50 posts in this topic

Posted

The key point you didn't add to your hypothetical that the main story had was "A firefighter tried unsuccessfully to enter the home and it was deemed too hot for the stepfather to enter." If a fire is that big, that the firefighters can't even get in, the police actually have a job to save more lives keeping normal people out at that point.

Its a heartbreaking story, but the family has no right in this instance to sue the town for doing their jobs of saving lives. They are going to ruin some other people's lives with a needless lawsuit.

I trust a firefighter's judgement. They were in the right. Tough life :(.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

And if he only makes it in a few feet, gets 3rd degree burns over his entire body, doesn't save his son and lives a horribly disfigured life (doesn't die a hero, doesn't save the son)? Should anyone be liable? What if he has no health insurance? Who should pay for his care and treatment?

 

So it comes down to money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So it comes down to money?

 

 

I'm just asking questions, but I prefer, liability and responsibility.

 

The issue is that you set a precedent, and that will lead to money, which will lead to firefighters being indecisive if not in short supply.

 

In that hypothetical, who would be responsible for his healthcare and diminished quality of life? And if a fireman died trying to save him? Are more liable? Would the father be liable? Yes, liability is money and more.

 

Do you not think he would sue the Fire Dept. for letting him go in? You really believe he wouldn't say I was emotional, they should have stopped me. They're the trained professionals, I didn't know I wouldn't be able to breath in about 20 seconds. And now I have to live this miserable life looking like Jabba the Hut and I'm only 30-something.

 

You have to look at the big picture.

 

Out of curiosity, if there's a fire, and the firemen are playing poker and don't respond in a reasonable amount of time and a whole family burns to death, is anyone liable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Just going purely off the information I've been provided, I would have tased him too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'm just asking questions, but I prefer, liability and responsibility.

 

The issue is that you set a precedent, and that will lead to money, which will lead to firefighters being indecisive if not in short supply.

 

In that hypothetical, who would be responsible for his healthcare and diminished quality of life? And if a fireman died trying to save him? Are more liable? Would the father be liable? Yes, liability is money and more.

 

Do you not think he would sue the Fire Dept. for letting him go in? You really believe he wouldn't say I was emotional, they should have stopped me. They're the trained professionals, I didn't know I wouldn't be able to breath in about 20 seconds. And now I have to live this miserable life looking like Jabba the Hut and I'm only 30-something.

 

You have to look at the big picture.

 

Out of curiosity, if there's a fire, and the firemen are playing poker and don't respond in a reasonable amount of time and a whole family burns to death, is anyone liable?

 

In honesty, what you are saying is all based on what ifs and a litigious society covering one's own butt. So what if he was horribly mutilated, he MAY have saved a child/person's life.

 

Say he was burned and hurt and lived, when what is worth more, a life he saved, or could have saved, or insurance, donations, and the family paying for medical expenses and such? Honestly, ask yourself what life is worth to YOU.

 

Honestly, it all comes back to money. Sued=money. Health care=money. This is a SICK world that this is even a debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Why did they tase him twice after being in handcuffs is what I want to know?  How can you not physically detain someone in handcuffs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Why did they tase him twice after being in handcuffs is what I want to know?  How can you not physically detain someone in handcuffs. 

 

Have you ever tried to detain someone working on pure adrenaline? Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

In honesty, what you are saying is all based on what ifs and a litigious society covering one's own butt. So what if he was horribly mutilated, he MAY have saved a child/person's life.

 

Say he was burned and hurt and lived, when what is worth more, a life he saved, or could have saved, or insurance, donations, and the family paying for medical expenses and such? Honestly, ask yourself what life is worth to YOU.

 

Honestly, it all comes back to money. Sued=money. Health care=money. This is a SICK world that this is even a debate.

 

 

It comes to liability, responsibility, and duty. And money is associated with those things. It is unrealistic to pretend these things don't exist. Firemen save lives and it's all funded by ... money. To keep saving lives they can't act irresponsibly or in a libelous manner.

 

You look at the big picture as to all the things that may affect a particular decision or guideline. Firefighters are trained and tend to execute that training in situations like these.

 

The whole situation is a what if. And those trained are best suited to answer that question and they did. The hypotheticals are to point out that there are ramifications that will affect the entire society and the fire depts. ability to save lives and be decisive if you were to let anarchy and emotion rule firefights. How many more people would die in fires if that became the modus operandi?

 

You don't let someone charge to their death no matter how emotional or passionate they are. You have a responsibility to them, your employers, and the rest of the citizens that you may have to save tomorrow.

 

It's just a sad story. People die in fires and no one is happy about it. There have been situations I'm sure, when citizens have helped out firefighters, this one, was too dangerous for trained firefighters to go into. They could not save the child from the fire, they could, and did save the father from the fire. They did their job.

 

Finally, it's easier to blow these questions off and call society pathetic, than to answer them. If we can't answer them here, how tough do you think these things are in the heat of fire trying to save lives while risking your own and the people around you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It comes to liability, responsibility, and duty. And money is associated with those things. It is unrealistic to pretend these things don't exist. Firemen save lives and it's all funded by ... money. To keep saving lives they can't act irresponsibly or in a libelous manner.

 

You look at the big picture as to all the things that may affect a particular decision or guideline. Firefighters are trained and tend to execute that training in situations like these.

 

The whole situation is a what if. And those trained are best suited to answer that question and they did. The hypotheticals are to point out that there are ramifications that will affect the entire society and the fire depts. ability to save lives and be decisive if you were to let anarchy and emotion rule firefights.

 

You don't let someone charge to their death no matter how emotional or passionate they are. You have a responsibility to them, your employers, and the rest of the citizens that you may have to save tomorrow.

 

It's just a sad story. People die in fires and no one is happy about it. There have been situations I'm sure, when citizens have helped out firefighters, this one, was too dangerous for trained firefighters to go into. They could not save the child from the fire, they could, and did save the father from the fire. They did their job.

 

I feel that this is a rather modern (read pussified) notion, and seriously, how dare someone impose their will on another trying to do the right thing. The father had a vested interest, where the others didn't have the same level. Period. ###### the extra nonsense and liability crap, this was a child that was dying a painful and horrible death.

 

I say screw anyone that wouldn't have fought till they bleed and even died to save their child - stepfather or not. If that was your child, you'd be OK with the outcome?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I hope this guy sues the **** out of the guy who tased him and possibly the city as well.  Yeah, he may have died or been seriously injured in an attempt to rescue the kid, but it's his life and his choice to do so.  I cannot even imagine how he must have felt as these *******s rendered him incapable while he watched his kid burn in a fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I feel that this is a rather modern (read pussified) notion, and seriously, how dare someone impose their will on another trying to do the right thing. The father had a vested interest, where the others didn't have the same level. Period. **** the extra nonsense and liability crap, this was a child that was dying a painful and horrible death.

 

I say screw anyone that wouldn't have fought till they bleed and even died to save their child - stepfather or not. If that was your child, you'd be OK with the outcome?

 

Who would be satisfied that their child died in a fire. Would I have charged into a fire, unequipped, that firemen could not longer go into with equipment, I have a responsibility to the rest of my family to not commit suicide in hysteria. Just as firemen have a responsibility to not allow hysterical people commit suicide.

 

The only issue here is that I believe if there was any chance to save the kid, something firemen spend their lives doing, they would have continue to try. That's really the only reason they were there. To save lives and put out the fire.

 

I actually think acting so hysterical in handcuffs, in that situation, that you have to be tazed is pussified. I would be heartbroken but I would like to think I would break down in the moment and become a danger myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Who would be satisfied that their child died in a fire. Would I have charged into a fire, unequipped, that firemen could not longer go into with equipment, I have a responsibility to the rest of my family to not commit suicide in hysteria. Just as firemen have a responsibility to not allow hysterical people commit suicide.

 

The only issue here is that I believe if there was any chance to save the kid, something firemen spend their lives doing, they would have continue to try. That's really the only reason they were there. To save lives and put out the fire.

 

I actually think acting so hysterical in handcuffs, in that situation, that you have to be tazed is pussified. I would be heartbroken but I would like to think I would break down in the moment and become a danger myself.

 

Then you made your choice. As others would make different ones. Why should they be stopped, other than for money like you started off with?

 

That said, another person has no right to dictate what others can do with their life. Honestly, you harp on responsibility and training and equipment, but your choice smacks of a cop out. The fact that you think a person wanting to do all they could (while being restrained while their child dies horribly) is pussified speaks oddly and is kind of twisted and sick, but again, that's your choice, and other folks would have other ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Then you made your choice. As others would make different ones. Why should they be stopped, other than for money like you started off with?

 

That said, another person has no right to dictate what others can do with their life. Honestly, you harp on responsibility and training and equipment, but your choice smacks of a cop out. The fact that you think a person wanting to do all they could (while being restrained while their child dies horribly) is pussified speaks oddly and is kind of twisted and sick, but again, that's your choice, and other folks would have other ones.

 

We're basically back to where we started. As individuals, in an ideal situation, we'd all choose to be the hero. The father that charges into a burning building when the firemen say they can't and miraculously save our son.

 

In reality though, we have no responsibility to anyone except ourselves and those we choose. Firefighters have a responsibility to many, including us, and hysterical fathers and fire scenes.

 

Our society has decided that public safety, will save its citizens. We pay taxes to employ people to do just that.

 

It's just a very sad story.

 

PS: I would be interested in hearing what the stepfather thinks of it all after he recovers from hysteria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Even if they saved the guys life they should have let him make his own decision. Police are there to uphold the law not create there own law. What law says you cannot run into a fire. I understand police protect people and stop them from hurting themselves but in this case he was not trying to hurt himself. So now we are saying that the fireman and police are smarter than us and make decisions for us. Typical of our current government. They are trying to regulate everything and know better. I guess there is no more free will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Even if they saved the guys life they should have let him make his own decision. Police are there to uphold the law not create there own law. What law says you cannot run into a fire. I understand police protect people and stop them from hurting themselves but in this case he was not trying to hurt himself. So now we are saying that the fireman and police are smarter than us and make decisions for us. Typical of our current government. They are trying to regulate everything and know better. I guess there is no more free will.

 

Most Police take an oath to uphold the law and protect and serve. And it has been that way for the current government, and all administrations preceding it to my knowledge.

 

Edit: Funny thing is the laws that they swear to uphold may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, some explicitly include localized laws, some mention the State, others the US, but I've never seen one that does not swear to protect and serve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Most Police take an oath to uphold the law and protect and serve. And it has been that way for the current government, and all administrations preceding it to my knowledge.

 

Edit: Funny thing is the laws that they swear to uphold may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, some explicitly include localized laws, some mention the State, others the US, but I've never seen one that does not swear to protect and serve.

 

I know they protect and serve but do they have rules that say no matter what protect the person and do not allow them to save there child. Funny thing is that there is a movie like that. In iRobot Will Smith is a cop and wanted to save a child but the robot saved him because he had a better chance. That father might have problems for the rest of his life because of losing his child. He may end up committing suicide. It all does not matter. Mr. Policeman knows better and his judgment is the best. That would be funny if later on we learned that the fireman who made the decision that it was not save is a volunteer fireman and has less than one hour of on the job experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

A fireman wearing PPE was unable to enter the residence. This man, equipped with pajamas and a shirt, would not have survived. If we poll the duties that each party evoked, then the man was morally justified in risking his life to save his son. Likewise, the firefighters were equally right to stop a man from entering what they judged to be a lethal situation. The actions taken by both groups were justified. The guys with the taser just happened to have won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The only even slightly good outcome here is that at least the father knows he tried. :(  A thoroughly horrible situation where there are only losers, but at least he knows he tried all he could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The only even slightly good outcome here is that at least the father knows he tried. :( A thoroughly horrible situation where there are only losers, but at least he knows he tried all he could.

This, sadly. I hope he doesnt end up killing himself over the loss of the child. He very well may have saved the kid also, but no one will ever know thanks to the police state we have created for ourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This, sadly. I hope he doesnt end up killing himself over the loss of the child. He very well may have saved the kid also, but no one will ever know thanks to the police state we have created for ourselves.

 

If this were a police state paranoid anti-government conspiracy theories would not be allowed to be posted openly online. And they wouldn't have handcuffed him, then tazed him, twice. They would have shot him once and carted him off.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

If this were a police state paranoid anti-government conspiracy theories would not be allowed to be posted openly online. And they wouldn't have handcuffed him, then tazed him, twice. They would have shot him once and carted him off.

 

Agreed. The cops acted in the only way they could. If they'd let the father go in, he'd have died too.  As I say, it's a lose/lose situation with no good outcome for anyone. Not the kid who died, the father who lost a son, or the cops who were forced to stop him trying to save his life.

 

Odds are those cops are parents too. You can bet they didn't want to have to stop him, but what choice did they have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This, sadly. I hope he doesnt end up killing himself over the loss of the child. He very well may have saved the kid also, but no one will ever know thanks to the police state we have created for ourselves.

 

Yea, and he should be allowed to kill himself, because only in a police state would anyone try to actually protect individuals from putting themselves in almost certain danger when in a highly emotional & distraught state... right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It's amazing that they wanted to be mad at the police as is normal in the US but nobody is mad at the firefighters whose "job" it is to run into burning buildings and save people.

 

Let it be known that I support the firefighters and what the police officers did, I'm just commenting on the misdirected anger of the family.  If they had did nothing and watched him run in and die then it would have been "OMG police do nothing while family member runs to his death".  It really is a thankless job.  Thank You police officers for saving that man's life that night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Well, we should all know that the real question here is whether the man's pajamas were flameproof. If the fireman said it was too hot with all of his gear on, he should have taken some of that off. Ever wonder why fire fighters wear heavy coats, boots and long pants with rolled up cuffs? They must be hot as #&ll in that outfit. Especially when fighting a fire. Why don't they wear shorts and a tee shirt? Now, the real problem is the fact that there wasn't a large vat of Vaseline for the man to jump into before he ran into the fire, so his skin would be protected. Also, why didn't the boy just come on out? I think we have a clear cut case of too many answers and not enough questions. Sad story, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Agreed. The cops acted in the only way they could. If they'd let the father go in, he'd have died too.  As I say, it's a lose/lose situation with no good outcome for anyone. Not the kid who died, the father who lost a son, or the cops who were forced to stop him trying to save his life.

 

Odds are those cops are parents too. You can bet they didn't want to have to stop him, but what choice did they have?

 

Yeah sad. Online forums are like the father, emotional. If a person in this conversation doesn't understand that the majority of deaths in fires are caused by smoke inhalation and lack of oxygen, you're not going to get them to slow down and think that through here. Too much emotion. I guess not everyone understands what the oxygen tanks and masks are for, nor how fast a blazing fire zaps oxygen in no time. If it's too "hot" for fire retardant gear, how far do you think flesh and bone will go?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.