• 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

MaggieD said:
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.
Click to expand...

Barring of High IQs
 
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...

from what I read, the fire started in a downstairs bedroom. by the time the firefighters and cops arrived, flames were coming from the upstairs windows (IOW the house was full engulfed). For a typical house fire, temperatures can reach 1100 degrees F in a matter of minutes and even rooms that are not on fire can reach temps over 300 degrees.

It took fire crews 8 hours to put the fire out.

The mother and step-father had already made one attempt to reach the child and had been unsuccessful when the fire first started.

The odds are extremely high that the child was already dead when the step-father made his second attempt to enter the house. The odds are also extremely high that, had he re-entered the house, the stepfather would have been overcome by smoke and heat shortly after entering.

If a trained firefighter in protective gear thought it was too hot to enter, what chance would a regular guy in pajamas have?


Many years ago, I attended the merchant marine fire fighter school. I've been in burning houses, under controlled conditions, and even with protective gear and oxygen masks the heat is virtually unbearable, it's hard to breathe and due to the smoke you can't see a damn thing.

As sad as this story is, the cops did the right thing and almost assuredly saved this guy from certain and pointless death.
 
The police were looking for money that the man was refusing to pay.
 
I understand the boy had a mother.

As hard as it is to bury a child, it's harder to bury a child and your spouse on the same day. If there were other kids its hard to bury your sibling and your parent on the same day.

The police made this determination based on the expertise of the fire fighters, who are best placed ( and equipped) to make a decision on safety.

The only issue in my mind is the use of a taser.
 
sookster said:

Barring of High IQs
Click to expand...

Well, I'm shocked you were actually able to find something credible on it! Thank you very much! From your link:

Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.

Most Cops Just Above Normal The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.

Jordan alleged his rejection from the police force was discrimination. He sued the city, saying his civil rights were violated because he was denied equal protection under the law.

But the U.S. District Court found that New London had “shown a rational basis for the policy.” In a ruling dated Aug. 23, the 2nd Circuit agreed. The court said the policy might be unwise but was a rational way to reduce job turnover.
Click to expand...

I do understand their reasoning. Glad to know they keep in the "above average" range though.
 
MaggieD said:
Well, I'm shocked you were actually able to find something credible on it! Thank you very much! From your link:



I do understand their reasoning. Glad to know they keep in the "above average" range though.
Click to expand...

Technically true. 104 is above average because 100 is average.

We have to start admitting that when we see these atrocities on the news it is more likely from a cop who averaged out at 104. I have personally dealt with cops who were ****ing stupid, and the moment I start stating facts I learned in middle school about the constitution they arrest me and search me. To find nothing. Where I am then free to go. What pisses me off is I have to hire a lawyer to take that cop down for violating my constitutional rights.

Again, cops in my area are ****ing stupid. There are exceptions I am sure, but for the most part, they are dumbasses with legal guns and pepper spray.
 
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 so very sorry for your loss. :(
 
Should we start tasering parents on beaches to prevent them drowing when they swim outside the flags (we all know how dangerous that can be) if they are trying to get to their loved one who is caught in a rip and being dragged out to sea?

Should we have tasered the young girl who not so long ago showed incredible unexplainable strength when she saved her fathers life by lifting a vehicle that her father was pinned under because she could've broken her back?

Emergency services personnel should be actively trying to encourage/persuade anyone to not participate in what could be considered a potentially dangerous/life threatening situation but there are limits they should employ and they've gone way to far here.

I've said it before and i'll say it again. Never under estimate the power of love. Ordinary people can do extraordinary things when a loved ones life is in danger.
 
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...

He absolutely is only risking his own life. Unless you're suggesting that the responders would go in and try and save him after they deemed it not safe enough to go in to try and save his Son and had already given up on him?

roguenuke said:
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...

She wouldn't have lost her husband for nothing. He was trying to save her Son. Her Son is not nothing.
 
Serenity said:
He absolutely is only risking his own life. Unless you're suggesting that the responders would go in and try and save him after they deemed it not safe enough to go in to try and save his Son and had already given up on him?

She wouldn't have lost her husband for nothing. He was trying to save her Son. Her Son is not nothing.
Click to expand...

Considering according to the article I posted, the boy was pulled out of there according to the family, and was still possibly breathing (although not necessarily likely to live either way) which means that they went into the house fairly shortly after the father was pulled from the door. (I believe it said there was a pause of about 2-3 minutes.) That means that yes, they would have had to go in after the guy, save him, and then try to get to his son.

And yes, the woman could have lost both her husband and her son for nothing since it is almost certain that her husband going in would not have made any difference in the outcome of her son's fate. It sucks when children die, but it sucks more when people do something foolish, like running into a burning building, barefoot and in pajamas, and likely getting themselves killed or at least severely burned unnecessarily.
 
Serenity said:
Should we start tasering parents on beaches to prevent them drowing when they swim outside the flags (we all know how dangerous that can be) if they are trying to get to their loved one who is caught in a rip and being dragged out to sea?

Should we have tasered the young girl who not so long ago showed incredible unexplainable strength when she saved her fathers life by lifting a vehicle that her father was pinned under because she could've broken her back?

Emergency services personnel should be actively trying to encourage/persuade anyone to not participate in what could be considered a potentially dangerous/life threatening situation but there are limits they should employ and they've gone way to far here.

I've said it before and i'll say it again. Never under estimate the power of love. Ordinary people can do extraordinary things when a loved ones life is in danger.
Click to expand...

And many times people simply get themselves killed by trying to do such things. We don't hear about those people as often because they simply become another victim, likely lost in the story. And I'm not saying that people shouldn't try to do something if there isn't another alternative. But when professionals who are equipped to do such things aren't able to do it, then there is no reason to believe someone unequipped is more likely to be able just because they are a loved one of the person to be rescued. Especially in such a case as a burning house. The guy and his wife tried to get to the boy once and couldn't do it. There is no reason to believe the second attempt would have been more successful for him.
 
roguenuke said:
Considering according to the article I posted, the boy was pulled out of there according to the family, and was still possibly breathing (although not necessarily likely to live either way) which means that they went into the house fairly shortly after the father was pulled from the door. (I believe it said there was a pause of about 2-3 minutes.) That means that yes, they would have had to go in after the guy, save him, and then try to get to his son.

And yes, the woman could have lost both her husband and her son for nothing since it is almost certain that her husband going in would not have made any difference in the outcome of her son's fate. It sucks when children die, but it sucks more when people do something foolish, like running into a burning building, barefoot and in pajamas, and likely getting themselves killed or at least severely burned unnecessarily.
Click to expand...

If it's foolish to risk your life to save your child, then mark me down as a fool.
 
RedAkston said:
If it's foolish to risk your life to save your child, then mark me down as a fool.
Click to expand...

It is foolish, not bad, just foolish. It is like in the TV shows when someone gets blown up in a car and someone tries to go toward the car "to save them". Usually there is someone there to stop the person. Why? Because it is foolish to think that the person in the car is alive. Does that make the person who ran toward the car wrong or bad or stupid? Of course. It makes them emotionally human. It makes them irrational due to their feelings. That is why first responders, particularly police officers, are trained to understand that people who are distraught, emotionally unstable because of a situation might do things that are dangerous to them but that they should be stopped from doing.
 
roguenuke said:
It is foolish, not bad, just foolish. It is like in the TV shows when someone gets blown up in a car and someone tries to go toward the car "to save them". Usually there is someone there to stop the person. Why? Because it is foolish to think that the person in the car is alive. Does that make the person who ran toward the car wrong or bad or stupid? Of course. It makes them emotionally human. It makes them irrational due to their feelings. That is why first responders, particularly police officers, are trained to understand that people who are distraught, emotionally unstable because of a situation might do things that are dangerous to them but that they should be stopped from doing.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

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.
 
Why is it so hard to see that there is no "bad guy" in this situation?
 
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...

You really aren't getting this at all so let me spell it out for you in a way you might understand.

I am responsible for myself and my actions. If I want to try to save my child who is in a burning house, you, the police any any other mother ****er has no right to say that I can't. If I want to pour gasoline all over myself and light a match, you, the police or any other mother ****er has no right to say that I can't. These would be choices that I alone would be making. I would not be physically harming anyone but myself and I would have no one to answer to other than my own conscience.
The FD chose not to go in after the kid, but what right does the police officer have to say that I can't enter my own property to try to save one of my own?

Let me clue you in on the answer - they have none. You can keep on with your charade but it's not going to make you right. You will never convince me that I don't have the right to make my own choices, sorry.
 
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...

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.
 
VanceMack said:
Why is it so hard to see that there is no "bad guy" in this situation?
Click to expand...

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.
 
specklebang said:
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.
Click to expand...

Suicide is not illegal in the US.
 
Probably because there is no point in it being illegal.

But why are jumpers talked down? What right do the authorities have to interfere?
 
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...

That's emotional twaddle. I understand it, but it is emotional twaddle nonetheless. You think the family would have been better off burying the child and the father?

I get it. I'm a father and I would have done anything I could to try to save my child. I'd be pissed if I was the father. But today he is alive because that officer prevented him from making a suicidal rescue attempt.
 
VanceMack said:
That's emotional twaddle. I understand it, but it is emotional twaddle nonetheless. You think the family would have been better off burying the child and the father?

I get it. I'm a father and I would have done anything I could to try to save my child. I'd be pissed if I was the father. But today he is alive because that officer prevented him from making a suicidal rescue attempt.
Click to expand...

Its not the officers place to make that decision for him. That is point people don't get and probably wont.
 
OscarB63 said:
from what I read, the fire started in a downstairs bedroom. by the time the firefighters and cops arrived, flames were coming from the upstairs windows (IOW the house was full engulfed). For a typical house fire, temperatures can reach 1100 degrees F in a matter of minutes and even rooms that are not on fire can reach temps over 300 degrees.

It took fire crews 8 hours to put the fire out.
Click to expand...


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.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Its not the officers place to make that decision for him. That is point people don't get and probably wont.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom