• 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

roguenuke said:
You aren't just risking your own life though by running back into a fire. You also risk the lives of the responders who have to go in after you to try to save you.
Click to expand...

The responders wouldn't need to go in after me. In this case, they didn't go in after the boy. Had they "done their job" and tried to save the boy, the father wouldn't have been tased in the first place now would he? So your logic is flawed in a big way.
 
RedAkston said:
The responders wouldn't need to go in after me. In this case, they didn't go in after the boy. Had they "done their job" and tried to save the boy, the father wouldn't have been tased in the first place now would he? So your logic is flawed in a big way.
Click to expand...

It would be their job to do it if they are right there and see you go in. Plus, they would be able to determine where you are, but they couldn't automatically know where the boy is or even whether he is alive still. You would have just went into the house and aren't likely to die within seconds.
 
RedAkston said:
Absolutely not. Any decent parent would risk their life to save that of their child. I would not have held the police accountable if they let him go in, not one little bit.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if you would have or not, others might have. And no first responder, no police officer (as far as we know) is able to read people so well that they would know whether or not it would happen. And they couldn't possibly know if your kin wouldn't hold them responsible financially for running into a burning house.
 
RedAkston said:
If I want to risk my own life to save the life of my son or stepson, that's my decision. The police overstepped here big time.
Click to expand...
I agree with you completely...and yet...I understand the police action as well. This is a horrible position all around. Im sure there will be a lawsuit, Im sure there will be some sort of settlement, I hope the family finds a small amount of peace in their compensation and I hope the police officer sleeps well at night knowing he saved a mans life, enabling him the opportunity to hate him for a very very long time.

Kobayashi Maru ...no win situations suck.
 
HonestJoe said:
As I said, whether their method of preventing him going in was valid depends on details of the situation none of us know. That's not really the focus of the objections (though it's probably the reason it was reported at all, "tazer" being one of the media's magic words these days).

If this had been an article about police officers tackling the guy trying to run in to the burning building, you'd all be condemning them all the same and again, if it had been about police (and fire-fighters) standing aside letting the man ran to his death, you'd all be condemning them. There is no action or inaction the police officers could have taken in the situation they were put in that would prevent them being condemned.

The report states that the fire-fighters, professionals with all the protective equipment and in general no shortage of courage when it comes to putting themselves in danger to rescue people, couldn't get in to the burning building. Are you saying they should have gone in anyway, because they "may" have been able to save the boy. Should the police officers followed them in because they "may" have been able to save the boy. Maybe all the neighbours and passers by should have followed them in too. After all, any one of them "may" have been able to save the boy. Put bluntly, how many people would you expect to throw themselves in to the flames before you accept the risk to too great compared to the ever diminishing chance of saving the child?
Click to expand...

Sorry, my mistake. It wasn't supposed to be a direct quote to you, just a general reply; however, to the bold, I'm saying they should have the choice to if initial restraint by the police failed.
 
roguenuke said:
It doesn't matter if you would have or not, others might have. And no first responder, no police officer (as far as we know) is able to read people so well that they would know whether or not it would happen. And they couldn't possibly know if your kin wouldn't hold them responsible financially for running into a burning house.
Click to expand...

Its the mans life, property, and kin. The police have absolutely NO business interfering at ALL. All the police had to say is if he goes he's on his own. That's it. I for one, very much disagree with your position on this case.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Its the mans life, property, and kin. The police have absolutely NO business interfering at ALL. All the police had to say is if he goes he's on his own. That's it. I for one, very much disagree with your position on this case.
Click to expand...

Yes they do. That is part of being an emergency responder. Whether people agree or not, the police and the firemen are there to help and save people, and sometimes that means saving people from themselves. Running into a burning house that firefighters cannot even go into because of the heat is a foolish and extremely dangerous thing to do and first responders cannot allow people to do it just because they are emotionally unable to know how foolish the action would be.

It isn't that simple. They cannot simply say "he is on his own" because everyone and their brother would be questioning why the police or the emergency personnel were allowing that emotionally distraught man to make such a decision.
 
roguenuke said:
Yes they do. That is part of being an emergency responder. Whether people agree or not, the police and the firemen are there to help and save people, and sometimes that means saving people from themselves. Running into a burning house that firefighters cannot even go into because of the heat is a foolish and extremely dangerous thing to do and first responders cannot allow people to do it just because they are emotionally unable to know how foolish the action would be.

It isn't that simple. They cannot simply say "he is on his own" because everyone and their brother would be questioning why the police or the emergency personnel were allowing that emotionally distraught man to make such a decision.
Click to expand...

Actually it is that simple. The man may be emotionally distraught, but it is inconsequential because it is the mans decision and his alone. The police do not have a right to interfere. No authority whatsoever. If it was my house and my children, what those officers did would be tantamount to starting a shooting war with me regardless of their intentions. So what if people question if the department let the man in, its the mans house and child and his natural sovereign right to do as he see fit regardless what the authorities think. If he wishes to sacrifice his life in vain foolhardy attempt to save his child, who are you or I to tell him no. They have NO business whatsoever standing in that mans way. NONE. I remain most adamant about that and find what they did egregious in the extreme.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Actually it is that simple. The man may be emotionally distraught, but it is inconsequential because it is the mans decision and his alone. The police do not have a right to interfere. No authority whatsoever. If it was my house and my children, what those officers did would be tantamount to starting a shooting war with me regardless of their intentions. So what if people question if the department let the man in, its the mans house and child and his natural sovereign right to do as he see fit regardless what the authorities think. If he wishes to sacrifice his life in vain foolhardy attempt to save his child, who are you or I to tell him no. They have NO business whatsoever standing in that mans way. NONE. I remain most adamant about that and find what they did egregious in the extreme.
Click to expand...

It is very consequential to the issue. Emotional moments cause us to do rash things. You should not allow people to do things that would harm them due to their emotional state, which is a rather temporary emotional state.

We are the people who live with him. We are people in the society that he has chosen to live in and that is how our society views such things. You can disagree but the majority of people would much rather be saved from doing something foolish if in the right emotional state and that is how our first responders need to treat people, as if they would rather live than foolishly attempt something that won't in all likelihood achieve that attempt (saving a life in this case) and would make things worse by getting themselves killed.

How would his wife feel if she lost both her son and her husband and come to find out her husband died 5 feet in the door not even close to where the son is? She would have just lost both of them for nothing. If he thought rationally about it, I doubt that would be what he would really want.
 
sookster said:
I will say this again.

There are states that are making it illegal to hire new police recruits with high IQs.

Police are ****ing stupid. They are drunk with their power and they don't even have college degrees.
Click to expand...

Don't say it again until you post a credible link that proves your theory. I will say, however, that I'd be surprised if IQ weren't taken into account when hiring for many positions -- not just police officers. However. You are making it sound as though they are being dumbed down. I am positive that's not the case.

Your disdain for coppers is duly noted.
 
RedAkston said:
Absolutely not. Any decent parent would risk their life to save that of their child. I would not have held the police accountable if they let him go in, not one little bit.
Click to expand...
Parents can lie, steal, maim and kill for their children. That doesn't make it right. The very fact that parents will do pretty much anything to try to protect their children is the reason calmer minds sometimes need to overrule them.

We will have to agree to differ on our prediction of your reaction in the hypothetical situation of an article highlighting how police officers stood aside as a man in his pyjamas ran in to his death in a burring building fire-fighters had already deemed inaccessible. I hope you can at least agree that there would be, in general, just as much condemnation aimed at the police in that situation as there is here now.
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
It is very consequential to the issue. Emotional moments cause us to do rash things. You should not allow people to do things that would harm them due to their emotional state, which is a rather temporary emotional state.

We are the people who live with him. We are people in the society that he has chosen to live in and that is how our society views such things. You can disagree but the majority of people would much rather be saved from doing something foolish if in the right emotional state and that is how our first responders need to treat people, as if they would rather live than foolishly attempt something that won't in all likelihood achieve that attempt (saving a life in this case) and would make things worse by getting themselves killed.

How would his wife feel if she lost both her son and her husband and come to find out her husband died 5 feet in the door not even close to where the son is? She would have just lost both of them for nothing. If he thought rationally about it, I doubt that would be what he would really want.
Click to expand...

Its not their decision to make. Never has been, and for me never will be. I don't live with the man, you don't live with man. Society doesn't live with that man. Its not your or mines or societies, place or call to make these kind of decisions for others. They are their decisions ALONE. You or I or society don't live with the consequences, they however do. It is such a profound lack of respect to deny someone the decision to attempt a futile effort to save their loved ones. I will NEVER abrogate that kind of decision to someone else, and I would EXPECT my decision to be respected irregardless the potential harmful outcome to my person.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Its not their decision to make. Never has been, and for me never will be. I don't live with the man, you don't live with man. Society doesn't live with that man. Its not your or mines or societies, place or call to make these kind of decisions for others. They are their decisions ALONE. You or I or society don't live with the consequences, they however do. It is such a profound lack of respect to deny someone the decision to attempt a futile effort to save their loved ones. I will NEVER abrogate that kind of decision to someone else, and I would EXPECT my decision to be respected irregardless the potential harmful outcome to my person.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. That is what comes from living in a society. Just as police/first responders will attempt to stop someone from attempting suicide if they know of a likely attempt (jumper, caller, whatever). Even if the person is simply going to jump off a bridge. In fact, drivers would be better off if the guy was allowed to jump, yet we stop them because it is likely that the feelings that put them up there to jump are temporary and despite it being their life, we still try to save them. It is the right thing to do. It is right to stop someone from doing something stupid that they wouldn't do if they could think more rationally about it (opinion, sure, but still something felt that is right by much of society).

And it isn't just you that is affected by the decision though. Others are too. What if someone sees you run in and wants to save you? Kinda like the don't go check on someone who is passed out in a tank. You end up with several people dead because each of them were foolishly trying to save someone without knowing what the situation was.
 
roguenuke said:
Yes it is. That is what comes from living in a society. Just as police/first responders will attempt to stop someone from attempting suicide if they know of a likely attempt (jumper, caller, whatever). Even if the person is simply going to jump off a bridge. In fact, drivers would be better off if the guy was allowed to jump, yet we stop them because it is likely that the feelings that put them up there to jump are temporary and despite it being their life, we still try to save them. It is the right thing to do. It is right to stop someone from doing something stupid that they wouldn't do if they could think more rationally about it (opinion, sure, but still something felt that is right by much of society).

And it isn't just you that is affected by the decision though. Others are too. What if someone sees you run in and wants to save you? Kinda like the don't go check on someone who is passed out in a tank. You end up with several people dead because each of them were foolishly trying to save someone without knowing what the situation was.
Click to expand...

We are diametrically opposed, you see it your way, I see it mine. You think I am wrong, I think you are wrong. All I know is this, if I was stopped like that at my home from attempting to save a family member from a fire or other catastrophe by the police or whatever other emergency service was there, that would be the start of a shooting war. I would consider the act unforgivable and would seek blood as payment. The way I see it you don't step in my way in my attempt however futile to save a family member.
Its one thing if the responders say "Hey think about what you are doing, think about the rest of your family.", its an entirely other thing to physically stop them. There's no way in hell you can get me to agree otherwise.
 
PirateMk1 said:
We are diametrically opposed, you see it your way, I see it mine. You think I am wrong, I think you are wrong. All I know is this, if I was stopped like that at my home from attempting to save a family member from a fire or other catastrophe by the police or whatever other emergency service was there, that would be the start of a shooting war. I would consider the act unforgivable and would seek blood as payment. The way I see it you don't step in my way in my attempt however futile to save a family member.
Its one thing if the responders say "Hey think about what you are doing, think about the rest of your family.", its an entirely other thing to physically stop them. There's no way in hell you can get me to agree otherwise.
Click to expand...

And you would be in big trouble, likely dead if necessary but definitely going to see professional mental help and also likely facing charges if you actually harmed someone, if you did something so irrational to people trying to save your life. Whether you agree with the policies or laws or not, the police and other first responders must try to save you, even from yourself and foolish decisions.
 
sookster said:
I will say this again.

There are states that are making it illegal to hire new police recruits with high IQs.

Police are ****ing stupid. They are drunk with their power and they don't even have college degrees.
Click to expand...

Depends on the city. If you don't have at least a 2 year degree, or military experience as an MP, you will never be hired by the Houston Police Department.
 
Gaius46 said:
Exposing oneself to a risk that might lead to dying is not suicide. If it were mountain climbers, skydivers and many others would be in jail.


Half of me says that it's a judgment call and the authorities have no business making it for someone else. Nor is it their place to save someone from themselves. On the other it's hard to imagine that the father's decision here had a rational basis.
Click to expand...

What about mountain climbing in an area where it is prohibited because it is known to cause fatalities? I'm guessing authorities would have some authority to intervene.

As I said before - I'm not making a judgement. This is a heartbreaking story and the stun-gun use seems to have gone from precautionary to malicious which, regrettably, is common police behavior.

I'll bet the police will not be found at fault in any way. If I'm wrong....I'll be pleased.
 
RedAkston said:
Missouri man trying to save stepson from fire hit with stun gun by police | Fox News



Not sure why it took more than a week for this to make national headlines, but this is just sad. The police absolutely should not have done this. This is disturbing to say the least.
Click to expand...

this is one of those cases where the cops were in a no win situation. stop the guy from going in and people complain that they didn't allow the guy the chance to save his step-son. let the guy go in and he dies and people would complain that they should have stopped him.
 
Wow, talk about a lose-lose decision by the cop. We say that the Step Dad will live with this, (As he surely will) but I think that the cop might have trouble sleeping as well. If I'm the cop though. I let the Dad go. I couldn't imagine losing one of my children period, and especially in such a horrifying manner.

Tim-
 
RedAkston said:
If I want to risk my own life to save the life of my son or stepson, that's my decision. The police overstepped here big time.
Click to expand...

Actually, no it's not, not once responders have taken charge of the scene. They have the authority and are legally responsible, they're on the hook for what happens, you aren't.
 
roguenuke said:
And you would be in big trouble, likely dead if necessary but definitely going to see professional mental help and also likely facing charges if you actually harmed someone, if you did something so irrational to people trying to save your life. Whether you agree with the policies or laws or not, the police and other first responders must try to save you, even from yourself and foolish decisions.
Click to expand...

Like I said we disagree profoundly. There are very few things that make me very adamant and this is one. I will discuss this and my wishes with my own fire dept.and police and ascertain their positions and act accordingly.
 
I see this as a no win for the cops. Save the man, people blame you. Let the man die, people blame you. They made the best possible decision by saving at least one life. He can hate them all he wants but they went with the decision that was most in line with police procedure.
 
clownboy said:
Actually, no it's not, not once responders have taken charge of the scene. They have the authority and are legally responsible, they're on the hook for what happens, you aren't.
Click to expand...

in this day and age, I could easily see the family suing the police dept if they had let the guy go in and he'd died or been injured.
 
HonestJoe said:
I think the people condemning the police here are being grossly dishonest, if only to themselves. I don't doubt for a moment that, had this been an article about the police just standing by and letting the guy run in to an inferno to his inevitable death, they would be among the masses of people calling for their heads?

They acted on instinct to try to save someone's life, ironically the same thing the man himself thought he was doing too. Whether they did it in the right way can only be honestly assessed by someone who knows all the details of the situation at the time (which none of us do).

The accusations of using the tazer after he was handcuffed clearly needs investigation but, without any further information, that's separate to the principle of their initial act.
Click to expand...

Why did, what I assume were several adults, need to use a tazer to stop him? How combative was the man? Was every effort made to save the child?
Too many unanswered questions to judge either way.
 
Lovebug said:
Why did, what I assume were several adults, need to use a tazer to stop him? How combative was the man? Was every effort made to save the child?
Too many unanswered questions to judge either way.
Click to expand...

The firefighters, who were onscene, determined (according to one of the reports I read) that the fire was too hot for them to go in right after they (in their protective gear) got the guy out of the way. The police tried to stop the guy from going in through other methods, but it didn't work. He made it to the door before they tazered him. It is sad, but he would have likely been another person needing to be rescued had he made it in and in all likelihood he wouldn't have saved the son. Heck, it is even possible that he wouldn't have seen his son who was in fact just 12-15 feet inside the door. But smoke in a burning house is heavy and not easy to see through. And given the unknowns of the situation, had there been a chance to save the boy at all, his trying to get inside without proper equipment could have made the firefighters' efforts to save the child harder.

Cops Taser stepdad trying to save son from fire

It is sad and tragic, but unfortunately it happens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom