WaterfowlForum.Net

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:23 pm**

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/07/missouri-police-stun-stepdad-trying-to-save-son-from-fire-1637542212/

Basically, the guys stepchild was in a burning building the police/fire dept had decided was too dangerous to enter. They tazed the stepdad as he was trying to run into the house to save his stepchild.

I honestly don't know where I come down on this. Hard to judge the police officer in hindsight and don't know if the situation was escalating and spiraling out of control you'd have enough time to sit around and weigh options, but at the same time, a piece of me says, its a free country.

Thoughts?

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:38 pm**

I know if I had a kid it a burning building I'd be going in until I came out with him or died trying.

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:40 pm**

Wrong. The "authorities" need to stop trying to protect people from themselves. If that guy was willing to die in order to try and save his kid then they have no damned business stopping from going in.

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:42 pm**

But I guess if there was truly no way to save the kid, it was in the guys beat interest. In a situation like that I'm sure he wasn't thinking at all.
Kind of a rock an a hard place deal.

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:44 pm**

Oh shit! Here we go again!

That's a tough one Doc. The stepdad's life was saved. But yes it is a free country.

Pops entering the building coulda put firefighters lives in danger trying to save him as well.

On the other hand, the news story the next morning would've read "last night local fire and police officials allowed a man to enter a home engulfed in flames. The man perished as fire personnel stood by and watched without making an attempt to save him. The local district attorney is filing charges against all fire and police official on scene. The case is currently under review."

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:45 pm**

jmitch wrote:Wrong. The "authorities" need to stop trying to protect people from themselves. If that guy was willing to die in order to try and save his kid then they have no damned business stopping from going in.

This. Who the fuck are they to say what someone can or can't do with THEIR life.

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:45 pm**

jmitch wrote:Wrong. The "authorities" need to stop trying to protect people from themselves. If that guy was willing to die in order to try and save his kid then they have no damned business stopping from going in.

wrong

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:47 pm**

NuffDaddy wrote:But I guess if there was truly no way to save the kid, it was in the guys beat interest. In a situation like that I'm sure he wasn't thinking at all.
Kind of a rock an a hard place deal.

Who gets to make the decision that its a lost cause? The dude will spend the rest of his life thinking what if. It is a tough situation for everybody

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:48 pm**

Redbeard wrote:
jmitch wrote:Wrong. The "authorities" need to stop trying to protect people from themselves. If that guy was willing to die in order to try and save his kid then they have no damned business stopping from going in.
wrong

Who or what gives you the right as a cop to say he can't try to save his kid?

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:51 pm**

jmitch wrote:
NuffDaddy wrote:But I guess if there was truly no way to save the kid, it was in the guys beat interest. In a situation like that I'm sure he wasn't thinking at all.
Kind of a rock an a hard place deal.

Who gets to make the decision that its a lost cause? The dude will spend the rest of his life thinking what if. It is a tough situation for everybody

how bout the firemen, who dressed in full gear, couldn't enter the building because of the intense heat?

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:02 pm**

Redbeard wrote:
jmitch wrote:
NuffDaddy wrote:But I guess if there was truly no way to save the kid, it was in the guys beat interest. In a situation like that I'm sure he wasn't thinking at all.
Kind of a rock an a hard place deal.

Who gets to make the decision that its a lost cause? The dude will spend the rest of his life thinking what if. It is a tough situation for everybody
how bout the firemen, who dressed in full gear, couldn't enter the building because of the intense heat?

I get what you're saying I just don't think that's anybody else's decision that's all. May be a dumbassed decision but its still is his to make in my opinion

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:04 pm**

jmitch wrote:
Redbeard wrote:
jmitch wrote:
NuffDaddy wrote:But I guess if there was truly no way to save the kid, it was in the guys beat interest. In a situation like that I'm sure he wasn't thinking at all.
Kind of a rock an a hard place deal.

Who gets to make the decision that its a lost cause? The dude will spend the rest of his life thinking what if. It is a tough situation for everybody
how bout the firemen, who dressed in full gear, couldn't enter the building because of the intense heat?

I get what you're saying I just don't think that's anybody else's decision that's all. May be a dumbassed decision but its still is his to make in my opinion

and I fully get what you're saying and I'd probably try and do the same thing the stepdad did, not thinking. At least he didn't widow his wife because of the actions taken

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:05 pm**

jmitch wrote:
Redbeard wrote:
jmitch wrote:
NuffDaddy wrote:But I guess if there was truly no way to save the kid, it was in the guys beat interest. In a situation like that I'm sure he wasn't thinking at all.
Kind of a rock an a hard place deal.

Who gets to make the decision that its a lost cause? The dude will spend the rest of his life thinking what if. It is a tough situation for everybody
how bout the firemen, who dressed in full gear, couldn't enter the building because of the intense heat?

I get what you're saying I just don't think that's anybody else's decision that's all. May be a dumbassed decision but its still is his to make in my opinion

How much was he really thinking though? Pure adrenaline and instinct at that point.
It would be interesting to see what the guys has to say about it after the fact.

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:06 pm**

Redbeard wrote:
jmitch wrote:
Redbeard wrote:
jmitch wrote:
NuffDaddy wrote:But I guess if there was truly no way to save the kid, it was in the guys beat interest. In a situation like that I'm sure he wasn't thinking at all.
Kind of a rock an a hard place deal.

Who gets to make the decision that its a lost cause? The dude will spend the rest of his life thinking what if. It is a tough situation for everybody
how bout the firemen, who dressed in full gear, couldn't enter the building because of the intense heat?

I get what you're saying I just don't think that's anybody else's decision that's all. May be a dumbassed decision but its still is his to make in my opinion
and I fully get what you're saying and I'd probably try and do the same thing the stepdad did, not thinking. At least he didn't widow his wife because of the actions taken

And possibly other children

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:07 pm**

The cops lit the fire I bet!

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:09 pm**

Redbeard wrote:Oh shit! Here we go again!

That's a tough one Doc. The stepdad's life was saved. But yes it is a free country.

Pops entering the building coulda put firefighters lives in danger trying to save him as well.

On the other hand, the news story the next morning would've read "last night local fire and police officials allowed a man to enter a home engulfed in flames. The man perished as fire personnel stood by and watched without making an attempt to save him. The local district attorney is filing charges against all fire and police official on scene. The case is currently under review."

I'm with Red on this one, by stopping the guy from entering the building they did exactly what they are trained to do. If they let the step dad in then decide they need to go rescue him as well then at least two firefighters have to enter the structure. With two more ready to go at the door if they go down. As hard as it is there is really no winning in a situation like this.

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:09 pm**

Bootlipkiller wrote:The cops lit the fire I bet!

everyone knows firemen start fires for the overtime

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:15 pm**

Flightstopper wrote:
Redbeard wrote:Oh shit! Here we go again!

That's a tough one Doc. The stepdad's life was saved. But yes it is a free country.

Pops entering the building coulda put firefighters lives in danger trying to save him as well.

On the other hand, the news story the next morning would've read "last night local fire and police officials allowed a man to enter a home engulfed in flames. The man perished as fire personnel stood by and watched without making an attempt to save him. The local district attorney is filing charges against all fire and police official on scene. The case is currently under review."

I'm with Red on this one, by stopping the guy from entering the building they did exactly what they are trained to do. If they let the step dad in then decide they need to go rescue him as well then at least two firefighters have to enter the structure. With two more ready to go at the door if they go down. As hard as it is there is really no winning in a situation like this.

If they already decided they weren't going to enter for the kid, why would they suddenly need to enter because someone else ran in?

I'm not a cop, but I can't imagine that they are trained for situations like this. I'm sure that the LEO's can argue that other training they have recieved can be applied here, but I find it hard to believe that this situation is covered in the academy.

I don't like that the guy wasn't allowed to make an attempt to go in, but on the other hand, I believe that most law enforcement agencies use the motto "To protect and serve". If that's accurate, then I would say that the cop was protecting the dad, and you could make an argument that he was trained to do just that...

I'm not sure how to feel about this one. Prayers for the family involved, and thankful that it wasn't something that I was involved in from either side.

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:16 pm**

Bootlipkiller wrote:The cops lit the fire I bet!

fucking cops

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:17 pm**

rebelp74 wrote:
Bootlipkiller wrote:The cops lit the fire I bet!

fucking cops

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:18 pm**

Feelin' Fowl wrote:
Flightstopper wrote:
Redbeard wrote:Oh shit! Here we go again!

That's a tough one Doc. The stepdad's life was saved. But yes it is a free country.

Pops entering the building coulda put firefighters lives in danger trying to save him as well.

On the other hand, the news story the next morning would've read "last night local fire and police officials allowed a man to enter a home engulfed in flames. The man perished as fire personnel stood by and watched without making an attempt to save him. The local district attorney is filing charges against all fire and police official on scene. The case is currently under review."

I'm with Red on this one, by stopping the guy from entering the building they did exactly what they are trained to do. If they let the step dad in then decide they need to go rescue him as well then at least two firefighters have to enter the structure. With two more ready to go at the door if they go down. As hard as it is there is really no winning in a situation like this.

If they already decided they weren't going to enter for the kid, why would they suddenly need to enter because someone else ran in?

I'm not a cop, but I can't imagine that they are trained for situations like this. I'm sure that the LEO's can argue that other training they have recieved can be applied here, but I find it hard to believe that this situation is covered in the academy.

I don't like that the guy wasn't allowed to make an attempt to go in, but on the other hand, I believe that most law enforcement agencies use the motto "To protect and serve". If that's accurate, then I would say that the cop was protecting the dad, and you could make an argument that he was trained to do just that...

I'm not sure how to feel about this one. Prayers for the family involved, and thankful that it wasn't something that I was involved in from either side.

cops are trained for situations exactly like this

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:21 pm**

Redbeard wrote:
Feelin' Fowl wrote:
Flightstopper wrote:
Redbeard wrote:Oh shit! Here we go again!

That's a tough one Doc. The stepdad's life was saved. But yes it is a free country.

Pops entering the building coulda put firefighters lives in danger trying to save him as well.

On the other hand, the news story the next morning would've read "last night local fire and police officials allowed a man to enter a home engulfed in flames. The man perished as fire personnel stood by and watched without making an attempt to save him. The local district attorney is filing charges against all fire and police official on scene. The case is currently under review."

I'm with Red on this one, by stopping the guy from entering the building they did exactly what they are trained to do. If they let the step dad in then decide they need to go rescue him as well then at least two firefighters have to enter the structure. With two more ready to go at the door if they go down. As hard as it is there is really no winning in a situation like this.

If they already decided they weren't going to enter for the kid, why would they suddenly need to enter because someone else ran in?

I'm not a cop, but I can't imagine that they are trained for situations like this. I'm sure that the LEO's can argue that other training they have recieved can be applied here, but I find it hard to believe that this situation is covered in the academy.

I don't like that the guy wasn't allowed to make an attempt to go in, but on the other hand, I believe that most law enforcement agencies use the motto "To protect and serve". If that's accurate, then I would say that the cop was protecting the dad, and you could make an argument that he was trained to do just that...

I'm not sure how to feel about this one. Prayers for the family involved, and thankful that it wasn't something that I was involved in from either side.
cops are trained for situations exactly like this

I agree with Red, somebody had to show em how and when to use the tazer.

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:22 pm**

Tazer probably started the fire

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:23 pm**

Redbeard wrote:Tazer probably started the fire

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:32 pm**

Yeah, Im not sure it was the "right" thing to do, but I don't think I can fault the cops for tazing him. When it was going down it was probably a cluster. A lot of split second decisions were made without the luxury of time. Don't know if I can say one way or the other.

Was very curious to get input from other people so naturally I turn to the most degenerate people I know.

:tk:

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:32 pm**

Feelin' Fowl wrote:
Flightstopper wrote:
Redbeard wrote:Oh shit! Here we go again!

That's a tough one Doc. The stepdad's life was saved. But yes it is a free country.

Pops entering the building coulda put firefighters lives in danger trying to save him as well.

On the other hand, the news story the next morning would've read "last night local fire and police officials allowed a man to enter a home engulfed in flames. The man perished as fire personnel stood by and watched without making an attempt to save him. The local district attorney is filing charges against all fire and police official on scene. The case is currently under review."

I'm with Red on this one, by stopping the guy from entering the building they did exactly what they are trained to do. If they let the step dad in then decide they need to go rescue him as well then at least two firefighters have to enter the structure. With two more ready to go at the door if they go down. As hard as it is there is really no winning in a situation like this.

If they already decided they weren't going to enter for the kid, why would they suddenly need to enter because someone else ran in?

I'm not a cop, but I can't imagine that they are trained for situations like this. I'm sure that the LEO's can argue that other training they have recieved can be applied here, but I find it hard to believe that this situation is covered in the academy.

I don't like that the guy wasn't allowed to make an attempt to go in, but on the other hand, I believe that most law enforcement agencies use the motto "To protect and serve". If that's accurate, then I would say that the cop was protecting the dad, and you could make an argument that he was trained to do just that...

I'm not sure how to feel about this one. Prayers for the family involved, and thankful that it wasn't something that I was involved in from either side.

The situation changes when he enters. If it's bad enough they wont let firefighters in there is little chance the dad will make it more than a few steps in before he collapses from smoke inhalation, left to die or require rescuing.

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:35 pm**

He may have been one of Stan Lee's superhumans...

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:36 pm**

Feelin' Fowl wrote:He may have been one of Stan Lee's superhumans...

Fuck it, 50/50!

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:37 pm**

How many guess will it take to figure out how I voted?

The man owned the house and the property it was on.
The man was making a free choice to risk his own life

This shit is out of control.

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:39 pm**

Feelin' Fowl wrote:He may have been one of Stan Lee's superhumans...

I'd fully expect this response from you and your avatar

WaterfowlForum.Net

Honestly curious on your opinion

Honestly curious on your opinion

Re: Honestly curious on your opinion

Re: Honestly curious on your opinion

Re: Honestly curious on your opinion

Re: Honestly curious on your opinion

Re: Honestly curious on your opinion

Re: Honestly curious on your opinion

Re: Honestly curious on your opinion

Re: Honestly curious on your opinion

Re: Honestly curious on your opinion

Re: Honestly curious on your opinion

Re: Honestly curious on your opinion

Re: Honestly curious on your opinion

Re: Honestly curious on your opinion

Re: Honestly curious on your opinion

Re: Honestly curious on your opinion

Re: Honestly curious on your opinion

Re: Honestly curious on your opinion

Re: Honestly curious on your opinion

Re: Honestly curious on your opinion

Re: Honestly curious on your opinion

Re: Honestly curious on your opinion

Re: Honestly curious on your opinion

Re: Honestly curious on your opinion

Re: Honestly curious on your opinion

Re: Honestly curious on your opinion

Re: Honestly curious on your opinion

Re: Honestly curious on your opinion

Re: Honestly curious on your opinion

Re: Honestly curious on your opinion