“Then if you lack the spine to take the heat”
Nonsense. I’m perfectly willing to stand and take the heat for this decision. What I am not willing to do is throw someone’s life away in the hopes of saving another person when we already have them safe and sound.
What you are angry about is that I don’t see eye to eye with you which is why you’re attacking my character. That’s ok. I don’t think you’re a bad person at all. It’s a hard case. I am just saying what I would do if I were the cop and I had a father who was safe and was out of the fire. Would I do my damndest to keep him from charging back in? Absolutely. Why? Because I believe that his life is important and that I have a responsibility to him to keep him safe.
“If that father decided to risk his life to attempt to save his child while the rest of you “safety first” rescuers were standing around examining their navels and hiding behind inflexible rules, policy & procedure”
One, this isn’t true. You’re making a boatload of assumptions here - the job of the rescuers is to do what they can with what they have. How do you know what the fire was like? What evidence do you have that they did nothing? how do you know they didn’t show up and realize that the fire and the building was too far gone to have a hope in hell of saving anyone in it?
You don’t. You have the testimony of the angry father who is upset with the whole situation - but we do not have the pertinent facts.
Jumping on and attacking the cops for saving this man’s life is simply par for the course. What would you say if this man did rush in, and die in the fire? Would you blame the rescuers?
“all you need do is tell the father he’s crazy to go in there and your cowardly butt will NOT come in after him.”
It’s easy enough to let him die in the fire. Just let him go and do nothing. That’s not what this cop did. This cop did what he had to do to save this man’s life.
“Then get your useless, gutless, pathetic carcass out of the way and be respectful while the father tries his damndest, whether futile or not.”
Again, I would have an obligation to protect that man from committing suicide by rushing into a burning building.
“If you lacked the spine and sense of selfless duty to go in after the child”
How do you know what the building was like at the time? Were you there? What evidence do you have that there was a chance for the child to be saved? The father would have gone in anyways even if there was no chance at all because he sees it as his duty to try.
I understand that, but it would be my duty to try to save his life, rather than sitting there like a coward and doing nothing.
“You can’t be branded a bigger coward by refusing to go in after the father as well.”
Right. I’m the coward by preventing the father from getting into a building that is on fire, and from risking his life.
“Let a father with purpose, honor and selflessness do the hard work you won’t do.”
Honor has a purpose. Letting someone die in order to fulfill his honor to his son is senseless. I have a duty as well, and that is to keep the man who is safe out of the damn building. He would have killed himself rather than sit. I understand that but that’s precisely why I have to step in and keep him on this side of the line.
“You argue that because *you* wouldn’t go in after the child, no-one else should be allowed to either.”
“your level of “quit” and “cowardice”.”
Right, it’s cowardice because the rescuers failed to get to his son in time. I’m sorry, but at least I have honor enough not to attack the good men who did their damndest. Just because they failed, did not mean they didn’t try.
but at least I have honor enough not to attack the good men who did their damndestThey 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.