Too much of the necessary information is missing to make a good judgement regarding the degree of risk the father faced in entering to rescue an infant son...
Light smoke conditions? Heavy smoke conditions? Smoke with some fire showing? Structure totally involved in flames? Collapse imminent? These are some of the factors firefighters assess in deciding to enter for fire attack and search/rescue, or go defensive and protect adjacent structures...
Firefighters assess degree of fire involvement, along with condition of the structure, its remaining structural integrity, contents, and location of the person to be rescued (if known) when making that call...And it’s the fire incident commander’s call to make, not a cop’s...If the structure was totally involved in fire when crews arrived, then no entry may have been possible...
But IF it’s true family and emergency crews (firefighters?) arrived on scene at the same time, that begs the question why were firefighters not entering to rescue the boy, IF they had any information he was still inside? If the firefighters were told a kid was still inside, did not enter to search and rescue or attempt an interior attack, but went defensive instead, then the father’s desire to try to rescue his son is very understandable...
A cop stopping a father from rescuing his own child because the police officer decides it’s too risky is a decision above the cop’s pay grade, and outside his area of experise...
38 years a firefighter, a cop would have to shoot me if my kid was inside a burning structure...
See my post 31
TT
I don’t think there’s a good father in all the world who wouldn’t *try* to rescue his child under any such circumstances.
It’s part and parcel of doing everything in your power for your kid—leaping into danger, even if it means Junior survives and you don’t.
Too much of the necessary information is missing ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No kidding. See post 89 for details on what really happened.