• 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

VanceMack said:
You are right in that people won't agree. You are not right that it isn't the police officers job to make that call. They do that with suicidal people all the time. The law specifically gives them the right to act in situations like that.
Click to expand...

Your talking to someone who routinely breaks the law and only follows it as convenience. The law doesn't mean crap to me. That's neither here nor there. We wont agree on this ever. I sincerely hope if any officer that steps in my way rethinks their position if they want to go home, there are certain things you just don't get in the way of. Good damn thing I have fire suppression equipment installed at my residence. You don't agree of course but you have your opinion I have mine.
 
PirateMk1 said:
They weren't trying to save the child because they deemed they couldn't. They don't HAVE to go after me it THEIR choice whether or not to do so, I wont and don't expect them to. Its MY RIGHT to make the call not your not theirs and that is the point you don't get, and apparently never will. I don't give a goddamn about the peoples perception of the police, and to be blunt neither should the police. If they are too busy worrying about the perception of themselves they are in the wrong ****ing field.
Click to expand...

And both you and Red are wrong. You are putting others at risk, including very likely the person you are trying to save.

And why in most cases would you be doing this? Maybe pride, maybe just foolishness, maybe just stupidity. But in reality you are likely to do more harm than good in a situation similar to the one described by the OP. You don't get it because you want to believe that your actions would be better than nothing. Just because neither of you can understand that the likelihood of that being true isn't very high at all, doesn't mean you are right.

And, no, you do not have an absolute right to put yourself (and others) at more risk for your personal feelings, despite your beliefs on this. The police and other emergency personnel stop people from jumping off bridges, shooting themselves, running into burning houses/buildings, or trying other things that put them and/or others in danger all the time because that is part of their job, no matter those people's personal feelings about their right to do those things.

You know what. Neither of you understand that I understand those feelings that would make you say that you would go in after your children despite the police or other personnel there. Both my husband and I have discussed this and feel that either of us would try to go in to save our children as well. However, unlike you and Red, we would also understand other, clearer heads stopping us afterward (hopefully before we became a burden to the efforts) because in that circumstance people are not thinking correctly and that does lead to putting others in danger, including those who might be rescued.
 
PirateMk1 said:
No there isn't a bad guy, but there is a wrong guy and that's the police in this situation. They made the wrong call.
Click to expand...

No they weren't wrong.

What if the man would have run in and stepped on his son because he couldn't see anything through the smoke and the son was trying to get out so wasn't on his bed (I have no idea where he was in fact but that would probably be where the father looked for him)? Firefighters have equipment to help them see through fires, including thermal imaging cameras and lights that allow them to see much better through smoke than the father could have ever hoped to see (especially since the fire happened at night, in the dark to begin with). What if the father would have flared the fire up by bursting open the door (something the firefighters would have likely been more cautious about doing)? What if the father would have knocked some piece of furniture over on his way in causing an obstruction between him and the son or between them and getting out? There are so many ways that an untrained person running into a fire could cause so many more issues for those who are trained to actually do the rescuing. And those issues caused by the untrained loved one could mean the difference between the firefighters being able to rescue the other person and instead having to rescue the "hero".
 
Stun guns should be classified legally as lethal weapons to stop this crap.

How many times did they stun him? And still more after handcuffed? And as the article says it burned him - as that is what electrocuting someone does. It can be so extreme in one instance the police literally burned off a man's genitals with deep 3rd degree burns.

I see NO justification whatsoever for stunning him - and then the absurd statement that he was not charged with a crime as if they gave him a break.

There was no justification for police to stun him to "save him from himself." This was not a suicide attempt. It's not the job of police to decide what risks a person is willing to take in general, let alone to save his son.

Maybe the police should stun all people who are trying to mountain climbing, bungee jumping, swimming or surfing in waters known for sharks and anything else that might be dangerous to "save those people from themselves."

They do go TOO FAR in terms of fire in general. When our warehouse burned up, while they were great in almost every way, they also too the position that we were banned from the building until they said otherwise - even after the fire put out and also then saying they had to go "investigate" the building before allowing us in - no search warrant. We didn't object, but at one point is was annoying and there was damage that otherwise would not have happened as a result.

Declaring stun guns to be lethal weapons would at least stop these instances where police stun people and just keep stunning and stunning and stunning and stunning the person - so very common even after handcuffed. There is almost no instance where I would not rule on a civil case or a criminal case against stunning someone who is handcuffed.

And, as the story says, the man wasn't burned by the fire trying to save his son. He was burned by the police to prevent him from doing so.

Can a citizen stun a police officer to "save him from himself" if s/he believes the police officer is "endangering himself?"
 
RedAkston said:
You're wasting your time if you're trying to convince me that the police officer was in the right. It is not the police officer's job to save me, even if it's "from myself" as you are claiming. A cop that comes between me and trying to save my child is a dead cop. It's just that simple.
Click to expand...


What if they just stood back and let the dad rush into the burning inferno. After a minute he didn't come back out and then the wife ran into it totally unrestrained. After a couple minutes she doesn't exit and other family members have arrived at the fire. A grandfather hobbles up to the front door and enters followed by an uncle. In your eyes the firemen and police just stand back and watch one after another enter the inferno.

There is this trend to paintbrush all groups of people and policemen and firemen have often been brushed less respectifully. But the few firemen I know would all humanly possible try to save a 3 yr olds life. If you don't think that was gut wrenching for them to know child was in that fire and unable to save it then you haven't spent time with firemen.

The time to save that child was the first 5 minutes of that fire. That was the window of time in which the child could have been possibly rescued.
 
Crosscheck said:
A few years back I witness my neighbor's house catch of fire.

Started with the kitchen curtain catching on fire from kitchen appliance. I was in my backyard when I first saw the smoke and thought it was a barbecue and odd because it was only 9 AM. The neighbor ran over to my house for help and I thought "Yeah, let me grab their garden hose and put this out now". My wife called 911 and I sprinted over to their house.
By the time I got around the side of the house to reach the kitchen window the exterior wall of the house had burst into flames. This was beyond garden hose rescue. I remember looking at the neighbor's car parked in the driveway along the side of the house and the mirror was melting off.
The heat is downright unbelievable in such a short period of time. It would still be a few minutes for the police and fire dept got there. By the time that fire truck pulled up that house was engulfed.

I truly think in the case of this thread that child was unfortunately already dead when they tasered the dad.
Click to expand...

I think so to, but still think it was up to the father to decide on the risk to take.
 
joko104 said:
Stun guns should be classified legally as lethal weapons to stop this crap.

How many times did they stun him? And still more after handcuffed? And as the article says it burned him - as that is what electrocuting someone does. It can be so extreme in one instance the police literally burned off a man's genitals with deep 3rd degree burns.

I see NO justification whatsoever for stunning him - and then the absurd statement that he was not charged with a crime as if they gave him a break.

There was no justification for police to stun him to "save him from himself." This was not a suicide attempt. It's not the job of police to decide what risks a person is willing to take in general, let alone to save his son.

Maybe the police should stun all people who are trying to mountain climbing, bungee jumping, swimming or surfing in waters known for sharks and anything else that might be dangerous to "save those people from themselves."

They do go TOO FAR in terms of fire in general. When our warehouse burned up, while they were great in almost every way, they also too the position that we were banned from the building until they said otherwise - even after the fire put out and also then saying they had to go "investigate" the building before allowing us in - no search warrant. We didn't object, but at one point is was annoying and there was damage that otherwise would not have happened as a result.

Declaring stun guns to be lethal weapons would at least stop these instances where police stun people and just keep stunning and stunning and stunning and stunning the person - so very common even after handcuffed. There is almost no instance where I would not rule on a civil case or a criminal case against stunning someone who is handcuffed.

And, as the story says, the man wasn't burned by the fire trying to save his son. He was burned by the police to prevent him from doing so.

Can a citizen stun a police officer to "save him from himself" if s/he believes the police officer is "endangering himself?"
Click to expand...

First of all, he was trying to enter the house and was tasered by two different police officers because he was endangering himself and any possible rescue efforts. The burns were from trying to enter the house, not being tasered. And there has been no confirmation on whether he was tasered or not after being handcuffed, but if he was still being combative with the police after being cuffed, then he needed to be stopped.

Second, anything has a potential for being lethal. Tasers are a low potential. Lethal weapons are those very likely to cause death, such as guns, particularly given that cops are trained to aim for the torso, a pretty lethal place to hit with a bullet (but also the best place to stop a person and a large target area).
 
roguenuke said:
Considering the likely amount of cops on the scene (and if you get confrontational, they are likely to request assistance) and what would likely be you in an emotional state, I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't survive such a situation or at least wouldn't be conscious at the end of it.

But that would very likely be a good reason why the cops used a tazer on the guy in the story. Kinda hard to harm a cop after you've been tazed. You all are acting like it is your right to put others in harms way for a situation that you simply cannot know. The guy in this case had no way of knowing what condition his son was in nor if he really would have been any help to him. And he had no way to know that his trying to "save" his son wouldn't have actually put him in more danger. The same could easily be true for you given such a situation. Would you want to put your child in more danger just because of your pride in insisting that you might be able to save him? Because making the first responders respond to you rather than concentrating on saving your child, putting out the fire, makes it less likely that the child will be saved, if he/she could be.
Click to expand...

If there were that "many cops on the scene" and since cops don't fight fires, there was absolutely NO reason to taser that man. None. Even if they had to stop him (they had NO right to), that did not give reason to taser him. Were they the whimpiest ass cops in the world?
 
Crosscheck said:
What if they just stood back and let the dad rush into the burning inferno. After a minute he didn't come back out and then the wife ran into it totally unrestrained. After a couple minutes she doesn't exit and other family members have arrived at the fire. A grandfather hobbles up to the front door and enters followed by an uncle. In your eyes the firemen and police just stand back and watch one after another enter the inferno.

There is this trend to paintbrush all groups of people and policemen and firemen have often been brushed less respectifully. But the few firemen I know would all humanly possible try to save a 3 yr olds life. If you don't think that was gut wrenching for them to know child was in that fire and unable to save it then you haven't spent time with firemen.

The time to save that child was the first 5 minutes of that fire. That was the window of time in which the child could have been possibly rescued.
Click to expand...

This is a great point.

This is why in the shipyard, whether sailor or civilian, we are taught you never go into a tank or enclosed space to "save" someone who is unconscious because you end up becoming the next one unconscious. Prior to such rules, they actually found lines/piles of guys in such situations because each tried to go into save their buddies and didn't figure out that the gases had overcome them and it would do the same to them. Now instead of one person to save (potentially), there are several.
 
joko104 said:
If there were that "many cops on the scene" and since cops don't fight fires, there was absolutely NO reason to taser that man. None. Even if they had to stop him (they had NO right to), that did not give reason to taser him. Were they the whimpiest ass cops in the world?
Click to expand...

They tried to stop him, he became combative and got away from them. How many cops do you think were on the scene? I only know of two that tasered him. In such a situation, they would definitely be trying not to hurt the guy, and physical restraints can hurt him when he is combative, not to mention hurting the officers (potentially). They had every reason to stop him and use a taser to do it. He was interfering in combating the fire and potentially saving his son by trying to do it himself.
 
specklebang said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm really not a fan of that type of regulation. If someone wishes to test their skills that is their business provided they accept the fact that someone may not come rescue them if they get in trouble.

That said there is at least some legal basis for that type of regulation - access to public lands can be restricted. What's the basis for denying a man access to his own home other than some government official arbitrarily deciding that it was too risky.

I agree. Taser ing the man was probably uncalled for. Could've killed him just as easily as the fire could have.
 
(Fire was just after midnight)

"Riley Rieser was asleep in a bedroom in the home while the boy’s mother, Catherine Miller, and stepfather, Ryan Miller, had fallen asleep watching television in a room in the rear of the home. The fire was reported after Catherine Miller was awakened by smoke. Attempts to reach Riley were unsuccessful as fire and smoke blocked the path to the boy’s room as the blaze engulfed the rear of the home.
The parents were able to reach a rear door and exit the home. Once outside, Ryan Miller kicked in the front door and attempted to make entry to rescue his stepson, officials reported. A Louisiana police officer had to restrain Miller and eventually used a taser gun to subdue him.
Riley Rieser was eventually located near the doorway to the bedroom by the front living room and transported by ambulance to the hospital."


It is very possible the step father COULD have saved that child - although possibly at the cost of his own life or massive 3rd degree burns. Personally, I think a parent has a DUTY to put their life on the line even to TRY to save their child.

Clearly, the little boy had woken up. Had gotten out of bed, was trying to get out, and was found laying on the floor - furthest from the heat, smoke and carbon monoxide. From the fire at our warehouse, it was amazing how much the massive heat had been at the top, with NO damage at actual floor level. With that little boy laying on the floor near the living room (which is usually at the front lower level of the house) means it is NOT certain he could not have been saved.

We also know this was NOT a professional fire department, possibly volunteer, since it took them EIGHT HOURS to put out the fire. Moreover, professional fire fighters have the clothing and gear to essentially going into a wall of flames at least for a few minutes.

So THIS is what seems to have happened. The little boy was unconscious on the floor not that far from the front door. The fire department didn't have the equipment to safely go into a burning building - where "safety" means no risk whatsoever of injury. So they wouldn't go in. The police certainly wouldn't go in.

And the police decided that THEY had the authority to decide whether or not the step father could try to rescue the boy - they themselves unwilling to do so, and decided that it was NOT the step-father's decision, but their own, so tasered him, cuffed him and then kept tasering him after cuffed to shut him up. Then, I suppose, proved they and the fire department were correct that the boy couldnt' be rescued because he wasn't?

I think it is possible the step father could have saved that boy, but it would have cost him his life for horrific burns - that the boy may not have suffered at all being down on the floor and then curled in the step-father's arms.
 
Gaius46 said:
I'm really not a fan of that type of regulation. If someone wishes to test their skills that is their business provided they accept the fact that someone may not come rescue them if they get in trouble.

That said there is at least some legal basis for that type of regulation - access to public lands can be restricted. What's the basis for denying a man access to his own home other than some government official arbitrarily deciding that it was too risky.

I agree. Taser ing the man was probably uncalled for. Could've killed him just as easily as the fire could have.
Click to expand...

Experience tells us that it was too risky and that his attempt could cause more problems for those who are actually trained to go in and fight the fires and save people.
 
joko104 said:
(Fire was just after midnight)

"Riley Rieser was asleep in a bedroom in the home while the boy’s mother, Catherine Miller, and stepfather, Ryan Miller, had fallen asleep watching television in a room in the rear of the home. The fire was reported after Catherine Miller was awakened by smoke. Attempts to reach Riley were unsuccessful as fire and smoke blocked the path to the boy’s room as the blaze engulfed the rear of the home.
The parents were able to reach a rear door and exit the home. Once outside, Ryan Miller kicked in the front door and attempted to make entry to rescue his stepson, officials reported. A Louisiana police officer had to restrain Miller and eventually used a taser gun to subdue him.
Riley Rieser was eventually located near the doorway to the bedroom by the front living room and transported by ambulance to the hospital."


It is very possible the step father COULD have saved that child - although possibly at the cost of his own life or massive 3rd degree burns. Personally, I think a parent has a DUTY to put their life on the line even to TRY to save their child.

Clearly, the little boy had woken up. Had gotten out of bed, was trying to get out, and was found laying on the floor - furthest from the heat, smoke and carbon monoxide. From the fire at our warehouse, it was amazing how much the massive heat had been at the top, with NO damage at actual floor level. With that little boy laying on the floor near the living room (which is usually at the front lower level of the house) means it is NOT certain he could not have been saved.

We also know this was NOT a professional fire department, possibly volunteer, since it took them EIGHT HOURS to put out the fire. Moreover, professional fire fighters have the clothing and gear to essentially going into a wall of flames at least for a few minutes.

So THIS is what seems to have happened. The little boy was unconscious on the floor not that far from the front door. The fire department didn't have the equipment to safely go into a burning building - where "safety" means no risk whatsoever of injury. So they wouldn't go in. The police certainly wouldn't go in.

And the police decided that THEY had the authority to decide whether or not the step father could try to rescue the boy - they themselves unwilling to do so, and decided that it was NOT the step-father's decision, but their own, so tasered him, cuffed him and then kept tasering him after cuffed to shut him up. Then, I suppose, proved they and the fire department were correct that the boy couldnt' be rescued because he wasn't?

I think it is possible the step father could have saved that boy, but it would have cost him his life for horrific burns - that the boy may not have suffered at all being down on the floor and then curled in the step-father's arms.
Click to expand...

It is also very possible that the father could have stepped on his son (since he would not have been able to see him), possibly even tripped over him, and both of them could have perished needlessly. In fact, had the child been saveable by the firefighters, stepping on him or spreading fire to him would have possibly been the tipping point between saving him and both of them becoming victims of the fire.
 
VanceMack said:
You are right in that people won't agree. You are not right that it isn't the police officers job to make that call. They do that with suicidal people all the time. The law specifically gives them the right to act in situations like that.
Click to expand...

Suicide requires an intention to end ones life. Performing an act that might well lead to ones death is not necessarily suicide.
 
Gaius46 said:
Suicide requires an intention to end ones life. Performing an act that might well lead to ones death is not necessarily suicide.
Click to expand...

Doesn't mean those people shouldn't be stopped for attempting to do something foolish that could put them or others in more danger.

That father was not trained to go into a burning building (not from any of the information we have on him). He wouldn't know what would cause more problems in the rescue of his son by running into burning house. Firefighters do. He would in fact not even know where his son was, since he probably would have went straight to the bed, although it seems the son may have made it to the floor. Not being able to see the child on the floor, it is very likely that the father could have stepped on him, causing further injuries, possibly even ones that ended up taking his life before the fire or smoke got a chance. And then he could have become a casualty himself, and the firefighters would have to concentrate on trying to save both of them rather than just the boy.
 
roguenuke said:
Experience tells us that it was too risky and that his attempt could cause more problems for those who are actually trained to go in and fight the fires and save people.
Click to expand...

Perhaps but again it's no ones decision but the person who's risking their neck.

I understand the issue of first responders that may be put at risk because of a legal obligation to save the guy but I have no trouble with removing that obligation in cases like this and not allowing the first responders to be sued. That is I think the way it should be.
 
roguenuke said:
They tried to stop him, he became combative and got away from them. How many cops do you think were on the scene? I only know of two that tasered him. In such a situation, they would definitely be trying not to hurt the guy, and physical restraints can hurt him when he is combative, not to mention hurting the officers (potentially). They had every reason to stop him and use a taser to do it. He was interfering in combating the fire and potentially saving his son by trying to do it himself.
Click to expand...

How the hell would his attempting to save the boy have interfered with "combating the fire?" That's juts a slogan.

Besides, they obviously were NOT combating the fire. They were containing it. The article says it took EIGHT HOURS! for them to put out the fire. EIGHT HOURS?!?!

PROFESSIONAL fire fighters know what that means. That is typical volunteer and amateur fire fighting.

IF professional fire fighters think lives are at stake and/or are trying to save as much property and structure as possible, they attack the fire - literally. They don't just spray water on the building and thru windows. They charge the fire. They attack it - literally. They GO INSIDE and FIGHT the fire at it's base.

A house fire is the least dangerous of structural fires, because once the power and electricity off they are generally only fighting burning wood and the heat, smoke and gas of it, with little risk of explosion and otherwise toxic or corrosive gases, plus drywalling limiting the fire.

When our BIG warehouse burned up a couple months ago, I literally urged them to "just let it burn" because of the huge collection of chemicals within it. Their response? "That's not what we do." They had the fire out in less than 30 minutes - and that a far, far more challenging structure and fire than an ordinary house fire.

Regardless, his running into the burning house poised NO danger to fire fighters nor in any way would have "interfered" with the fire fighters, since they already had decided they weren't going in the house for anyone- so wouldn't have gone in after him - obviously - since they wouldn't go in for a child. Obviously, they were not fighting the fire from the inside, so it impossible he could have interfered with anything or anyone. Either the step-father would have made it in and out - or not. No interference either way.

If there are PRO fire fighters or were so - and they stop and think of this - I think they will agree that it taking EIGHT HOURS to put out a wood frame house fire means this was less than a top notch fire fighters team and/or was not fully trained and/or equipment deficient.
 
Last edited:
Gaius46 said:
Perhaps but again it's no ones decision but the person who's risking their neck.

I understand the issue of first responders that may be put at risk because of a legal obligation to save the guy but I have no trouble with removing that obligation in cases like this and not allowing the first responders to be sued. That is I think the way it should be.
Click to expand...

He isn't just risking his life though. The firefighters would also have to risk their lives to try to save him. And as someone else pointed out, where do you stop it? What if the wife/mother went in next or neighbors or other relatives to try to save those that went in? Do they not have just as much of a right according to your belief to go in as well? And at what point does the firefighters/police have to save those people trapped within, risking their own lives and taking people away from actually fighting the fire itself to do these rescues that shouldn't be needed to begin with?
 
joko104 said:
How the hell would his attempting to save the boy have interfered with "combating the fire?" That's juts a slogan.

Besides, they obviously were NOT combating the fire. They were containing it. The article says it took EIGHT HOURS! for them to put out the fire. EIGHT HOURS?!?!

PROFESSIONAL fire fighters know what that means. That is typical volunteer and amateur fire fighting.

IF professional fire fighters think lives are at stake and/or are trying to save as much property and structure as possible, they attack the fire - literally. They don't just spray water on the building and thru windows. They charge the fire. They attack it - literally. They GO INSIDE and FIGHT the fire at it's base.

A house fire is the least dangerous of structural fires, because once the power and electricity off they are generally only fighting burning wood and the heat, smoke and gas of it, with little risk of explosion and otherwise toxic or corrosive gases, plus drywalling limiting the fire.

When our BIG warehouse burned up a couple months ago, I literally urged them to "just let it burn" because of the huge collection of chemicals within it. Their response? "That's not what we do." They had the fire out in less than 30 minutes - and that a far, far more challenging structure and fire than an ordinary house fire.

Regardless, his running into the burning house poised NO danger to fire fighters nor in any way would have "interfered" with the fire fighters, since they weren't going in the house anyone so wouldn't have gone in after him - obviously - since they wouldn't go in for a child. Obviously, they were not fighting the fire from the inside, so it impossible he could have interfered with anything or anyone.

If there are other fire fighters and they stop and think of this, I think they will agree that it taking EIGHT HOURS to put out a wood frame house fire means this was less than a top notch fire fighters team and/or was training and/or equipment deficient.
Click to expand...

It would take one firefighter to carry out a small boy, while it would take at least one, possibly two to carry out the guy, then another to carry the boy. That takes away people from fighting the fire and puts those additional firefighters going in to rescue people at risk.
 
Had they found the boy's body in his bed, it easier to conclude he could not have been saved, that it too late. But finding that the boy had awoken, left his bed and was laying at the door at the living will be the most haunting of all for that step father, mother etc. The little boy was trying to escape. He had collapsed to the gases, but then has fallen to the lowest - and safest - point from both heat and toxic gases - apparently the floor on the 1st floor - and being at the living room door mean it likely the next door was the front door. No one came for him.

With the fact of where the little boy's body was found, there is NO way to know whether or not the step father could have saved him. None. The cause of that boy's death, ultimately, may have been caused by the police tasering the step-father. We'll never know. Nor will he. I have no suspect he and the mother, probably the bio-father too, will hate those officers as much hate as there can be the rest of their lives - and will claim it was those two officers, not the fire, that killed their son.
 
The step-Dad and I agree. The Police killed the little boy. Maybe he's calmed down now and has changed his mind and is thankful to the Police for stunning him and saving his life. What do y'all think?

I know I've seen this drama acted out in an old movie (before the invention of stun-guns and tasers). The police try to stop the leading actor from going into the burning building to save someone, but he's determined and pulls off the risky rescue, with only a scratch on one cheek.

I'm not trying to make light of a real life tragedy. My point is that police used to be able to try to stop someone, not anymore.
 
RedAkston said:
He might have saved the boy. We'll never know - because of the actions of the police. I buried my son 2 1/2 years ago. I'd rather die in a fire 1,000 times than bury my son once. Had I been in the position to save him, there's nothing I wouldn't have done to try. This man will live with this for the rest of his life.

I realize this was a judgement call on behalf of the police officer, but it was the wrong call from where I sit.
Click to expand...

I'm inclined to agree, but I wasn't there. I would have supported the police officer's actions if the fire was so bad there was no chance the father could save the boy. If it was anything less than that, the police officer is at fault.
 
Gaius46 said:
Perhaps but again it's no ones decision but the person who's risking their neck.

I understand the issue of first responders that may be put at risk because of a legal obligation to save the guy but I have no trouble with removing that obligation in cases like this and not allowing the first responders to be sued. That is I think the way it should be.
Click to expand...

NO ONE had any legal obligation to taser him or stop him, nor any legal obligation to try to save the boy or anyone else for that matter.
 
roguenuke said:
It would take one firefighter to carry out a small boy, while it would take at least one, possibly two to carry out the guy, then another to carry the boy. That takes away people from fighting the fire and puts those additional firefighters going in to rescue people at risk.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with ANYTHING??? The fire fighters had already decided they were not going to try to rescue the little boy anymore, hadn't they? Sure, EIGHT HOURS later they looked for the body. What they found learned is that they had made the WRONG decision in concluding it certain the little boy already dead. The little boy was not high in his bed. He had collapsed on the floor halfway to getting out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom