“IMHO, JC, you have a very poor, and short-sighted attitude.”
Hardly.
I think the knee jerk libertarian condemnation of first responders and the police was exposed for what it was here -total bullshit.
All of you had your minds made up that the police was oppressing this man when the reality is that the officer saved this man from killing himself.
How can I be shortsighted when I was the one who had the correct understanding of what was actually going on? I believe the term is perspicacity.
“It is one, in our day that is sadly born of a state/government that feels it is their job to restrict and order the actions of its citizens”
Yawn. Libertarian bullshit that would have resulted in two funerals. We have an obligation to our fellow man as human beings. Had the police officer adopted your point of view here - yes, the husband would have died here too.
Because the police officer actually did his job here - he saved the man’s life.
“for what it perceives to be their “safety.”
I should think that the police officer should be commended for his level-headed solution to a very difficult situation. Not only did he save the man’s life, he also did so in a way that will not leave permanent damage. There are much worse outcomes to this story.
“Well, that’s not the state’s job in individual cases like this.”
Yes, it is the job of the police officer here to do what he exactly did, save the life of the father.
“but leave law abiding citizens alone.”
Again- had the officer done this here, the husband would have charged into the burning building and died.
“The father was trying to save his son.”
His son was already dead. Do you know what that means?
“This is not a case where he got there long after things had occurred and there was no hope.”
HIS SON WAS ALREADY DEAD. THERE WAS NO HOPE.
“His duty and responsibility as a father”
HIS SON WAS ALREADY DEAD. He had an obligation to live as a father to his other son, who survived, not to die in a futile effort to save someone already dead.
“for his infant son transcends what you feel is your duty if you were that state employee.”
NOT WHEN THE SON IS ALREADY DEAD.
“The father is an adult, and despite your feelings to the contrary, you are not his father, and he is not under your “charge.” “
With his son being dead, damn straight I’m going to keep him from killing himself.
“The father in this case is his son’s legal custodian.”
HIS SON WAS ALREADY DEAD, he was no longer legal custodian. The cop, however, had an obligation to prevent people from entering the burning building and dying.
“You and the state want to assume and presume custodianship for all of us.”
*sigh*. I am asserting that the cop had a job to do here in protecting the father from killing himself and keeping the father and the general public out of the damn building. By force if necessary.
“Sorry, but it does not work that way... indeed it CANNOT work that way...in a free society.”
Can’t see the forest for the trees.
“(and the fact that you call a man intent on saving his sons life a “fool” reveals all that need be said about your attitude if you are/were a state employee to your fellow citizens, who in fact are your employers).”
He was a damn fool. His son was already dead. There was no point to him killing himself by entering the building which was already on fire.
“his responsibility this man had to his infant son”
HIS SON WAS DEAD.
“a number of people should have worked with him to do everything possible to save the child.”
Again,
HIS SON WAS ALREADY DEAD BEFORE HE TRIED TO ENTER THE BUILDING. The cop stopped him from trying to kill himself for nothing.
“it is heroic and respresentative of the highest level of service someone can perform.”
It is not heroic to kill yourself trying to rescue someone who is already known to be dead. It is foolish. It is stupid and it is a complete and total waste of time.
‘The act of tasing him to prevent that was far, far on the other end of the scale.”
Again. Bullshit. The cop saved this man’s life.
“Did not shwo any respect for his responsibilty or position as the father”
FFS - what was the cop to do? He knew the son was dead. There was absolutely nothing to gain by re-entering the burning building.
“and IMHO, was in fact a cowardly act.”
Finally. Libertarian coming right out and calling a first responder a goddamn coward for saving the man’s life.
And you can believe I’d do the same to you.
“If you had been there and tried to tase me, I would have done all in my power to cold-cock you, so I could go on about trying to save that man’s life.”
Again, this situation is not like that. You’d be risking your life for someone I already knew to be dead.
"According to Wallace, Darion's father tried to run back into the burning home to save his son but was restrained when he was shot with a Taser by San Antonio police. A spokesman for SAPD said the infant's body had already been discovered, “and the scene was being processed when (the) male tried to forcibly enter the scene.”
You now believe the child was already dead.
I am not buying that so quickly based on one report of what someone "said." And especially not when I start analyzing it from some other angle than using it to porve my point.
Look at the report. They say they had to tase the father to keep him from entering a burning home on one hand, yet at the same time they say they had already found the dead child's body and were processing the fire scene.
Really?
So, how did they get into the burning home to make that discovery? How were they processing a scene in a burning home? The story line and time line from this report simply do not add up.
I based my response to you on the report that the father and mother got there at the same time as the responders and the father tried to get in to save his infant son. Which is all that any of knew at the time of those discussions. I believe the course of action in that circumstance was clear. Try and save the child.
You based your initial response on that same report, but now that there is a different report, have changed to say that the child was already dead and the responders knew it, therefore you were right.
Bravo sierra.
If they knew it, why didn't they tell the father? If the child was dead, then I agree, there is no reason to go back in...but you do not know, I do not know, and apparently the people reporting do not know that was the case. The stories don't match, and the later time line clearly has problems.
As I said earlier, if the father is trying to get in to sace his child, you help him. If the child is already diead, you tell him. Tasing him makes no sense.
And...blah blah blah...and go on and on about this controlling mind set that tyou he government has this obligatipon to restrain people in such circumstances. Clearly, the father thought he could save his child...and clearly the story is evolving. Some of it may be the fog of the incident...some of it may be CYA too.
And, BTW, despite you presumptions, I am not a libertarioan in the least I am a constitionnal conservative...who almost always votes Republican here in Idaho where we still have Republicans who understand the proper role of government.
In the end, no government official's perceived obligation to save me from myself trumps my obligation to protect and save my family. Period. Folks in government better figure that out. If they don't, as surely as night follows day, one day things will go badly for them.