Police tase father to prevent him from rescuing son from house fire

If this is true and they tazed a father trying to rescue his child from a fire then the LEO who pulled the trigger should be brought up on murder charges and whatever civil suit the father might feel fit to charge them with.
If there was a Solomonlike judge and the trigger happy LEO had a son then ther grieving father should have the choice to adopt without strings the child of the LEO that prevented him from saving his own child. However the courts are not interested in justice there are three classes the Upper level feeders, the taxpayers and the middle management thugs they employ to keep the taxpayers in their place.

IMO -The child was sacrificed by the LEO because he may have rationalised that the father was already paying taxes and the child wasn't and he didn't want to lose the one who contributes to pay his salary.

Parent should ALWAYS be allowed to save their child or die trying. It is their choice.




Tried to embed but I'm not very good at it so here is the link and embed.

www.youtube.com...

You are making assumptions here. What if they stopped the father because the kid was already dead? You know any father would rush into the fire regardless.

reply to post by VforVendettea


i agree that every cop there, that participated in restraining or not attempting to go in until it was determined to be vain attempt are sad sacks.

but to say this.

IMO -The child was sacrificed by the LEO because he may have rationalised that the father was already paying taxes and the child wasn't and he didn't want to lose the one who contributes to pay his salary.

to insinuate that cops are thinking about who are on the tax rolls. well that's just reaching a little bit more than most. i would say that's the furthest thing on their minds.

damwel
You are making assumptions here. What if they stopped the father because the kid was already dead? You know any father would rush into the fire regardless.

It should be the fathers choice to make if "freedom" were truly existent

reply to post by damwel


No more assuming than you are !
Just as usual everyone will say to go for the LEO responsible. More importantly you should ALL be going for the people at the TOP. The police are doing these things because the people above them are telling them to shoot first and think later, then they will be fully backed up if there is any comeback.
You will NEVER stop trigger happy cops until you change those at the top that are allowing them, possibly even ordering them, to do so.

reply to post by VforVendettea


It's hard for me to imagine a parent that wouldn't risk their own lives trying to save their child....I certainly would.

Sad story.

My heart hurts for this poor family.

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


I'll have to agree with your assessment on that!

Cops aren't noted for - or even hired to use - their intellect (if any). Otherwise their wouldn't be "upper limits" on IQ reqwuirements for the profession.

ganjoa

damwel
You are making assumptions here. What if they stopped the father because the kid was already dead? You know any father would rush into the fire regardless.

How would the cop know he was dead? Father would know where the baby is in within the house so he might have clearer idea of that.

reply to post by VforVendettea


I have a child and a cop would have to taze me to stop me from going after him even if he was already dead, but I wonder if the same people blaming the cops for not letting the father go in to a burning house would be blaming the cop if they had allowed the father to enter and he had died...

Would this thread be titled "Cops refuse to intervene and let man die in inferno"?

Cops just can't win sometimes.

reply to post by VforVendettea


Maybe the police saved this mans life, maybe they didn't.

One thing is for sure though, this father will spend the rest of his life being haunted by two words! "WHAT IF?"

Ya this really is a tough one to be honest due to the fact that the cops were obviously looking out for the best interest of the dad. I'm assuming the fire was so bad that the cops were able to use proper judgement and determine the guy would be killing himself trying to go in.

I can understand the wrath for the cops as I am a father of two and would do anything and everything to save my child no matter how bad. But like I said I am just going off assumption that the cops were able to realize there was nothing else that could be done.

reply to post by damwel


1- How would the LEOs know?.
2- Some parents would rather die than live without their child, who are the LEOs to second guess that?

reply to post by seeker1963


What if his child was the center of 'his' universe and his entire reason for living?

I would most definitely go in after my child were there a fire. I wouldn't hesitate..

However, if I didn't make it out wouldn't that be my own fault?

I would call it a natural human right to risk your own life for a loved one but that's just me.

reply to post by VforVendettea

What if his child was the center of 'his' universe and his entire reason for living?

That is what I was referring to in my post. "What if?"

What if the police wouldn't have tased me?

The fact that he was prevented from going back in, will most likely haunt him for the rest of his life. Be it he might have been able to save the child or not...

This is one of those stories where there are no winners! Maybe the police did the right thing, maybe they didn't......

overratedpatriotism
reply to post by VforVendettea

 

I have a child and a cop would have to taze me to stop me from going after him even if he was already dead, but I wonder if the same people blaming the cops for not letting the father go in to a burning house would be blaming the cop if they had allowed the father to enter and he had died...

Would this thread be titled "Cops refuse to intervene and let man die in inferno"?

Cops just can't win sometimes.

Agreed. I personally clicked on this topic expecting to see yet another example of cops clearly acting inappropriately but this seems like a lose-lose situation. It's a complex ethical question. Most people would support a cop using a taser to stop an individual from intentionally committing suicide (though, some wouldn't), but on the flip side I can sympathize with the idea that this man was denied a fundamental right to risk his own life to potentially save another.

reply to post by VforVendettea



I starred and flagged your thread. I didn't read all the posts but did watch the video you posted.

All I can say after watching the vid. is God help the person who would try to prevent me from saving my son.

overratedpatriotism
reply to post by VforVendettea

 

I have a child and a cop would have to taze me to stop me from going after him even if he was already dead, but I wonder if the same people blaming the cops for not letting the father go in to a burning house would be blaming the cop if they had allowed the father to enter and he had died...

Would this thread be titled "Cops refuse to intervene and let man die in inferno"?

Cops just can't win sometimes.

This. I dont know all the facts, but at first glance it seems the cops were trying to protect the father from running into a fire as well and having the chance of him dying as well.
I get that...

They would have to tazer me though, I would have done everything to run into there.

Just as if the father had held back a police officer from going in to help another officer get out,

individual oaths (officers) should be held legally liable in court, prison & financial loss for their actions & damages.

Please update with civil suit filed when it is, OP.

reply to post by damwel


Watch the video, the house is still up. the child could/should have been saved and probably would have been, if the police had not chosen to "tase the father three times and then restrain him before the fire dept arrived."

This was the defacto 'murder' of a child by preventing the father from saving his child.