Replies

but at least I have honor enough not to attack the good men who did their damndest

They only thing we know for sure is that they did their damndest to prevent the father from making an attempt at saving his child. There is no dishonor in pointing out their lack of honor. They may have thought it futile; clearly the father did not -- or if he did, he was willing to risk it. His choice.

If the "rescuers" demonstrate as much "doubt" and "quit" as you seem to harbor, for all we know, there may have only been smoke showing. Just as it's possible the structure was fully involved and the roof had collapsed, it's just as possible it wasn't nearly as bad and the "rescuers" were more concerned about being out-performed by an amateur who wasn't saddled by their rules and/or cowardice. But now that they tasered the only person willing to take a shot at going after the child, you can bet your @$$ that the "official" story will be chock-a-block full of CYA.

Regardless, my point still stands and you have merely reinforced it. You still choose to hide behind your excuses. The only point you've made is that because *you* would be too cowardly to risk going in after the child, no-one else should be allowed to either.

And I'm not attacking your character as much as I'm making an observation of an obvious flaw in your character that others in the thread have also mentioned.

I don't expect you to like it. Heck, I wouldn't like it either.

There’s no honor in running into a burning building to try to save someone who is already dead. If I know that person is already dead, I am going to try to stop the father from trying to go into the building.

What would you say to the cop, knowing that the son was already dead, did nothing and let the father go in and die? Would you consider him more morally upright than the cop who stopped the father, even tazing him, to stop him from going in?

“for all we know, there may have only been smoke showing.”

The facts that we do have state that the child was dead before the father attempted to go in to save the child.

Does that change the calculus or are you going to be like everyone else here and doubt direct evidence provided by witnesses at the scene because it proves that you are wrong?