• 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

People can hold their breath for a few minutes and he knows the layout of his own house and were is kid is mostly likely to be more than any other firefighter could. If he is willing to try they have no right to stop him.

He expected his son to be on his bed. From what I read, it sounds like the boy was found on the floor. This means that given the fact that the man couldn't have seen at all in the house (thick smoke, night time, and no lights) and he likely would have been running into the fire, literally, he would have most likely stepped on his son and might not even have realized he did. Or he could have tripped over him. Or, if the son was on the floor on the other side of the room, he could have completely missed his son. There is no way he could have legitimately looked for him in smoke and fire. IF he would have been really lucky, the kid would have been on his bed. Most likely, he wouldn't have found him because of the dark, the smoke, and the fire.
 
People can hold their breath for a few minutes and he knows the layout of his own house and were is kid is mostly likely to be more than any other firefighter could. If he is willing to try they have no right to stop him.

Hey pal, the cops were there and giving orders. Period. They show up, you obey them. Period. Note the dripping sarcasm.
 
He expected his son to be on his bed. From what I read, it sounds like the boy was found on the floor. This means that given the fact that the man couldn't have seen at all in the house (thick smoke, night time, and no lights) and he likely would have been running into the fire, literally, he would have most likely stepped on his son and might not even have realized he did. Or he could have tripped over him. Or, if the son was on the floor on the other side of the room, he could have completely missed his son. There is no way he could have legitimately looked for him in smoke and fire. IF he would have been really lucky, the kid would have been on his bed. Most likely, he wouldn't have found him because of the dark, the smoke, and the fire.
Thats the dumbest thing I ever heard. I used to find sleeping brothers on the floor all the time with foot-sonar trying to get across the room when they passed out on weekends. Its pretty obvious when you step on a human. They are squishy.
 
People can hold their breath for a few minutes and he knows the layout of his own house....
Really? So tell me, why don't firefighters bring homeowners back into the house to guide the way, when they're trying to rescue people? :doh

Why bother calling the fire department in the first place? Why not just have the neighbors turn on a few garden hoses? How dangerous can it be, when the entire house is engulfed in flames?

C'mon, people. This is not a comic book or an action movie. This is basic, grade school stuff. If you are not a firefighter, don't run into a burning building.


If he is willing to try they have no right to stop him.
On the contrary. Not only do they have the right, they have a legal and moral obligation to do so. If they let him go, not only would they be remiss in their duties, they would be responsible for letting him die -- along with anyone else who decided to go after them.
 
Hey pal, the cops were there and giving orders. Period. They show up, you obey them. Period. Note the dripping sarcasm.
Yes. The cops were there. They had full authority, and a moral obligation, to stop him from running back into the house. If they made a conscious decision to allow a hysterical man to run into a burning building, then they will be held responsible (legally and morally).

I.e. the cops and firefighters show up, you obey them. Period. Note the total lack of sarcasm.
 
I don't really know what to make of this because I can sympathize with both.

Had I been the dad I would certainly want to rescue my child, had I been the officer I would certainly want to prevent someone from running into what appears to me to be certain death.
 
Really? So tell me, why don't firefighters bring homeowners back into the house to guide the way, when they're trying to rescue people? :doh

Why bother calling the fire department in the first place? Why not just have the neighbors turn on a few garden hoses? How dangerous can it be, when the entire house is engulfed in flames?

C'mon, people. This is not a comic book or an action movie. This is basic, grade school stuff. If you are not a firefighter, don't run into a burning building.



On the contrary. Not only do they have the right, they have a legal and moral obligation to do so. If they let him go, not only would they be remiss in their duties, they would be responsible for letting him die -- along with anyone else who decided to go after them.

Unless its your kid in there and you want to.... A father may be more willing to accept burns on half his body with a small chance of saving the kid than a firefighter would. The second "the city" starts telling specific people they cant try to save people and enforcing it if there is a chance of sacrifice then "the city" is more important than "people".

Let me tell you a little story. One that is true. Back in orange county there was a HUGE fire. Many houses were burned down. People were being todl they werent allowed to go near the fires and shood away by cops. Me and my friends got in a van and crossed the barrier during the choas before a good parimiter was established. We ended up driving all around spotting for houses that managed to get embers to float on them and alert fire fighters to the problem before it completely spread to roofs. We were past the cop barrier and the firefighters seemed to never even question us or wonder why we were there.

After a couple hours we get to a cualdesac and find a 2 firetrucks with 2 squads of people all laying down in peoples front yards, lounging in the grass jsut watching 3 houses begin to burn around them. Totally salvagable. I get out tell their little captain those houses are starting to catch. He looks and pretends he doesnt see it. I point to the fire just starting at a house and he looks right at it. Then pretends he didnt see it again. I start to yell at him and now a few people get weary and he starts to look nervous. Then he just proceeds to pretend I dont exist. Goes and sits down with his pals. And watches the houses proceed to burn.

Sorry for not trusting in the system when I know that true action and deeds stems from the personal. Not someones job.
 
Yes. The cops were there. They had full authority, and a moral obligation, to stop him from running back into the house. If they made a conscious decision to allow a hysterical man to run into a burning building, then they will be held responsible (legally and morally).

I.e. the cops and firefighters show up, you obey them. Period. Note the total lack of sarcasm.

Whatever comrade.
 
Thats the dumbest thing I ever heard. I used to find sleeping brothers on the floor all the time with foot-sonar trying to get across the room when they passed out on weekends. Its pretty obvious when you step on a human. They are squishy.

When you are panicking, you are not going to notice stepping on that squishy human being until it is too late. Plus, there is the problem that after a while in a fire, stuff starts falling all over the ground. And we have no idea how well kept this child's room was. It is easy to think "sure it was probably clean", but my sons' room is usually a disaster area and they are 4 and 5, not much older than this child. It could have been very clean or it could have had toys, stuffed animals, clothes or anything there.
 
Unless its your kid in there and you want to.... A father may be more willing to accept burns on half his body with a small chance of saving the kid than a firefighter would. The second "the city" starts telling specific people they cant try to save people and enforcing it if there is a chance of sacrifice then "the city" is more important than "people".

Let me tell you a little story. One that is true. Back in orange county there was a HUGE fire. Many houses were burned down. People were being todl they werent allowed to go near the fires and shood away by cops. Me and my friends got in a van and crossed the barrier during the choas before a good parimiter was established. We ended up driving all around spotting for houses that managed to get embers to float on them and alert fire fighters to the problem before it completely spread to roofs. We were past the cop barrier and the firefighters seemed to never even question us or wonder why we were there.

After a couple hours we get to a cualdesac and find a 2 firetrucks with 2 squads of people all laying down in peoples front yards, lounging in the grass jsut watching 3 houses begin to burn around them. Totally salvagable. I get out tell their little captain those houses are starting to catch. He looks and pretends he doesnt see it. I point to the fire just starting at a house and he looks right at it. Then pretends he didnt see it again. I start to yell at him and now a few people get weary and he starts to look nervous. Then he just proceeds to pretend I dont exist. Goes and sits down with his pals. And watches the houses proceed to burn.

Sorry for not trusting in the system when I know that true action and deeds stems from the personal. Not someones job.

You disobeyed the police and firemen? How dare you. Who do you think you are? Must be some kind of a wannabe hero. Don't you know the real heros are wearing badges and uniforms.
 
When you are panicking, you are not going to notice stepping on that squishy human being until it is too late. Plus, there is the problem that after a while in a fire, stuff starts falling all over the ground. And we have no idea how well kept this child's room was. It is easy to think "sure it was probably clean", but my sons' room is usually a disaster area and they are 4 and 5, not much older than this child. It could have been very clean or it could have had toys, stuffed animals, clothes or anything there.

Im done. Sorry but all I hear is blah, blah, blah, blah at this point.
 
Im done. Sorry but all I hear is blah, blah, blah, blah at this point.

Of course you do. Because you feel that your emotional response is the "right one" and that all other responses are wrong and violate rights of parents to try to save their children, as do many others. You don't want to listen to a voice of reason because it would mean second guessing yourself and any future decisions you may make in such a moment. And a lot of it has to do with pride. Some people feel that they have to try to rescue their children/loved ones even if that attempt is ultimately futile in order to satisfy their personal pride. And I honestly sympathize. Heck, a man was convicted and executed (wrongly, in my opinion) with one of the points of evidence against him being "he didn't seem to make a big enough deal out of trying to save his children", despite having burns on his hands showing he tried to get back into the house. But this "people should try to save their children/loved ones despite the futility of the situation and anyone who tries to stop me is wrong" (because honestly I think it is the protesting against the police action that is the only wrong thing here) is just dumb.
 
Of course you do. Because you feel that your emotional response is the "right one" and that all other responses are wrong and violate rights of parents to try to save their children, as do many others. You don't want to listen to a voice of reason because it would mean second guessing yourself and any future decisions you may make in such a moment. And a lot of it has to do with pride. Some people feel that they have to try to rescue their children/loved ones even if that attempt is ultimately futile in order to satisfy their personal pride. And I honestly sympathize. Heck, a man was convicted and executed (wrongly, in my opinion) with one of the points of evidence against him being "he didn't seem to make a big enough deal out of trying to save his children", despite having burns on his hands showing he tried to get back into the house. But this "people should try to save their children/loved ones despite the futility of the situation and anyone who tries to stop me is wrong" (because honestly I think it is the protesting against the police action that is the only wrong thing here) is just dumb.

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.
 
You disobeyed the police and firemen? How dare you. Who do you think you are? Must be some kind of a wannabe hero. Don't you know the real heros are wearing badges and uniforms.

**** the "real heros".
 
Yes. The cops were there. They had full authority, and a moral obligation, to stop him from running back into the house. If they made a conscious decision to allow a hysterical man to run into a burning building, then they will be held responsible (legally and morally).

I.e. the cops and firefighters show up, you obey them. Period. Note the total lack of sarcasm.

**** them and their "authority".
 
Yes. The cops were there. They had full authority, and a moral obligation, to stop him from running back into the house. If they made a conscious decision to allow a hysterical man to run into a burning building, then they will be held responsible (legally and morally).

I.e. the cops and firefighters show up, you obey them. Period. Note the total lack of sarcasm.

No. The man has a moral obligation to save his family and the cop has no authority or moral obligation to do anything to stop him. If the man wants to risk his life the cop is to stand aside and butt the hell out. No one asked for his opinion and he should be respectful and keep it to himself. I will NOT obey a police officer or a firefighter that stops me from protecting my family. No, that will not happen. You stop me from protecting my family and there is little doubt we are going to have a problem.
 
:?: I don't think I ever mentioned that . What does it mean ? It was more on the lines of a mother having to bury her husband as well as the child .

You mean the man is willing to take a risk that might end his life? So what? It's his life and his child.
 
Unless its your kid in there and you want to....
Nope, not even then.

You do not have an unlimited right to do whatever you want, just because your family is at risk. E.g. you do not have the legal right to grab a gun, drive across town, and shoot a guy that you believe threatened a member of your family. You may want to live in a world where your every whim is law, but thankfully, we don't live in that world.


A father may be more willing to accept burns on half his body with a small chance of saving the kid than a firefighter would.
This is not about the risks the father is willing to undertake, or your baseless presumption that a firefighter is unwilling to perform his duty.


The second "the city" starts telling specific people they cant try to save people and enforcing it if there is a chance of sacrifice then "the city" is more important than "people".
Uh, no, the goal is to stop more people from dying.


Let me tell you a little story. One that is true....
Yeah, cool story bro. I'm sure that firemen actually enjoy watching homes burn down. :roll:


Sorry for not trusting in the system when I know that true action and deeds stems from the personal. Not someones job.
Yeah, good idea. Hey, I've got a good one! Let's just get rid of fire departments altogether, and give people big fire extinguishers instead. I'm sure that'll work out great.
 
But it would still be better than what the guy had, which was nothing. In fact, just plain old flashlights and/or clothes would be better than what that guy had. He didn't even have any shoes on. He was extremely ill-equipped to go into a burning building and the odds of him actually locating his son (without stepping on him, which would definitely not have saved him) were extremely small.

Agreed... but it is his family. If there is A chance then you do whatever you can to protect your children. That is the unwritten rule of parenting. I don't think that the cop should get in trouble with the law but he should expect and deserve a punch in the face by the guy.
 
Life is not a movie

Thanks, as an ex-fire fighter who has been in burning structures and life and death situations I truly appreciate your input on that.

Heroic if it was a decent chance stupid if you are likely to die in the process as in this scenario seriously how would this man see 3 feet in front of him with poisonous fumes and lack of oxygen and not die . .

Not your call. He is a the parent. Stay out of his way.
 
No. The man has a moral obligation to save his family and the cop has no authority or moral obligation to do anything to stop him.
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.

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.

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.


If the man wants to risk his life the cop is to stand aside and butt the hell out.
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.


No one asked for his opinion and he should be respectful and keep it to himself. I will NOT obey a police officer or a firefighter that stops me from protecting my family.
Well then, I hope you're prepared to get hit by a taser.

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.
 
Thanks, as an ex-fire fighter who has been in burning structures and life and death situations I truly appreciate your input on that.



Not your call. He is a the parent. Stay out of his way.

No its not mine it was the police and I believe they were correct in judgment . Its the firefighter's call as well and even they deemed it to hot .
 
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.

I'm sorry, but you don't get to declare what is a vain attempt here. If he thinks he had a good chance to save his kid then that is all that matters. When I saved my girlfriend from getting raped at sixteen from three men did I have a good chance to save her? Nope, but I ran in anyway and I did actually save her. Sorry, but if someone like you were around and stopped me I would have been royally pissed off and I can't promise your safety in that situation. Butt out of things that are not your business.

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.

Oh, but I can, and I did.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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

Just another reason to never involve the state in anything you do, ever.

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.

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.
 
No its not mine it was the police and I believe they were correct in judgment . Its the firefighter's call as well and even they deemed it to hot .

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.
 
You mean the man is willing to take a risk that might end his life? So what? It's his life and his child.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom