Shiflett said he did.

"I was completely within my rights under the Make My Day law," he said.

That Colorado law allows homeowners to use deadly force defending themselves from an intruder who is considered to be a threat.

Shiflett said he picked up the ax and chased the man out of his yard after 40 minutes of listening to his threats. He said he was the one that called the sheriff's office.

"You don't want to come to my house and tell me you're going to do something in my house and I can't stop you," Shiflett said. "I'm a violent person if you come into my house and start pushing me."

Salvatore J. Culosi Sr. still can't believe his son, a 37-year-old optometrist, was a suspected sports bookie. He can't believe a heavily armed SWAT team fatally shot his unarmed son, Salvatore J. Culosi Jr., outside his Fair Oaks home Tuesday night.

And Culosi can't believe that the SWAT team's sudden descent on his son, apparently causing one officer to accidentally fire a .45-caliber handgun once into his son's chest, is standard procedure for Fairfax County police conducting a search.

Fairfax police declined to discuss their tactical unit policies. But police officials acknowledged that the tactical team, using bulletproof vests, high-powered weapons and other police tools, serves nearly all of the warrants after an investigation has found probable cause to seize evidence—whether it is bloody clothes, weapons or documents.

1.) Never. Some people based purely on personal conviction or religious affiliation cannot seem to support medical treatment. Having to use taxpayer dollars to bully and intimidate people into treatment is not the way to go about saving lives. It's a violation of several statues and it should never be permitted in a free society like ours.

This story makes me ashamed to think that we live in a culture where we've strayed so far from the ideals of individual liberty. A child may be innocent in the eyes of religion, but in our society, a child is the product of two people who have a right to make choices concerning their child. In the strictest sense, a child is property, and parents have dominion over property. It should never come down to the government forcing parents into action. All of this "save the children" activism was never alive for much of human history, and as a seventeen year-old, I fully appreciate it now, thank you, but lay off it. Parents should have total control over their children in cases where they may knowingly lose them.

If the purpose of government is to secure and protect the rights of its citizens, are they not also obligated to protect children whose rights are being violated, even if those violating their rights are their parents?

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the state should be running around removing children from homes, but I think your response is too far to the anti-liberty side. And you've done it all in the name of liberty. "Total control?" In my mind the liberty of citizens should be protected. And children are citizens.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

If the purpose of government is to secure and protect the rights of its citizens, are they not also obligated to protect children whose rights are being violated, even if those violating their rights are their parents?

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the state should be running around removing children from homes, but I think your response is too far to the anti-liberty side. And you've done it all in the name of liberty. "Total control?" In my mind the liberty of citizens should be protected. And children are citizens.

A dying child, while perhaps tragic, is not a source of radical or violent rioting and thereby not the government's responsibility when their legal rights belong to the parents.

I wonder how far you are willing to take this. If parents don't "believe" in doctors for whatever reason, and their child is about to die from something which could easily be treated with standard medical care, are you willing to say that government should not step in at all? Or let's go a bit further. Suppose our hypothetical parents think that killing a child in the name of some "belief" or other is a good idea. Should the government step in during such a situation? If so, why is this case different from the first case? Both seem like nothing other than human sacrifice to me.

Let me make it clear that in the present case under discussion, I would agree that the authorities went way, way beyond any reasonable behavior. This doesn't really have much to do with the whole question of parental rights; it's just another example (as Lesly points out) of the fact that the cops love to smash down doors and stick guns into your face without warning. This sort of thing is going to keep happening as long as we excuse it in the name of fighting "terrorism" or "drugs."

The power of the police should be more severely restricted than any other governmental power.

That doesn't mean that I can accept the idea that children are the "property" of their parents. Acknowledging that a severe abuse of governmental power happened doesn't mean that it's OK for parents to abuse their power.

I would say that, yes. Terri Schiavo was a botched attempt of the government to intervene. It should never ever do something so stupid as to try taking away the power to make decisions when the person is legally yours to attend.

So it's never acceptable for the government to infringe on a kind of power of attorney parents hold over children. It's not right and it's certainly not good government.

wow what an excellent angle with Schiavo issue. There we allowed the courts and system to play itself out and then the republican politicians decided they knew better.

But lets say we have a religion that believes in very strict punishment to kids, to the point of severe beating, do we say oh well the parents know better?

Does admitting to being a "constitutionalist" make you a threat to the sheriff's department?
I don't understand this question.

From the article-"The sheriff said the decision to use SWAT team force was justified because the father was a "self-proclaimed constitutionalist" and had made threats and "comments" over the years."

So let me see if I understand this context:

They felt justified breaking and entering, detaining, kidnapping, and violating paternal rights because the man believes in the Constitution? Since when did belief in liberty entitle others to take it away?

No, I think it has to do with threats he has made in the past that I outlined. and chasing a guy down the street with an ax , which he was arrested for. so could indicate a hostile reaction from him.

No, I think it has to do with threats he has made in the past that I outlined. and chasing a guy down the street with an ax , which he was arrested for. so could indicate a hostile reaction from him.

Be careful here. From my reading in the local paper, I get a completely different understanding than what you are implying here. After a drug addicted former boyfriend of his daughter screamed obscenities on his property for 40 minutes and refused to leave, he chased him off his property with an ax. Someone did call the police, but he was never convicted of any crime. There are no other substantiated threats that I have read. If you have other details to offer, please provide a website. The sheriff seems afraid of people who take the constitution literally.