breakers are made to suffer more directly for their law-breaking. That IS the goal, is it not? Not encouraging people to be rude to LEO on the hopes that LEO will respond badly and open the chance for a law-suit and big payout at taxpayer expense.
> 
> Just my 2 cents....


It would be great if the criminal-cops were personally held accountable. Unfortunately, the gov't has seen fit in most cases to protect with limited immunity the criminals with a badge (cops, social workers, EPA bureaucrats, etc). 

So we didn't make the rules that usually limit justice to a pay out from the gov't, but we are forced to either play by the rules or go rogue which includes mob protests and/or violence. That is the situation the gov't has created and you should not blame the homeowner/victims in this case if they happen to walk away with a kajillion or two. 

We can only hope that when the public gets angry enough to demand better accountability from gov't and gov't workers, that the system will be changed for the better.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Wanda said:


> If they had not ''resisted'' they could have had the matter cleared up in court. At least there were no choke-holds used to get them to comply. It is odd how folks opinions of why police use excessive force changes so quickly.


What do the following scenarios have in common?

1. A woman is beaten to within an inch of her life by a rapist.
2. A man is shot when he doesn't give his wallet to a robber.
3. A homeowner is tazed, beaten, and arrested by cops when he is rude and doesn't comply with a warrantless entry into his home.

In each case the victim would have been hurt less by the criminal had the victim not resisted. Do you blame the victim in each of these cases for resisting? 

And you appear to be confused. Who is it that you think is for the use of excessive force by cops? Are you for using excessive force? I'm against the use of excessive force in all cases, but understand that sometimes cops must counter violence with greater violence in order to protect the public. That does not mean cops get to break the laws they have sworn to uphold. In this case, with no one in danger, if the cops believed they had a case, they could have left one cop outside the house while the other called judge and asked for a warrant.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

I think (but I'm not sure) that Wanda was being sarcastic, folks.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

k9 said:


> I do not want to be victimized twice, the payouts come from the working people. Many times the governmental offical that generated the wrong doing is not held accountable for the action, and they continue to behave in the same fashion. Come up with a solution that ends the offending behavior by the offical and have some common sense about making the victim "whole" from the improprities perpeterated by the government offical and I would agree. The mindless thought of throwing a huge sum of money at them to "fix" it doesn't make sense. Taxpayer get to suffer twice, once at the hands of the official and another by a burdensome payout.


If the taxpayers get hit in the pocketbook for employing bad cops, they might just demand accountability from their elected officials to stop employing those bad cops.


----------



## k9 (Feb 6, 2008)

jtbrandt said:


> If the taxpayers get hit in the pocketbook for employing bad cops, they might just demand accountability from their elected officials to stop employing those bad cops.


 
How about hitting the pocketbook of the offical that is out of bounds and leave the taxpayer out of it? This system of million dollar payouts is set up by lawyers to make money for lawyers, don't fool yourself about that, and the taxpper gets to pay for it all.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

jtbrandt said:


> I think (but I'm not sure) that Wanda was being sarcastic, folks.




I will assure you I was not being sarcastic. I could go back and bump up postings of several people in the last 60 days that said the problem is the person resisting the police. I will not bump them up as I do not care to get my first infraction. Police do abuse there power but most people will ignore the fact if they agree with the end result. It is a bit like raising children, if we let them do as they please most of the time, they think they can all of the time.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Do not disagree, Wanda. However, I think my opinion on police force is pretty consistent. 

And no, don't go getting an infraction for this thread!


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

k9 said:


> How about hitting the pocketbook of the offical that is out of bounds and leave the taxpayer out of it? This system of million dollar payouts is set up by lawyers to make money for lawyers, don't fool yourself about that, and the taxpper gets to pay for it all.


I say hit'em both. It's a wakeup call to intrusive government. But I do agree, the police get off scott free. If they do not know where the line between enforcing law and violating rights is, then they need to be shown the door and maybe a jail cell in some cases.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

k9 said:


> How about hitting the pocketbook of the offical that is out of bounds and leave the taxpayer out of it? This system of million dollar payouts is set up by lawyers to make money for lawyers, don't fool yourself about that, and the taxpper gets to pay for it all.


Then the taxpayers will just elect another official who will do the same things. I say hit them both.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Wanda said:


> I will assure you I was not being sarcastic. I could go back and bump up postings of several people in the last 60 days that said the problem is the person resisting the police. I will not bump them up as I do not care to get my first infraction. Police do abuse there power but most people will ignore the fact if they agree with the end result. It is a bit like raising children, if we let them do as they please most of the time, they think they can all of the time.


There were two parts to your previous post, which is perhaps where my confusion came in. I thought you were being sarcastic about the other part that isn't mentioned in this one. To clarify, do you believe these parents should have complied with the police so they could get it cleared up later in court?


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

jtbrandt said:


> There were two parts to your previous post, which is perhaps where my confusion came in. I thought you were being sarcastic about the other part that isn't mentioned in this one. To clarify, do you believe these parents should not have resisted the police so they could get it cleared up later in court?



It is very hard to tell with so little information. Sometimes things are driven by ego on both sides. Sometimes people on both sides ''bait'' the other side to see if they can get them to cross the line. I think if the children were present they should not escalate things to the point of violence. If you end up dead it makes no difference to your family if you were ''technically'' correct.


----------



## k9 (Feb 6, 2008)

bowdonkey said:


> I say hit'em both. It's a wakeup call to intrusive government. But I do agree, the police get off scott free. If they do not know where the line between enforcing law and violating rights is, then they need to be shown the door and maybe a jail cell in some cases.


It's your money, throw it away however you see fit. Maybe your getting a government handout already, who knows.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Wanda said:


> It is very hard to tell with so little information. Sometimes things are driven by ego on both sides. Sometimes people on both sides ''bait'' the other side to see if they can get them to cross the line. I think if the children were present they should not escalate things to the point of violence. If you end up dead it makes no difference to your family if you were ''technically'' correct.


I think I understand you now. I appreciate the nuance even if I am with the others above in not agreeing completely with it. Violence is highly underrated when it comes to protecting your children. If it happened the way it has been portrayed, the parents did not get as violent as I would have. There is definitely a point where the right thing to do is to resist, violently if necessary.

As it is, these folks lost their children for nine days. Going along with the authorities may have spared them that outcome, but it may not have. Either way, I'm fairly confident it was not in the best interest of the kids. Such an unfortunate situation that didn't need to happen.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

And where is whomever instigated this whole mess with a report in all of this? There should be a price for erroneous accusations as well. 

I think people who expect parents to go all docile when their children are being threatened aren't humans, they are well trained and conditioned dogs. If I stick my hand into the whelping box to check the welfare of a pup I expect to be allowed, I am in charge. If I stick my foot in someone else's home to try and grab a person's children I should expect to get shot.

There should be harsh consequences because those consequences are worthwhile should there be actual danger to children. There should be harsh consequences because if your allegations prove to be nothing more than busybody nasality you have put every person's life and well being in that household in very serious danger.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

k9 said:


> It's your money, throw it away however you see fit. Maybe your getting a government handout already, who knows.


If it was me winning a lawsuit for something like this, I'd be smiling like a congressman with a suitcase of money. And feeling about as guilty.


----------



## k9 (Feb 6, 2008)

bowdonkey said:


> If it was me winning a lawsuit for something like this, I'd be smiling like a congressman with a suitcase of money. And feeling about as guilty.


 
There are a lot of people in this country that feel good living off the work of others.


----------



## michael ark (Dec 11, 2013)

They should be charged with home invasion ,assault and kidnapping and false imprisonment.Everything they did was unlawful so how could they be covered by working for the law . If a cop sell cocaine is it not illegal and a jail-able offence?The state should have to pay restitution for letting these morons out in public. I think that's what they like to call it these days.:facepalm:


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

The sad thing is, that police in 90+% of these cases will stand up for there fellow officers. They will get the benefit of the doubt and will have no problem blaming it on the victim. If they get away with stepping over the line against people you think '''deserve it'', do not be surprised if it happens to you.


----------



## michael ark (Dec 11, 2013)

Here is another 4th amendment case.http://thefreethoughtproject.com/supreme-court-rules-cops-warrant-search-home/
I tell you they wont even need a judas goat soon.:facepalm:


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

I like one of the comments in this which is now getting to be just a one-sided twisted view on what happened.


> Some of you really NEED to READ THE FULL DECISION.. before you post comments.. it's NOT what this "scant" video news clip makes it APPEAR TO BE!


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

jtbrandt said:


> You're insane if you think this was reasonable.


I am insane, but also rational.

Nazi SS walked into any German house and took whatever - because they wanted to. To me, that's unreasonable.

These Deputies were acting on an open CPS issue, where the CPS agents were told to "beat it", on a child wlefare related issue. They were performing a "welfare check". Regardless of our interpretation of the 4th, they where likely doing something, they could do legally, under whatever laws are in place.

The idea of waiting for any written warrant, might cause other issues, beside it can be a moot point anyway..

Anyone remember the Branch Davidians? LE had a warrant. THEY DID NOT LET THEM IN THE HOUSE!


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

> Regardless of our interpretation of the 4th, they where likely doing something, they could do legally, under whatever laws are in place.


Not according to the JUDGE, whose JOB is interpreting the 4th and the laws that are in place...judges can be wrong, but somehow I think he is more qualified than you to make that determination.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

jtbrandt said:


> Which law is that? Apparently you know more than the judge in the case.


The Judge dismissed the case, becauses the defense, did not offer any evidence.

Other than that, what are the facts?


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> The Judge dismissed the case, becauses the defense, did not offer any evidence.
> 
> Other than that, what are the facts?


You are incorrect about just about all the facts of the case that you have referenced. The defendants were the couple. I don't know whether they presented evidence or not, but since it was a criminal prosecution, they were presumed innocent until proven guilty. The judge dismissed the case because the prosecution did not present SUFFICIENT evidence, although the prosecution DID offer some evidence in an attempt to make their case.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> The Judge dismissed the case,* becauses the defense, did not offer any evidence.*
> 
> Other than that, what are the facts?


 According to this Comment whom I think got a copy and the ENTIRE video and watched it THIS is what was said. But was ON Purpose left out of the video.


> So.. if I understand this right: the husband & the wife were having a typical Wednesday when the cops were called on the guy.. the cops (for some reason UNKNOWN) wanted to come inside the house. .* The wife said "no problem",* [COLOR="Red]Officer Fine.[/COLOR].


 You see there is more to a story than a one-sided video JUST to Slam Officers~!

And That is probably why the judge Dismissed it.~!


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

AK, that's a separate case from the one in the OP that PJ and I are talking about.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

jtbrandt said:


> You are incorrect about just about all the facts of the case that you have referenced. The defendants were the couple. I don't know whether they presented evidence or not, but since it was a criminal prosecution, they were presumed innocent until proven guilty. The judge dismissed the case because the prosecution did not present SUFFICIENT evidence, although the prosecution DID offer some evidence in an attempt to make their case.


My bad. I meant prosecution.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> My bad. I meant prosecution.


No problem, but you're still wrong. The prosecution presented a case, the judge considered it, and determined that it was insufficient...according to the sources I have see...can't find any that say otherwise.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

If this would have happened to me, I'd be shooting for the moon. Let the hunting and fishing trip without end begin! And in a couple years I'll be on SS. Can you imagine the $$$? I've always wanted to hunt Red Stag. New Zealand here I come! It's fun to dream.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

This story, just like the Ferguson and NYC cases, anytime the _innocent victim_ card is played, the skeptic in me comes out (cant help it).

Missouri has 30,000 home-schooled kids, certainly hundreds in Nodaway County.

Does CPS unfairly hassle all of the home schools? If so, this is a real problem, but one would think we would have heard more about it, by now.

If not, why just this family? 

Is the assumption, that every "home school", is automatically up to snuff? Was it a vengeful neighbor or former student's parent, _ratting them out_, unfairly? Maybe. I don't know. CPS has never been to my home.

Was the CPS visit and then the Sherrif, of extreme importance (or at least they thought), towards the well being of the children, but washed away in the rhetoric of the _man vs Government _story?

As a skeptic, I'd be interested in knowing the whole story, which unfortunately most people don't care about.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

I would expect a skeptic to seek out the whole story before forming an opinion, rather than just taking the opposite "side" of it. I think you're more of a contrarian than a skeptic.

I couldn't care less about the whole homeschooling/CPS investigation part of it. There may well have been a good reason for CPS to be there, but my only interest has been in the police forcing their way into the house and what followed.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> This story, just like the Ferguson and NYC cases, anytime the _innocent victim_ card is played, the skeptic in me comes out (cant help it).
> 
> Missouri has 30,000 home-schooled kids, certainly hundreds in Nodaway County.
> 
> ...


That is the second time you've implied that somehow the parents must be at fault because other homeschoolers do not get the same treatment. There is no logic to that argument. We can all agree that sometimes cops and CPS workers act within the bounds of law. That does not logically mean that all cops and CPS workers always act within the bounds of law. 

In this case, the judge heard the state make their arguments. You have repeatedly gotten that wrong. And the judge said the rights of the parents/homeowners were violated.


----------



## TriWinkle (Oct 2, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> This story, just like the Ferguson and NYC cases, anytime the _innocent victim_ card is played, the skeptic in me comes out (cant help it).
> 
> Missouri has 30,000 home-schooled kids, certainly hundreds in Nodaway County.
> 
> ...



You think the judge presiding the case was interested in the whole story? Because I'm guessing he/she based his/her decision on the facts that were presented...Why is this even in debate? Here's a quote from the article

_âThe State has not offered sufficient, if indeed any, evidence of an exception that would justify a warrantless entry,â the trial court judge noted._

So you believe that the CPS worker and cop were beyond question in their intentions, but the decision of the judge is questionable? How does one support and question two sides of the same system? Law enforcement is above approach, but the judicial system is flawed??

Here's another quote (same article): _A state judge later determined that Glidden and White violated the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution by entering the Hagan home without a warrant._

This isn't like it's subjective, this is a case of public record. What's the dispute?

And your contention is to just go along with authority whether or not they're in the wrong, even if it means sacrificing your rights?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

jtbrandt said:


> I would expect a skeptic to seek out the whole story before forming an opinion, rather than just taking the opposite "side" of it. I think you're more of a contrarian than a skeptic.
> 
> I couldn't care less about the whole homeschooling/CPS investigation part of it. There may well have been a good reason for CPS to be there, but my only interest has been in the police forcing their way into the house and what followed.


You can think what you want, but I disagree. If I seem one sided, it's only because no one is interested in the other side.

I am.

Were the Deputies forceably acting on information and observations, they felt they were legally allowed to act on? Maybe, maybe not. 

Forcible _welfare checks_ are not always illegal and certainly have a _grey area._



> Yes. The law states that if a police officer has "reasonable belief" that someone inside a residence is in need of aid, or that there is an imminent threat to the life or welfare of someone inside a residence, the police can make an entry without a warrant. In this scenario, the police officer's community caretaking duties, and emergency aid doctrine, justify a warrantless entry into a home.


http://www.srhunterlaw.com/Police-Wellness-Checks




> I couldn't care less about the whole homeschooling/CPS investigation part of it. There may well have been a good reason for CPS to be there, but my only interest has been in the police forcing their way into the house and what followed.


Maybe there was a very good reason for the Sheriff to be there and force entry too. Maybe CPS informed them of a real danger, that maybe the parents were trying to hide. Maybe they just got done smoking some meth. I don't know.

No one is interested in that part of the story, because - let's be honest, no one wants to hear it, since it might possibly defeat the sensational point of the story.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

From past experience I can say that Home school families do get harassed more often. However, homeschooling in many areas rests on a precarious perch and they'd rather be quiet and under the radar than make a public fuss about much.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Well, here is the _other_ side, Sheriff White's statement to the media.

http://www.kmaland.com/news/white-r...cle_0d1132c4-7422-11e4-837b-9f0adb3d1616.html


I admit there are conflicting versions of this story. The couple's story say they were assaulted first and the judge must have agreed because all charges againt the Hagans were dismissed.

This part of the Sheriff's statement is a little disturbing. I've heard it stated before, but disturbing nonetheless.......


White also makes no apologies for using force against the couple.
"There's a long-standing theory in law enforcement," White said. "You ask people to do something, you tell them to do something, and you make them do it. I'm 100% behind people's rights and their civil rights. When we show up, we are there for a lawful reason. We expect people to comply with our requests


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> Were the Deputies forceably acting on information and observations, they felt they were legally allowed to act on? Maybe, maybe not.


They may well have felt that they were legally allowed to do it. If so, they were WRONG.



> Maybe there was a very good reason for the Sheriff to be there and force entry too. Maybe CPS informed them of a real danger, that maybe the parents were trying to hide. Maybe they just got done smoking some meth. I don't know.


You can make up all the maybes you want, but apparently the court found that whatever ACTUALLY HAPPENED wasn't enough to forcibly enter the house.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

farmrbrown said:


> Well, here is the _other_ side, Sheriff White's statement to the media.
> 
> http://www.kmaland.com/news/white-r...cle_0d1132c4-7422-11e4-837b-9f0adb3d1616.html


Yeah, I saw that early on in this discussion. The sheriff was not very convincing. He seemed to be hinting at things without wanting to come right out and say them...like he mentioned the deputy heard a child shouting before he himself got there, but he didn't know if the child was shouting help or something else. Pretty weak overall. Apparently the judge in the criminal trial agreed that it was weak.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yeah, unfortunately I've BTDT, several times involving vehicle searches.
And I will say this, there is a smart way and a dumb way to handle it. I've chosen the smart way every time and the end result was usually all charges dismissed and the department wide open for a lawsuit.
I've never sued, but had the police chief et al, knowing they owed me bigtime, lol.

Out of half a dozen times, at least 4 times they ignored my refusal and searched anyway, and even told me so. (That they were going to despite not having my permission)
Those didn't end well for the cops. 
It seems hard to believe that many LEO's don't know the first thing about illegal searches but it's not a big topic in standards training.
The two that did back off when I said no, obviously did.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

plowjockey said:


> You can think what you want, but I disagree. If I seem one sided, it's only because no one is interested in the other side.
> 
> I am.
> 
> ...


If any of maybes you suppose had been reality they would have been presented in the subsequent court hearing. None were. Police and other authorities have broad power to act in the face of imminent threats. But if they take those enforcement actions they also have the obligation to prove they were correct in doing so. Violating someone's rights and then saying "Oops, my bad" isn't the way I want things done and neither apparently did the judge in this case. 

You've stated more than once that government intrusion into your life and home may be allowed because you have nothing to hide or fear. I know from having dealt with a wide variety of government functionaries from health and building inspectors to law enforcement that if they wish to find something they almost always will. Even things they have walked past for years may suddenly be a violation if the mood strikes. Be careful of giving up any right.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

After reading more about this, I hope Maryville gets sued so bad, it becomes a ghost town.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

I finally got to read the actual lawsuit filing...there is even more to it than all the over-sensationalized stories give...yes, some of the stories are complete bull, saying a SWAT team raided the house, which is not alleged by the couple at all. But if only 10% of what actually is alleged in the lawsuit is true, the captain should absolutely lose his job and his pension. The sheriff's liability is not as clear cut in my mind, but I hope he will at the very least be run out of office for his part in this.

Here's the suit: http://www.scribd.com/doc/248063067/Hagan-vs-Glidden-Complaint

Can't copy and paste from this, so I screen captured the judge's ruling:


----------

