SWAT team enters Stagecoach home after suspected prank phone call

Advertisement

— Routt County Undersheriff Ray Birch said a prank phone call led them to assemble the SWAT team and enter a home to "check the welfare of the residents" Wednesday night in Stagecoach.

Birch said someone called Routt County Communications, and at about 8:40 p.m., the SWAT team was assembled to respond to 31445 Shoshone Way.

When the SWAT team entered the home, they found the residents were "safe and secure."

"We are currently conducting an investigation to identify the original caller and are not in the position to release any further details, except to say we do not believe any community members are at risk," Birch stated in an email.

To reach Matt Stensland, call 970-871-4247, email mstensland@SteamboatToday.com or follow him on Twitter @SBTStensland

Comments

Dan Hill 3 months ago

It would be interesting to know what was the supposed offence for which the Sheriff thought a SWAT team was necessary, and more generally, what is the Sheriff department's policy for determining when a SWAT team is needed vs. just an normal officer response.

0

rhys jones 3 months ago

"Just good training for the boys." (Firesign Theatre)

1

jerry carlton 3 months ago

Dan Do not know the answer to any of your questions but domestic violence calls are documented as the most dangerous kind there is for law enforcement. Most of these officers have families too and they want to go home to them at the end of their shift. Personally, I hope the fool who made the call is caught and serves jail time. That would give him or her a while to think about how stupid they are.

0

Bernard Gagne Jr 3 months ago

The DA will want to "seal the records" in order to "serve the interests of the public"!?!

1

rhys jones 3 months ago

I'll bet the "residents" were surprised when the SWAT team "entered the home".

We've got these Kevlar vests and cool helmets and M-4's and we're gonna use 'em, dammit.

Somebody possesses some entertaining footage of that one.

Maybe they should've called first.

0

john bailey 3 months ago

Rhys, they we're gonna take out the Stagecoach dam with cherry bombs.....free da fish....

0

rhys jones 3 months ago

I think we should put a watch on the James Brown Soul Center of the Universe Bridge. That's where I think the jihad will target next, in sort of a symbolic gesture.

1

john bailey 3 months ago

xit , and that's the start of the by-pass in the future.......elevated ......~;0) cunning little rats.......

0

rhys jones 3 months ago

AHA!! You've spurred an inspiration, John. I know how to "bypass" the pesky rascals (I'll bet half this extra traffic is jihad, intent on busting our economy) and the truckers too, no elevated structure necessary:

How about a TUNNEL? Right under downtown. The land is already there, it would impact nobody, we've got the equipment, folks need the jobs, it'd let us shut down Lincoln for our ped mall --that's like win-win-win-win-win!!

We could set up ID checks at both ends, to thwart the pesky jihad, spend even more money, and tie this comment to the original content. It could be manned by SWAT, so they'll already be dressed for their next raid.

0

john bailey 3 months ago

carp , my vision was a TUNNEL under the city ski hill meeting up at SH131 or ??....you don't have to dig down just thru ......

0

rhys jones 3 months ago

Brilliant!! Now we can use James Brown to get the pests to the tunnel!!

0

Scott Wedel 3 months ago

"When the SWAT team entered the home, they found the residents were "safe and secure." "

That sounds like a no announce and no knock entry.

If so that gets interesting because most scenarios for SWAT dispatch also include a negotiator and gathering information prior to entering the house.

So facts will probably have to come out if only to satisfy the residents that proper procedures were filed and that their rights weren't violated.

1

rhys jones 3 months ago

"Procedures"? We don't need no stinking "procedures"!! This is the Wild West, son!! Shoot first and we'll sort it out later.

0

rhys jones 3 months ago

PS -- As I alluded above -- I'm sure SOMEBODY has some entertaining video of this event -- didn't I read something recently about ALL cops being camera-equipped? -- surely at least one was creative enough to record this for posterity, if not already mandated... any copies ever seeing the light of day, remains a matter of great question. Priviliged audiences only, methinks.

0

john bailey 2 months, 4 weeks ago

I'm sure the neighbors over on South Shore were a bit amused by all the goings on. surely one of them have some video on the event. hum , sure seems like some have lost their sense of humor these days.....

0

rhys jones 2 months, 4 weeks ago

Our writers are having fun with it ("Routt County Law" FOX sitcom) and we'll shoot it while we're in the Azores -- it's night; nobody will know. We were gonna do Rusty's fling with the cute ADA down there, but he left us high and dry on that one. When Rusty left, so did the starlets. We're casting again.

Got that slow boat ready, John?

0

john bailey 2 months, 4 weeks ago

funny you should ask about that slow boat , one last patch and she's ready to go.......um, I seem to have lost the anchor.......~;0) now back to yard work......

0

Mark Ruckman 2 months, 4 weeks ago

The assumptions are running wild today - No procedures, no knock and rights violated.

Want to know basic procedures and policy for the SWAT team? Stop by Ace get some popcorn then head over to the Sheriff office and have a discussion. Want to bet how many will actually do this? my bet is zero.

Though we do have 1 expert above that already knows all about SWAT standard procedures, along with being an expert on every other subject. This person should take their popcorn home so they don't reduce the volume of expertise shared with SB citizens.

2

Scott Wedel 2 months, 4 weeks ago

Didn't say rights were violated. Said that enough happened that the police will have to release details of the call to explain their actions.

0

mark hartless 2 months, 4 weeks ago

The militarization of our police forces, coupled with their increasing propensity to use military hardware and tactics on civillians is troubling to those who understand history.

What is forbidden of the military is increasingly being employed by local law enforcement who, apparently view their fellow citizens as more of a threat than ever, and who apparently view themselves as immune to the spirit of Posse Comitatus.

2

rhys jones 2 months, 4 weeks ago

Now wait a minute Mark. While I agree with your point, I think you are hardly the one to be making it.

Aren't you the one who advocates gun rights, no restrictions, assault weapons, large magazines; I'd bet you have full auto on the property...

Assuming the threat is credible (double "ahem" here) can you blame the cops for responding in kind? They might find YOU there!!

1

john bailey 2 months, 4 weeks ago

I say lets all go to sling shots , plenty of ammo on the ground......

0

mark hartless 2 months, 4 weeks ago

I support the 2nd ammendment to the US Constitution, Rhys.

Nowhere in that doccument do I find it granted for the civillian police force to be militarized. The opposite is, in fact the case.

I used to collect class 3 weapons (legally) but when I moved to Steamboat I sold them all because I knew that the local sheriff would not sign my ATF Form 4 allowing me to legally posses them here. Many people do not realize that full-auto weapons are perfectly legal.

You are accusing me of a crime, Rhys, (falsely) and you have no reason to know or even suspect such.

0

Scott Wedel 2 months, 4 weeks ago

If gun rights advocates want to claim a right to be powerfully armed then we should expect the police will need to be sufficiently armed to deal with powerfully armed criminals.

When weapons that were originally designed as military assault weapons are available to the public then that results in the police needing to being able to respond with military style weapons and tactics.

SWAT teams don't bother me because that is what is needed to respond in many cases.

0

Eric Morris 2 months, 4 weeks ago

If the government wants to ban guns, it should start with the entities it actually controls: no more weapons for the police and no standing army doing who knows what all around the world. Lead by example.

1

mark hartless 2 months, 4 weeks ago

Scott,

When the second ammendment was written and made law, the common folk had weapons equal to, or in many cases better than the police and armed government forces.

The most modern and awe-inspiring weapons ever made were readily available to common citizens when the second ammendment became law; ponder that.

There is no reason whatsoever to believe that the intent of the second ammendment was to keep common citizens armed with simple hunting rifles and pee-shooters while allowing police and government forces to win an un-contested arms race and accumulate full-auto military weapons, grenade launchers, armoured personelle carriers, tear gas, etc, and to take on military characteristics and tactics against citizens which are strictly forbidden in Posse Comitatus.

Military tactics are to kill people and break things without asking questions. They are sent to destroy under the assumption that everyone in their crosshairs is already judged guilty and deserves to die.

CONVERSELY, police are charged with arresting CITIZENS of this Republic who are to be presumed INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY in a court. Police are NOT to be used as the excecutioner and judge as the military certainly IS.

Citizens are to be brought before a judge to stand trial, not killed by jack-booted thugs in their homes.

If you can't see the difference you need more education on the subject.

1

Scott Wedel 2 months, 4 weeks ago

Mark,

When the Second Amendment was written the military had cannons and cannons were not commonly in private hands. So when the Second Amendment was written they knew the public was less well armed than the military.

There has been solid academic analysis of the reasons behind the Second Amendment from looking at letters and other historical documents. It was written because Southern states were worried about slave revolts that a federal government wouldn't put down. So the Southern states wanted to be sure they could have local militias which was basically every white male adult and their personal weapons.

But that is neither here or there, because government to be viable must have more firepower than civilians. One of the significant events of Washington's presidency was leading out a military force to put down a civilian revolt known as the Whiskey Rebellion.

With your definition of "military tactics" then it makes sense to oppose military tactics.

The more typical definition of "military tactics" does not place a priority on breaking things or killing people, but instead focuses on using force to gain control of the situation.

0

Eric Morris 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Scott, at least you admit for viability government is just raw power and force. Since the government develops all the bad weapons, such as cannons, nukes, military style assault rifles, napalm, and bunker busters, maybe the focus should be on banning governments rather than guns. Government is just a gang with bigger weapons and sillier outfits.

0

Ken Mauldin 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Scott: Where did you get the idea that the Second Amendment was "written because Southern states were worried about slave revolts that a federal government wouldn't put down?"

Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Paper #29 makes no mention of southern states or slaves in it's justification for the Second Amendment.

James Madison's Federalist Paper #46 also makes no mention of southern states or slaves in it's justification for the Second Amendment.

Please share which "letters and historical documents" you have discovered that mention southern states or slavery as a justification for the Second Amendment and why you place greater weight on them than the expressions of Hamilton and Madison in the Federalist Papers.

1

mark hartless 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Scott,

Your "...southern states..." thing is completely bogus.Trying to ascribe rascism to the 2nd ammendment won't fly with people who know actual history.

The first and second ammendments are simple. They basically say that the people (individuals) can say whatever they want and they can defend themselves after they say it.

Also, there were NO restrictions against individuals getting a cannon if they wanted one.

0

Scott Wedel 2 months, 3 weeks ago

There was a very well researched book a couple years ago that looked at the correspondence of Madison, Jefferson and members of Congress in the period of June 6, 1789 when the first draft of the Second Amendment was before Congress and Sept 4th in which the final version passed. In those letters the Southern Senators and Representatives expressed concerns that the federal government could federalize local militias and then fail to respond to slave rebellions.

I can't find the book because I'm getting too many search results to find the book. I did find: At the ratifying convention in Virginia in 1788, Patrick Henry:

"Let me here call your attention to that part [Article 1, Section 8 of the proposed Constitution] which gives the Congress power 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. . . .

"By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither . . . this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory."

George Mason expressed a similar fear:

"The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless, by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them [under this proposed Constitution] . . . "

Henry then bluntly laid it out:

"If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia."
0

Mark Ruckman 2 months, 3 weeks ago

If it is on the Internet it must be true

If you didn't live the history, you are subject to the interpretation of someone who did and their bias.

It is quite possible the 2nd Amendment was written to fulfill the needs and interest of a variety of people that had different concerns.

Now back to writing my proposal to MENSA to relocate their world headquarters to SB. I don't believe they aware of how many geniuses we have in SB that are so willing to freely share their superior intelligence with the masses. Surely they would want to build their new 10 story HQ here.

1

Scott Wedel 2 months, 3 weeks ago

That said, Northern states didn't object to the Second Amendment because they also had western frontiers and wilderness areas so local militias were important to them as well. They just weren't as worried about the federal government taking them away.

And the Southerner's concern of slave rebellion was not based in racism, but in protecting property.

But, it is the most basic concept of a viable government that government is the most powerful military power of the country. Otherwise, there are local warlords or such that control regions instead of the government. The failure of the Articles of Confederation was because the federal government was too weak and so needed a stronger government laid out in the US Constitution. And thus, the need for a Bill of Rights to protect the public from a too powerful government. If the general public was expected to be better armed than the government then the government laws have no effect because the government lacks the ability to enforce the laws. It was the expectation that the government would be strong enough to enforce it's laws that created the need for a Bill of Rights.

0

Ken Mauldin 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Scott: Thanks for your reply. While you reference the presence of slavery in the debate, there is no mention of 'southern states' because slavery was legal and accepted throughout the States that were debating Federalsim. The overwhelming documented argument for the Second Amendment was preventing the establishment of a tyrannical government. Patrick Henry lost the argument that you reference above and the Militias remained under control of the States (not Congress) as the Second Amendment was drafted and the new Constitution ratified.

To connect dots for you: the Fourteenth Amendment was passed in response to the concern that southern states would not grant freed slaves the Natural Rights protected by the Bill of Rights - specifically the Second Amendment.

While you've argued that the original purpose of the Second Amendment was to deny blacks the right of self-defense; the historical truth is that the Second Amendment was ratified as a means to prevent tyranny and the US Constitution was specifically amended in 1868 to ensure that freed slaves could own guns.

0

Scott Wedel 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Slavery was not universally accepted and there were most clearly groups in the North opposed to slavery.

Actually, Patrick Henry won the argument. I think they key passage is: If they (Congress) neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless.

And so the need for the Second Amendment since, at that time, the militia was basically the entire adult white male population and so it "militia" and "the people" were essentially interchangeable terms.

And I never said the Second Amendment was to deny blacks the right of self defense. In fact, there is nothing in the Second Amendment to deny a free black man a weapon and some blacks had served in the Revolutionary War and were armed.

At the time of the Revolutionary War, it was legal to be a freed black man in the South and for slaves to be freed. Slaves were seen as property

The 14th Amendment was passed so that constitutional rights as freedom could not be denied by state governments. It was not to give blacks the right to own guns because, at the time, the Second Amendment was seen as applying to militias, not individuals.

The Heller Supreme Court decision has an internal logic that the Second Amendment said militia and not "state militia" and so a militia can be as small as one adult and so there is a right to be armed. So be it. But with rights comes consequences.

And the consequence of a freedom to own guns and the availability of military assault weapons is going to be police with sufficient armament to arrest somebody. So if you want to live in a place where the police are lightly or even unarmed then you have to live in a place where the public doesn't commonly have guns.

0

Eric Morris 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Government is the most powerful warlord; to claim it has or had the intention to do anything beyond accrete more power to itself (such as protect the public, whoever that is; in this case, the vaunted well-intentioned and informed public was a prank caller swatting) is without basis. All the discussions above are fights between governments over who controls the militia or who controls the right to enforce slavery.

0

Thomss Steele 2 months, 3 weeks ago

How do we get Mark and Scott to go away. Boys go play with each other elsewhere. This is not your personal chat room.

1

mark hartless 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Since you own this forum maybe you should just banish us...

0

john bailey 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Thomss , after all its a free speech thing..... oh ... wait....

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.