I'm sorry, but you don't get to declare what is a vain attempt here.
You're right. That's the job of the firefighters and the cops, who decided that it was going to be a vain attempt.
If he thinks he had a good chance to save his kid then that is all that matters.
No, it really isn't. The guy had already failed in his first attempt, the second floor was already in flames, he could easily have caused a backdraft just by opening a door, he was hysterical, he had no equipment, no training... and no chance.
When I saved my girlfriend from getting raped at sixteen from three men did I have a good chance to save her?
I have no idea. (Nor do I take tales of heroism told via the Internet all that seriously.) However, the situation is not comparable, as I assume there were not police officers already on the scene arresting the potential rapists.
You don't get to tell other people when they have fulfilled their moral obligations. You don't even have an opinion on the matter.
I have just as much right to express my opinions as anyone else. Thanks for your bluntly self-serving attempts to refuse to hear any other opinions on the matter.
No. His job is to protect my life from outside harm from another. If I'm the one doing myself harm his job is to butt out.
If you are harming yourself, and the police officer is able to prevent it, then they have a moral obligation to do so.
Or is it beyond your comprehension that a total stranger can have an obligation to help someone in their community...?
If he doesn't want to save my kid and I decide that I want to do just that then he can either agree with me or shut up.
If the officer has the
ability to save the child, and refuses to do so without a valid justification,
then the officer is morally responsible for a failure to act.
Along the exact same lines, if the officer has the
ability to stop the hysterical barefoot man in pajamas from running headlong into a burning house and getting himself killed trying to save a child that is almost certainly dead already, and the officer refuses to do so,
then the officer is morally responsible for a failure to act.
And again, I am absolutely certain that if the cops did nothing, they would face serious ethical and legal consequences -- including, but not limited to, a lawsuit by the family for their failure to save the husband.
Just another reason to never involve the state in anything you do, ever.
On the contrary, these kinds of situations are
precisely why we need a government. We cannot train every single individual to be a police officer, a firefighter, an EMT, or a dozen other jobs where someone else needs to take control temporarily in order to keep people from (pointlessly) killing themselves, or from further harm to spread to the community at large.
It's not a "to hell with the cops attitude", but a leave me the hell alone attitude. I'm not harming anyone and in fact I'm trying to save someone, so he has no reason to do anything towards me. If he doesn't want to help me for all I care he can leave.
Yeah, except that the husband in this scenario
is endangering numerous people.
• He's obviously endangering himself, if not guaranteeing his own death.
• He's endangering the firefighters, who have the duty of rescuing him when he rushes into a burning building.
• In scenarios where firefighters inside the building, he's going to endanger them by confusing an already difficult situation.
• The failure to act means that dozens, if not hundreds of people will die, by trying to be The Big Hollywood Hero and run into burning buildings.
And no, the police officers
cannot leave under those circumstances. They have a duty to stop people from causing their own deaths, by doing completely moronic things like hysterically running into a burning building with zero safety gear and no training.