De-escalation

tenthings

tenthings2

I find it disturbing he was offended by it.

He wasn’t “offended” by it.  I have never spoken with the man, and I know he wasn’t “offended.”

He did a very reasonable thing in light of the situation that had occurred the year before when the youngest daughter ran away, and checked out as much as he could before going to that property to remove the children.

And yes, that’s why he went there.

He told Nicole that, over and over again.

Here’s the first clue:

Pate: Okay. How many of you all are here now?

Nicole: It’s me and my two teenage sons.

Pate: The other children are not here?

He went on from there.

Pate: You are standing the chance of having your children removed.

How much more direct did he have to be?

Pate: When there are allegations made, okay, they have an obligation to check that out. They can’t say, oh, we just don’t believe it, or oh, we went out there and the mother and father said you can’t speak to them. They can’t do that. I mean, whether they think that it’s BS or not– and a lot of times we get those type of calls – and there’s probably a decent chance that is this type of call, and there’s a decent chance that this thing could be resolved much simpler – but I’m telling you, the refusal, to say no you will not talk to my children or no you will not do that – the court is gonna step in and I think that they will remove your children, and they will talk to your children whether you like that or not.

That direct.

What was happening, I think, is that Sheriff Pate knew that CPS was in court as he spoke getting a removal order signed by a judge. He was basically waiting for the green light.

At that point, Nicole could have taken his advice. She could have said, “Okay, let me call Joe. We’ll bring the kids here and CPS can come out here and talk with them.”  I think that if she had done that, Pate would have called CPS and said, “Hold off. I think she’s coming around.”

But he didn’t really expect that to happen. He was hoping but he was also preparing.

As far as Facebook is concerned, he had every right to look at her Facebook page.  Anyone does. I do.  It’s public.

I doubt he even looked at the video. I know I didn’t.  He just looked at the tone of her Facebook posts.

It’s easy to do this. Everyone does it.

Let’s take Matthew Smithers as an example. He commented on a public page and said some dumb shit. Who is he?

smitherstrumper

He’s a Trumper.

smithersracist

He’s racist.  There’s more than one post of this sort of thing.

smitherssnakes

He’s a fundamentalist. And not just a little bit fundamentalist. He’s the snake-handling type.

There is enough further information to tell me that he’s married, it seems happily, he seems to be a parent, he’s a computer programmer (or something similar) and unhappy with his profession. He went to “Bible school” for a short time.

That took me about two minutes and it is not stalking.  Smithers chose to post that stuff publicly. Anyone can see it.  Don’t want people to see  your shit?  Don’t post it publicly.

That swift perusal of Smithers’ Facebook page tells me, though, that a black Democratic Jehovah’s Witness probably would not do very well on a home visit. I’m not implying that he’d do anything wrong or even be rude. I am saying that he probably wouldn’t convert.

And that’s what Pate was doing. He was simply looking to get the flavor of Nicole’s page, to better understand Nicole. What he saw there disturbed him.  It disturbs me.  She’s hostile to the police, really hostile.

And when he was face-to-face with her, she added to that feeling with her remarks.

Pate: You have a right to do whatever, whatever, whatever, whatever, but here’s what I see coming down the pike. You can believe me or not believe me.

Nicole: I know what the state’s willing to do. I know what it’s allowed to do and I know what it’s willing to do.

And this:

Pate: but I know that there’s gunfire around here and I see things that are posted such as – how am I supposed to take something that says you picked the wrong person to fight with now and . . .

Nicole: Yes, I was referring to the woman who reported

Pate: I mean, are you saying that there is potential gunfire on you all’s part

Nicole: I didn’t say anything. You can read into it however you want to, but I will protect my family.

Pate: But do you understand where I might read into it that?

The man is trying to explain to her that what she’s saying, that her overall attitude, coupled with her Facebook posts, gives him reason to proceed with extreme caution.

Nicole: I am protecting my children from the state.

Pate: They are getting ready to go into state custody.

Nicole: No, they’re not. No, they’re not.

Pate: Okay.

Nicole: They’re not.

Pate: Okay.

Nicole: Mark my words, they will not.

Pate: They will not. Do you have them prepared to do something?

Nicole: I don’t have them prepared to do anything.

This sounds like a threat.  It just does. If I had been Pate, I certainly would have taken it as a threat to do physical harm if necessary to stop Pate from taking those kids.

Remember, this man has been doing what he does for more than twenty years. Nicole and Joe Naugler weren’t his first rodeo. He’s had training in how to deal with people like them and end up with everyone alive and well.

At this point, after she’s threatened him over and over again, he asks her to let him see the boys.

Of course he was “sizing them up.”  Naturally he was. For all he knew, they were hiding in the bushes ready to pick him off.  The situation was potentially very volatile.  He did not want to deal with the Kanes, and I don’t blame him.

So he got her to let him see the boys. It served a couple of purposes. The boys got to see that he wasn’t hurting their mother, that they were simply having a conversation, that there was no imminent threat.  He got to eyeball them, to more or less “meet” them.  That makes it a bit harder for a kid who has never shot a human being to do that.

And then he allowed them to leave the property.

Of course he did.

He wanted them away from any stashed weapons.  He wanted to make sure that anything they had was confined to that vehicle.

I have no idea if Nicole or Jacob or the other boy had/have the idiocy required to actually have gotten into a fire fight with the police (their chances of survival would have been slim had they done so), but Sheriff Pate couldn’t take a chance on it.

Pate: and I don’t use, and I don’t use the resources that are available to me, you know. And if I don’t, you know, and you know, I have to use those resources to find out about threats against my officers and other people. My goal at the end of the day is to go home, to see my family.

See? He told her. His goal was to survive the encounter.  That’s his primary goal.  It always is. It always should be. His second goal was that all three of the Nauglers present should survive the encounter as well.

Sheriff Pate had a removal order signed by a judge. It was completely legal. It was his job to take custody of those minor children.  It was up to him to use his training and the “resources available to him” to accomplish that in a way that ensured everyone’s safety.

He did a fine job, an exemplary job.  He gave her every chance in the world to back down. He was honest and straight with her.  He didn’t stop her on some bogus traffic thing. He told her he wouldn’t do that. He stopped her and executed the removal order, exactly as he’d already told her he was going to do.

She is extremely fortunate that Sheriff Pate is the police officer she dealt with that day.

 

 

 

20 thoughts on “De-escalation”

  1. Every community should be so lucky to have LE like Sheriff Pate looking out for them. And the story of how he saved that little boy made me cry. I wish I could shake his hand.

  2. She leaves her facebook page PUBLIC so EVERYONE can see and then accuses people of stalking her page when they go and look. What kind of mangled Naugler logic is that? If you want privacy Nicole, make your shit private on the internet. Simple as that. Better yet, just close down all your accounts and pages. You have nothing of value to say anyway.

    “She is extremely fortunate that Sheriff Pate is the police officer she dealt with that day.”

    I agree with your statement Sally. She was very lucky it was an experienced level headed officer she was dealing with that day. I sometimes wonder how much value she puts on her children’s lives. That “her” rights are more valuable than “their” very lives.

  3. As radical as that guy is…I give him 3 or 4 days to be like….” These people are fuckin nuts…i’m out”

  4. I know several top notch police officers very well. Some are family, some are close family friends. They rank on all levels of law enforcement. Most are patient beyond my own capabilities. But had any of them been in Pate’s circumstance, with the Naugler history and reputation, I doubt any would have given her the lead way that Pate gave her. She should realize how lucky she was. Things could have been much worse.

  5. Sally, this is a good summary of that day from Sheriff Pate’s POV. I don’t think Nicole is able to look at it from his side. As she says “The sheriff had no actual concerns. He was on my property several times, a year before this, the evening before and earlier that day. ………….he thinks what we do is pretty cool. His only issue is that I would not let CPS talk to my children without a warrant or an attorney present.”
    LE knew that the Nauglers owned at least one rifle due to a previous visit. So the concerns and issues that Sheriff Pate had were ones that Nicole will never admit (or give serious thought to) since she continues to consider her and her family to be the victims.

  6. Absolutely. Nicole’s promises to “protect her family” could easily be construed as potentially violent and not just the rantings of an irate Sovereign citizen and keyboard warrior. She was lucky that a couple of brutes were not dispatched to her home. Nicole is not wrong that some police are bullies and misuse the power within their post. However, not Todd Pate. He exhibited exemplary restraint in handling the Naugler situation.

    In the end, Pate and his deputy are merely her puppets, dolls in which she can stick voodoo pins. CPS was going to remove the kids for environmental neglect, regardless of whether or not Pate produced a poster-sized warrant or had given Nicole 48 more hrs to secure an attorney (and she would have fled with the children, rather than appear).
    Nicole will never concede that CPS and the police were justified in removing the kids. Her cognitive dissonance is huge.

  7. I have listened to the encounter dozens of times. I don’t think the situation could have been handled any better. He remained calm and polite, until he unable to do so. She sounds extremely unstable.

  8. One of these days, were going to have one of those breaking news stories, and its not goig to be pretty. I just hope there not that insane to even think abot a gun.

  9. I believe the preferred term is trumpanzee😊

    And does anyone have the video or audio from the run away incident?

  10. It would be a foolish officer who would NOT check someone’s social media when weapons are a concern.

    Nicole likes to talk a big game. If someone does something you don’t like, just break out the guns. But when the other side with the bigger guns are the police suddenly it’s wrong. Nicole needs to figure out what she really thinks, and state that.

    Just admit it, Nicole. You think you’re a special snowflake and should live by a different set of rules from everyone else.

  11. “I agree with your statement Sally. She was very lucky it was an experienced level headed officer she was dealing with that day. ”

    The police in my area were under federal review a couple years back for some brutality. Nicole might not have gotten out of there alive if she had to deal with our police.

  12. And does anyone have the video or audio from the run away incident?

    I’ve been reading about one of the children being found a mile or so down the road, alone. Is this the same situation being mentioned in relation to the above run away comment?

    I read in comments information that lead me to believe last year when the Sheriff went to the homestead possibly one child ran or fled.

    Is this all one incident? Are they three incidents that I’m misunderstanding? Can any of that be clarified?

  13. Very nice interpretation of Sheriff Pate’s words. This wasn’t his first rodeo with Joe and Nicole. Yeah, if people would be interested in viewing a previous video, where Sheriff Pate and a Deputy come to the property to do a check on the young daughter. A report LE received from a community person that encountered her on the road, a good piece away from their property. There you will see the guns.

    Sheriff Pate is a smart man, well trained, and very experienced in the potential risks and collateral of volatile situations where things can escalate.

  14. Is this all one incident?

    Yes. All one incident. The youngest daughter ran away. I suspect Nicole might say she “went for a walk,” but she was found far enough away that it seems unlikely that was the case. A passerby picked her up and called the police, due to concerns about a child that age out by herself.

    The resulting confrontation at the Shitstead was nothing short of. . . well. . . amazing, involving the Nauglers going into their garden shed (this was Garden Shed #1, which was “returned” and replaced by the Shitshack and then Garden Shed #2), and Joe expressing concern that Pate would sexually molest the daughter.

  15. Forgive my ignorance. Has the runaway incident been made into a blog and if not, will it be blogged about in further detail?

    Thank you for your response.

  16. Forgive my ignorance. Has the runaway incident been made into a blog and if not, will it be blogged about in further detail?

    No, and yes. 🙂 So much to do. So little time.

  17. Thank you, again for your answer.

    I’d be glad to volunteer as your personal assistant or help in any way possible. You have my email address if I can do anything at all for you. It would be an honor.

  18. Haha! Sally, you really pissed off Matthew Smithers. Not sure if you saw his comment but, I had to laugh out loud. He’s a very powerful man, dontcha know. Ha! I also wonder who your “sidekick” is. It must be another one of feminist pals? I must say that Nicole sure has a lot of crazy supporters. One thing I did notice on his FB is he mentioned he is a pentecostal with a capital “P!” Is there a difference between that and a fundamentalist? To be honest, I think they are all freaks. Sorry if I offended anyone. I remember going to church with one of my friends and her father spoke in tongues, it really freaked me out. Pretty sure they also handled snakes. Anyway, I hope you get a good laugh about Matthew’s post as I did. Happy new year, Sally.

    Matthew on BLH blog: Sally Davis, (and her sidekick) is going to regret tagging me. She got me totally wrong and she has no idea just how powerful I am. For the record, I am no fundamentalist. I translate ancient manuscripts (Koine Greek) into English. I am also not a ‘snake handler’, but I respect their faith. That feminist barked up the wrong tree.

  19. Haha! Sally, you really pissed off Matthew Smithers.

    Somebody sent that to me.

    Odd that he just assumes I’m a “feminist.” And I’m not sure what taking a semester of Greek in some Bible school has to do with being “powerful” unless he thinks he’s going to call down fire from heaven on my head or something.

    But the really interesting thing to me is this. He proves my whole point. I didn’t contact Matthew Smithers. I didn’t tag him. I purposely didn’t tag him. I also didn’t insult him. Yet, he managed to find this blog within hours of my posting that piece. How do you suppose that happened? He couldn’t have Googled his own name and found it, because if you do a Google search for his name, you won’t find this blog. First, there hasn’t been enough time and second, the mention of his name is so minor that Google might never register it.

    So how did he find it?

    🙂

    I was a fundamentalist Christian for more than forty years, so I think I know one when I see one. And Matthew fits the basic description. He’s from the more charismatic branch of the tree. My crowd was too dignified for that, but equally deluded.

  20. He’s a legend in his own mind. Powerful I guess because he finds it simple to hack WordPress blogs. Guess if the blog goes down we’ll know who hit it, huh?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *