• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Missouri man trying to save stepson from fire hit with stun gun by police

He does not have the moral right to throw his life away, in a vain attempt to save his family. If nothing else, he has an obligation to the rest of his family, not to destroy his life on the same night as they lose their son.

Sure he does. We had a situation here last year where three kids got swept off the rocks and into a churning ocean. The instructor didn't hesitate and jumped in to save them even though they disappeared instantly. He was never seen again either. He left behind a wife and two kids. To NOT attempt to save those in your care is immoral and often illegal.

In a broader perspective: You cannot unilaterally declare the right to do whatever you want, because you perceive that your family is in danger. You could drive a fleet of trucks through that loophole.

Then after the fact you might get in trouble...

In fact, if we believe his account, he already fulfilled his obligation; they tried to save the child before escaping the house. Unfortunately, he failed. He was unable to rescue the child before leaving. The odds that he would be able to go back in and save the child, when the fire had gotten worse, was pretty much zero.

So what?

Quite the opposite. The job of the cops is to prevent further loss of life. If they let people do whatever they wanted at the scene of a fire, the number of deaths in fires would skyrocket.

It is the call of the fire chief... not the cops.

Well then, I hope you're prepared to get hit by a taser.

And then I hope the cop is ready to get beat up...

In fact, the "to hell with the cops, I'll do what I want" attitude is precisely why police are granted broad authority in these situations.

And why we see more and more innocent people shot by police too...
 
I think you mean some of my other post this was about the mother having to bury her husband and son in which no one has addressed yet . I'm not sure which one you are addressing . Its also the mothers life as well who knows what the pressure of losing a husband and son in the same night would do to her . Its not just his life and his child's their is a entire family. Since even the firefighter deemed it to hot the child would most likely would have succumbed to the fire before the father would have stumbled( stumbled because it would be almost impossible see) to his child.

I know a family this happened to and the wife was glad her husband tried, even though he died. She expressed pride in his actions.
 
They didnt even let this guy get burns on his hands..... They ****in tazed him lulz. I bet they cared as about as much a the security at the "dotn taze me bro!" incident. They were simply scared for what would go down on the report at the end of shift.

Actually, from what I read, they did. In fact, he had fought his way to the door and got it opened before they were able to taze him. It is in one of the earlier links in this thread. He had to be treated for burns after this (although it isn't really clear if the burns were actually from his attempt here or from earlier).
 
Good. I don't. This was a fluid scene. If the fire chief called it then I would agree but I have not heard that this was the case. The cop, unless the fire chief called it, has not business doing what he did. If it was a school that was in lock down because of an armed intruder, the cop would have a say since that is a police controlled situation. A fire is not. Evidence of the fire chief calling it and I will shut up about it. Until then... nope.

I'm sure a cop will have knowledge of fire since they do show up and I'm not a firefighter and even I know the dangers of going inside of a burning building . Even if the fire was not a fluid scene without the knowledge of what kind and how bad the fire is and you allow people to go inside it would be something you would not give a green light towards . This is also a cop controlled situation since their is a reason why cops respond to a fire . If their is accident on the road and the firefighter's respond to use the jaws of life does it make it so its not a police controlled situation ?
 
I know a family this happened to and the wife was glad her husband tried, even though he died. She expressed pride in his actions.

One out of how many ? Just because someone says something doesn't mean they actually believe it and is not using it has a device not to feel contempt for the dead one .
 
I know a family this happened to and the wife was glad her husband tried, even though he died. She expressed pride in his actions.

Everyone isn't the same. I would be crushed if my husband was lost to the fire as well. It would be very conflicting emotionally. There would be a little pride, but that would most likely be greatly overshadowed by the grief for losing my husband as well as my son. And I don't see many women being upset with their husbands for not going into the fire if it was too hot for firefighters. In fact, any woman who was upset/longterm blaming their husband/boyfriend, is really pretty unstable if she can't understand that her husband would have most likely died going into an inferno to attempt, foolishly, to save their child. And it would be really wrong to blame him for not being able to get passed the cops and/or firemen to save the child.
 
Sure he does. We had a situation here last year where three kids got swept off the rocks and into a churning ocean. The instructor didn't hesitate and jumped in to save them even though they disappeared instantly. He was never seen again either. He left behind a wife and two kids. To NOT attempt to save those in your care is immoral and often illegal.



Then after the fact you might get in trouble...



So what?



It is the call of the fire chief... not the cops.



And then I hope the cop is ready to get beat up...



And why we see more and more innocent people shot by police too...

For some reason people think cops aren't human beings as well . If you had basic knowledge of a fire and you saw someone go into a fire in which no one has any knowledge on at the time and could and most likely died would you stop them they have their own morale obligations as well when they put on that badge . If the man died in that fire you know who would be held responsible the police for letting a man go into a fire no one has any knowledge on and get sued . Their are morale and liability resons why a cop would stop a man from entering a building that is on FIRE .
 
Good. I don't. This was a fluid scene. If the fire chief called it then I would agree but I have not heard that this was the case. The cop, unless the fire chief called it, has not business doing what he did. If it was a school that was in lock down because of an armed intruder, the cop would have a say since that is a police controlled situation. A fire is not. Evidence of the fire chief calling it and I will shut up about it. Until then... nope.

Maybe you should reread some of the story. First of all, the firemen were onscene. They said that it was too hot, at that time, to go inside the house even in their gear. Second, I have seen reports that say that one of the police officers (of the two) that tazed the guy might have actually been a firefighter himself (it sounded like they have some that work as LEOs). But even if this weren't the case, police officers still work with firefighters and are trained to at least recognize that it is dangerous for a civilian to try to enter a burning house. It isn't that hard to figure out. It is part of their job to keep people from doing stuff like this.

The following should be enough to tell anyone that the father should not have been allowed in there:

"Jenne said a firefighter tried save Riley, but the house was too hot to enter."

Family outraged after police use stun gun on stepdad trying to save 3-year-old son from fire - CBS News
 
I'm sorry, but you don't get to declare what is a vain attempt here.
You're right. That's the job of the firefighters and the cops, who decided that it was going to be a vain attempt.


If he thinks he had a good chance to save his kid then that is all that matters.
No, it really isn't. The guy had already failed in his first attempt, the second floor was already in flames, he could easily have caused a backdraft just by opening a door, he was hysterical, he had no equipment, no training... and no chance.


When I saved my girlfriend from getting raped at sixteen from three men did I have a good chance to save her?
I have no idea. (Nor do I take tales of heroism told via the Internet all that seriously.) However, the situation is not comparable, as I assume there were not police officers already on the scene arresting the potential rapists.


You don't get to tell other people when they have fulfilled their moral obligations. You don't even have an opinion on the matter.
I have just as much right to express my opinions as anyone else. Thanks for your bluntly self-serving attempts to refuse to hear any other opinions on the matter.


No. His job is to protect my life from outside harm from another. If I'm the one doing myself harm his job is to butt out.
If you are harming yourself, and the police officer is able to prevent it, then they have a moral obligation to do so.

Or is it beyond your comprehension that a total stranger can have an obligation to help someone in their community...?


If he doesn't want to save my kid and I decide that I want to do just that then he can either agree with me or shut up.
If the officer has the ability to save the child, and refuses to do so without a valid justification, then the officer is morally responsible for a failure to act.

Along the exact same lines, if the officer has the ability to stop the hysterical barefoot man in pajamas from running headlong into a burning house and getting himself killed trying to save a child that is almost certainly dead already, and the officer refuses to do so, then the officer is morally responsible for a failure to act.

And again, I am absolutely certain that if the cops did nothing, they would face serious ethical and legal consequences -- including, but not limited to, a lawsuit by the family for their failure to save the husband.


Just another reason to never involve the state in anything you do, ever.
On the contrary, these kinds of situations are precisely why we need a government. We cannot train every single individual to be a police officer, a firefighter, an EMT, or a dozen other jobs where someone else needs to take control temporarily in order to keep people from (pointlessly) killing themselves, or from further harm to spread to the community at large.


It's not a "to hell with the cops attitude", but a leave me the hell alone attitude. I'm not harming anyone and in fact I'm trying to save someone, so he has no reason to do anything towards me. If he doesn't want to help me for all I care he can leave.
Yeah, except that the husband in this scenario is endangering numerous people.

• He's obviously endangering himself, if not guaranteeing his own death.
• He's endangering the firefighters, who have the duty of rescuing him when he rushes into a burning building.
• In scenarios where firefighters inside the building, he's going to endanger them by confusing an already difficult situation.
• The failure to act means that dozens, if not hundreds of people will die, by trying to be The Big Hollywood Hero and run into burning buildings.

And no, the police officers cannot leave under those circumstances. They have a duty to stop people from causing their own deaths, by doing completely moronic things like hysterically running into a burning building with zero safety gear and no training.
 
I'm sure a cop will have knowledge of fire since they do show up and I'm not a firefighter and even I know the dangers of going inside of a burning building . Even if the fire was not a fluid scene without the knowledge of what kind and how bad the fire is and you allow people to go inside it would be something you would not give a green light towards . This is also a cop controlled situation since their is a reason why cops respond to a fire . If their is accident on the road and the firefighter's respond to use the jaws of life does it make it so its not a police controlled situation ?

No. The fire department (chief) is in charge and the police act in support capacity... mainly border security of the scene, witness control, etc. The chief is essentially a dictator in that situation.

One out of how many ? Just because someone says something doesn't mean they actually believe it and is not using it has a device not to feel contempt for the dead one .

Out of how many what?

...and don't go trying to be a pop-psychologist off of here say. She was proud that he attempted to save others but sad that he died. I have saved multiple people's lives though only once was my own life in jeopardy. I went for it anyway. The kid is alive because I reacted.

For some reason people think cops aren't human beings as well . If you had basic knowledge of a fire and you saw someone go into a fire in which no one has any knowledge on at the time and could and most likely died would you stop them they have their own morale obligations as well when they put on that badge . If the man died in that fire you know who would be held responsible the police for letting a man go into a fire no one has any knowledge on and get sued . Their are morale and liability resons why a cop would stop a man from entering a building that is on FIRE .

In a sue happy society people would try to blame him just as they are trying to blame him for stopping the guy. In a true universal health care and non-sue happy society that doesn't enter into the equation.
 
Maybe you should reread some of the story. First of all, the firemen were onscene. They said that it was too hot, at that time, to go inside the house even in their gear. Second, I have seen reports that say that one of the police officers (of the two) that tazed the guy might have actually been a firefighter himself (it sounded like they have some that work as LEOs). But even if this weren't the case, police officers still work with firefighters and are trained to at least recognize that it is dangerous for a civilian to try to enter a burning house. It isn't that hard to figure out. It is part of their job to keep people from doing stuff like this.

The following should be enough to tell anyone that the father should not have been allowed in there:

"Jenne said a firefighter tried save Riley, but the house was too hot to enter."

Family outraged after police use stun gun on stepdad trying to save 3-year-old son from fire - CBS News

I read the story and I understand fire scenes better than you... that being said they did what they did and it was responsible, just not moral. I would be outraged if they had tried to stop me as well. Nothing wrong with that. I don't think anybody is saying that they should have stepped aside and let him run in, just that they are outraged that they stopped him. If that sounds like a paradox then that is fine too.

Everyone isn't the same. I would be crushed if my husband was lost to the fire as well. It would be very conflicting emotionally. There would be a little pride, but that would most likely be greatly overshadowed by the grief for losing my husband as well as my son. And I don't see many women being upset with their husbands for not going into the fire if it was too hot for firefighters. In fact, any woman who was upset/longterm blaming their husband/boyfriend, is really pretty unstable if she can't understand that her husband would have most likely died going into an inferno to attempt, foolishly, to save their child. And it would be really wrong to blame him for not being able to get passed the cops and/or firemen to save the child.

Nobody would blame him for not going in...
 
I read the story and I understand fire scenes better than you... that being said they did what they did and it was responsible, just not moral. I would be outraged if they had tried to stop me as well. Nothing wrong with that. I don't think anybody is saying that they should have stepped aside and let him run in, just that they are outraged that they stopped him. If that sounds like a paradox then that is fine too.

No. Morals are individual beliefs about right or wrong. It was absolutely moral for the police to stop the man from giving up his life for the almost nil possibility of saving his son and in fact very likely putting his son in more danger from that given, unknowable point in time of what the outcome would be. In all likelihood, his actions would more likely put his son in more danger than they would work to save the child, despite his efforts. Believing otherwise is simply ignoring many facts about the situation and how fires and fire rescues work.

Nobody would blame him for not going in...

I don't agree.

First we have people on this board, in this thread, who have practically swore that any parent that didn't try to go in was basically a failure of a parent. I would call that "blaming" him for not going in. Heck, I think someone said that such parents (those that wouldn't try to enter the fire) were "scum" or something like that.

Second, I in fact know of a case in the past where a father's appearance of not being willing to go in (according to witnesses after the fact at least, despite statements to the contrary during the event) actually went into helping to get him convicted for arson (although a bunch of junk fire science was the main issue), in a case where they have basically proven that it was actually most likely that the fire was an accident. And the reason this belief was even possible to work toward such a conviction is because of that stubborn belief that parents should try to enter into a fire despite better judgement (heck, they guy actually did try to get back in, with burns to prove it).

Cameron Todd Willingham, Texas, and the death penalty : The New Yorker

Cameron Todd Willingham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to their sworn statements, both Brandice Barbee and Diane Barbee urged Willingham to return into the house to rescue his children, as according to Brandice Barbee, "all I could see was smoke".[15] According to Brandice, he refused, and went to move his car away from the fire before returning to sit on a nearby lawn "not once attempting to go inside to rescue his children". Once the fire had reached flashover and the fire department arrived, Willingham became far more agitated, to the point of being restrained by emergency services.

So yes, there would be people trying to blame this guy as well for not trying to get to his child (unfortunately) and that is due to this messed up belief that people should go into a burning building and be a hero. I'm not actually one of those. I understand both and more types of reactions to such circumstances in that people are different. They react differently to the circumstances they are given, particularly when it comes to something like fire. But that doesn't mean that if we have emergency responders on scene (such as police/firefighters) that they shouldn't maintain a cooler head and work to minimize the casualties, because that is what they are trained to do and it makes their job easier in rescuing any person who was truly trapped inside if they are not also having to try to rescue would-be heroes who are trying to help but just not really in a position to do so.
 
No. Morals are individual beliefs about right or wrong. It was absolutely moral for the police to stop the man from giving up his life for the almost nil possibility of saving his son and in fact very likely putting his son in more danger from that given, unknowable point in time of what the outcome would be. In all likelihood, his actions would more likely put his son in more danger than they would work to save the child, despite his efforts. Believing otherwise is simply ignoring many facts about the situation and how fires and fire rescues work.



I don't agree.

First we have people on this board, in this thread, who have practically swore that any parent that didn't try to go in was basically a failure of a parent. I would call that "blaming" him for not going in. Heck, I think someone said that such parents (those that wouldn't try to enter the fire) were "scum" or something like that.

Second, I in fact know of a case in the past where a father's appearance of not being willing to go in (according to witnesses after the fact at least, despite statements to the contrary during the event) actually went into helping to get him convicted for arson (although a bunch of junk fire science was the main issue), in a case where they have basically proven that it was actually most likely that the fire was an accident. And the reason this belief was even possible to work toward such a conviction is because of that stubborn belief that parents should try to enter into a fire despite better judgement (heck, they guy actually did try to get back in, with burns to prove it).

Cameron Todd Willingham, Texas, and the death penalty : The New Yorker

Cameron Todd Willingham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



So yes, there would be people trying to blame this guy as well for not trying to get to his child (unfortunately) and that is due to this messed up belief that people should go into a burning building and be a hero. I'm not actually one of those. I understand both and more types of reactions to such circumstances in that people are different. They react differently to the circumstances they are given, particularly when it comes to something like fire. But that doesn't mean that if we have emergency responders on scene (such as police/firefighters) that they shouldn't maintain a cooler head and work to minimize the casualties, because that is what they are trained to do and it makes their job easier in rescuing any person who was truly trapped inside if they are not also having to try to rescue would-be heroes who are trying to help but just not really in a position to do so.


As to those that would blame him for NOT going in... I missed those posts and don't agree. One has to be there AND be rational. I was also thinking more along the lines of my situation where my daughter was swept out to sea by a small rogue wave. I went in and got her, though it was difficult. My other daughter luckily was swept up the beach and ended up being ok. That really isn't the same so I stopped equating the two. The more I think about this individual case I think that the cop did the right thing. If it wasn't so clear cut though I wouldn't agree.
 
As to those that would blame him for NOT going in... I missed those posts and don't agree. One has to be there AND be rational. I was also thinking more along the lines of my situation where my daughter was swept out to sea by a small rogue wave. I went in and got her, though it was difficult. My other daughter luckily was swept up the beach and ended up being ok. That really isn't the same so I stopped equating the two. The more I think about this individual case I think that the cop did the right thing. If it wasn't so clear cut though I wouldn't agree.

I think it comes down to circumstances. I'm not saying that it is always wrong (I don't actually think it is wrong morally for anyone to attempt to save a loved one if their intention is purely that, which especially in this I believe it was) or even a bad idea to run into a house on fire to save someone. I just think that there is a line between when such a decision is foolish vice brave, based on many factors, including a few being who else is on scene, how bad the fire actually is, what the person is wearing, how much experience the person has, how long the fire has been burning. and many, many more. I love hero stories, they warm my heart, especially when it happens in real life. But I don't think this one had a very good chance at all of being a hero story, but rather a larger tragedy, had those police not stopped that man from entering that house.
 
No. The fire department (chief) is in charge and the police act in support capacity... mainly border security of the scene, witness control, etc. The chief is essentially a dictator in that situation.



Out of how many what?

...and don't go trying to be a pop-psychologist off of here say. She was proud that he attempted to save others but sad that he died. I have saved multiple people's lives though only once was my own life in jeopardy. I went for it anyway. The kid is alive because I reacted.



In a sue happy society people would try to blame him just as they are trying to blame him for stopping the guy. In a true universal health care and non-sue happy society that doesn't enter into the equation.

This is a very sue happy society healthcare has nothing to do with it since this is not a true universal kind of country Burglar sues Calif. homeowner, 90, who returned fire - Crimesider - CBS News . Robbers suing homeowners kind of happy sue society . One out of how many people who lost a loved who is content in their actions that lead to their death . Of course your life would be only once in jeopardy since you said you were a fire fighter and I'm pretty sure firefighters have gear and are trained . Good for you but your trained aren't you so the kid should be alive . ( I was really hoping to go pop psychologist .)
 
Back
Top Bottom