• 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

RedAkston

Master of Shenanigans
Administrator
Moderator
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
53,923
Reaction score
39,716
Location
MS Gulf Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Missouri man trying to save stepson from fire hit with stun gun by police | Fox News

The family of a 3-year-old killed in a northern Missouri house fire early Oct. 31 says it is outraged after police used a stun gun to subdue the boy's stepfather as he tried to run back into the burning house to rescue the boy

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.
 
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.

It says in the article that the fire was too dangerous for the stepfather to try to rescue his son, and that the police tried to save him from himself.
Sad, though I have to think that the police made the correct judgment. Though one has to wonder about using the stun guns twice after the father has been handcuffed.
 
It says in the article that the fire was too dangerous for the stepfather to try to rescue his son, and that the police tried to save him from himself.
Sad, though I have to think that the police made the correct judgment. Though one has to wonder about using the stun guns twice after the father has been handcuffed.

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.
 
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.

Of course it depends on perspective, but wouldn't have the police thought it their duty to save at least one more life? After all public safety sometimes overrules individual choice when a person intentionally puts oneself in danger, such as in trying to prevent suicides.
 
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.
 
Of course it depends on perspective, but wouldn't have the police thought it their duty to save at least one more life? After all public safety sometimes overrules individual choice when a person intentionally puts oneself in danger, such as in trying to prevent suicides.

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.
 
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.

Ah, forgive my insensitivity on a subject that must be personal to you.
All I wanted to say is that the police may have justified at all. I wouldn't pretend that I could imagine your pain, nobody who hasn't lost a child can.
 
Ah, forgive my insensitivity on a subject that must be personal to you.
All I wanted to say is that the police may have justified at all. I wouldn't pretend that I could imagine your pain, nobody who hasn't lost a child can.

It's all good and what happened with my son would not change my opinion here. I still think the cops who did this were flat out wrong.
 
It's all good and what happened with my son would not change my opinion here. I still think the cops who did this were flat out wrong.

Isn't suicide illegal? So weren't the police preventing a crime?

Not that I'm please about this but I think that will be the defense.
 
Isn't suicide illegal? So weren't the police preventing a crime?

Not that I'm please about this but I think that will be the defense.

Why should suicide be illegal? How did the officer know that he would be committing suicide? What right does the office have to prevent the man from trying to save his own step-son?

Maybe it's the libertarian side of me posing these questions, but they are questions that deserve answers.
 
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.

True Story. I would be very sorely tempted to.... hold that decision against that police officer.
 
Why should suicide be illegal? How did the officer know that he would be committing suicide? What right does the office have to prevent the man from trying to save his own step-son?

Maybe it's the libertarian side of me posing these questions, but they are questions that deserve answers.

OK, I have googleized and you are correct. It is not a crime.

Still, the police may restrain you if you pose a danger to yourself and place you under observation. The police will say it was suicidal to attempt to rescue under the conditions prevailing.

I'm just being analytical and not taking a position as to the rights and wrongs. Just the legalities.
 
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.





I totally agree. I see no valid reason for the police to have done this.





"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government hs gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." ~ Ronald Reagan
 
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.




Education is not the problem.

The police officers in Portland, Oregon all have college degrees and they have done things just as over the line as this.
 
The Police absolutely made the wrong call here. He may not have been able to save his sons life but he's going to have to go to his grave wondering. I wouldn't wish that on any parent.

Never under estimate the power of love. Ordinary people can do extraordinary things when a loved ones life is in danger.
 
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.

I am very sorry for your loss - a parent should never have to bury or lose a child.

We also lost our first child.

The cops here were absolutely wrong - never, but never, get between a parent and their child.

Nobody has that right - nobody.
 
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.
 
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.

The fact that they used a tazer at all is outrageous and wrong. At the most they should have tackled, bear-hugged, etc the guy to prevent it but if he got away, so be it, the police tried and he may have been able to save the boy.
 
Isn't suicide illegal? So weren't the police preventing a crime?

Not that I'm please about this but I think that will be the defense.

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.
 
I am not going to second guess the event, I wasn't there.

And I say this with great compassion for the father, and toward Red, to whom I express my condolences.

It is a truly sad story. No parent should have to bury their child.
 
The Police absolutely made the wrong call here. He may not have been able to save his sons life but he's going to have to go to his grave wondering. I wouldn't wish that on any parent.

Never under estimate the power of love. Ordinary people can do extraordinary things when a loved ones life is in danger.

:agree: One thing this story tells me is that the policeman is probably not a parent. If he were in the same position, could he let his child die without attempting to save him? Could he could stand there and do nothing because "it's too dangerous?"

The fact that a stun gun was used tells me that the father was desperately struggling to get to his son. The policeman made a bad judgement call by preventing this. We'll never know what the outcome would have been, and that's what makes this story so very sad. :boohoo:

Greetings, Serenity. :2wave:
 
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.

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.
 
I feel bad for the family and it absolutely is sad that the child died. But the fact remains that people should not go running into burning houses. Can I say that I wouldn't try if it were my children? No. It is more than possible that I would try. But it doesn't mean I would be right. People in emotional states do irrational things. But those things aren't necessarily the right thing to do.

We have no idea what the cops tried to do before to stop this guy. It isn't likely that they let him get all the way to the door and then decided to stop him. What is likely is that they were trying to stop him using other ways and those things failed.

Now, he shouldn't have been tasered again, in general, after he was cuffed unless there is more to this (just because a person is cuffed doesn't mean they can't still be fighting and/or be dangerous to themselves or those around them), but then again, it is possible that the grandmother didn't see what she thinks she saw. More investigation should be done into that claim.

I understand that such a thing is very emotional, but from a practical, logical look at this, the police did the right thing in trying to keep the guy out of that house.
 
The fact that they used a tazer at all is outrageous and wrong. At the most they should have tackled, bear-hugged, etc the guy to prevent it but if he got away, so be it, the police tried and he may have been able to save the boy.
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?
 
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.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom