Posted on 06/04/2013 8:43:47 PM PDT by Altariel
SAN ANTONIO -- A father was tazed by San Antonio police while trying to save his infant boy from a house fire.
The incident occurred at around 2:30 a.m. Sunday during a house fire in the 100 block of Morningview Drive.
Investigators said the parents of the eight-month-old boy had dropped off their children at their grandparents' house. Somehow, a fire got started inside the home shortly thereafter.
The grandparents managed to grab one boy and rush to safety. That's when they realized one boy was still trapped inside.
Emergency crews and the children's parents arrived on the scene at around that time.
The boy's father tried several times to enter the burning home, but police held him back and ended up tazing him. SAPD said it was for his own safety.
The infant died from injuries sustained during the blaze.
Arson is under investigation. Police said the stories just don't add up.
No criminal charges have been filed.
The family is now looking for a new place to stay.
“You just cherry picked a phrase”
I did no such thing. The evidence backs me up here.
“Luckily, in my 15 years here, I have found most members of FR to be a little more discrimination than that.”
Most FReepers pride themselves on being amenable to facts and reason.
And you believe we should tase people into compliance. How hard is it for you to hear that tasers are not to be used for compliance?
You clearly ignored where I said if he had tackled the guy we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
The article shows that he did try to restrain the man. Multiple times.
Would you have thought it ok, if the cop said, alright, it’s your life, go and die in the fire, and he went into the house and subsequently died?
If he did this - he could have been held legally culpable for negligence.
Doubt that part is true but no matter. Still not the boss of me.
I have a human obligation to do whatever the hell it takes to keep you out of that building.
No, you do not. Once again, not the boss of me.
Including tazing your ass if you attempt to run through me to get in.
And I will do every thing possible to rescue my child. Including running over your bleeding body.
I don't care if you are the Attorney General. I am not committing a crime by trying to go in. You have no right, reason or place trying to stop me.
For the third time since you seem to have a vastly inflated idea of your power.
You.Are.NOT.The.Boss.Of.Me.Speedbump.
Not sure how I can make it any more clear. You get between me and what I know is my job and you will be just a thump under my feet as I plow on over you.
So be a wise fellow and get out of my path.
Your "help" is neither wanted or needed.
Nope. The police have no obligation to do anything to help you. Their legal job obligation begins and ends with writing a report.
Nice try sugar.
Really?
And they didn't bring the body out just left it to burn?
How odd.
How unlikely.
Exactly...I rest my case. When the true fact are in, as opposed to "reports," and hearsay, then we can know about the timing of the death of the child.
In no case however, was it appropriate to taze a man who wanted to save his child. If they knew the child was dead, any rational person would tell the father. If they did not, they would try to help him save the child.
End of story.
Amen to you both.
“And they didn’t bring the body out just left it to burn?”
What evidence do you have that they did this? All the report says is that they were aware that the child had already perished.
Uh huh.
It’s a good thing that the headline - “cop tazes man trying to save child” is just written for a lawsuit.
“Doubt that part is true but no matter. Still not the boss of me.”
Doubt all you want. It makes perfect sense.
“No, you do not. Once again, not the boss of me.”
Yes, yes I do have an obligation to try to save your life if I can.
“And I will do every thing possible to rescue my child. Including running over your bleeding body.”
Good luck with that. :)
“I am not committing a crime by trying to go in.”
And I am not committing a crime by stopping you.
“You have no right, reason or place trying to stop me.”
Actually, I do. I have every right to try to stop someone from running into a burning building.
“You.Are.NOT.The.Boss.Of.Me.Speedbump.”
Answer the question. If you saw someone standing on a bridge who appeared to be a jumper, would you get out and talk to them, or would you simply drive on?
“You get between me and what I know is my job and you will be just a thump under my feet as I plow on over you.”
As I said. Good luck with that. I hope it works out for you.
“So be a wise fellow and get out of my path.”
Be a wise fellow, and don’t try to rescue a child who is already dead.
“Your “help” is neither wanted or needed.”
Duly noted. Still have a duty to stop you.
And I am not committing a crime by stopping you.
Yes you are, the moment you touch me it becomes assault. And at that point I have the right to defend myself.
I have every right to try to stop someone from running into a burning building.
No you don't. That is what you don't seem to get.
If you saw someone standing on a bridge who appeared to be a jumper, would you get out and talk to them, or would you simply drive on?
Irrelevant question. You are not just talking but committing assault and battery.
And would I stop someone from jumping in after their drowning child? No.
Be a wise fellow, and don’t try to rescue a child who is already dead.
No proof has been offered that the child was dead except the word of the JBT department who was trying to justify the actions of their out of control employee.
Since their story did not follow an sort of logic then I can only believe they were lying through their teeth.
The fact that the father tried to go in the house. If his child's body was outside then there was no reason for his attempt.
If his child's body was not outside then it had been left to burn.
All the report says is that they were aware that the child had already perished.
And how did they know this without a body?
See my first sentence.
The JBT's story makes no sense.
“The fact that the father tried to go in the house. If his child’s body was outside then there was no reason for his attempt.”
There was no reason for the attempt after being told that your son was already dead.
“And how did they know this without a body?”
Presumably because they went in and found the body?
A mother cat will brave the flames to try to rescue her kittens.
It is primal instinct. Even if the child is not yours a normal person has a basic urge to try to protect the young.
When the child is yours the urge becomes a compulsion. You MUST try to protect.
That's your job.
And heaven help anyone who gets in your way. The stories about mom's who lift cars off their kids? They aren't stories.
If they brought it out then they would have told the father, your child is not in there, he is out here.
If they saw the body and did not bring the child out then they left it to burn.
But as the several stories I read said the Emergency services and the parents arrived at the same time I am curious as to how they could know the child was dead.
Do we have physic Police and Fire Fighters now?
“If they brought it out then they would have told the father”
They did tell the father that his son was dead already.
“But as the several stories I read said the Emergency services and the parents arrived at the same time I am curious as to how they could know the child was dead.”
Simple. When he first showed up he didn’t know his son was still in the building and the firefighters started on the fire. The firefighters when they went in the building found the body of his son and then later came out and told him.
After that, he made multiple attempts to go in the house while the firefighters were still trying to put the fire out. Eventually the officer at the scene tazed him to prevent him from rushing into the fire.
Incorrect.
Firefighters do not go into a burning house unless there are people to be rescued.
Their job is to prevent the fire from spreading.
So they couldn't have done what you said.
But let's assume they did.
Why didn't they bring out the body? He would not have attempted to go in if he knew his child's body was outside the house.
Why did they leave the body to burn?
“Firefighters do not go into a burning house unless there are people to be rescued.”
And when they do a headcount and realize that the kid is inside what do you think they are going to do? They are going to go in and check.
“He would not have attempted to go in if he knew his child’s body was outside the house.”
He attempted several times after being told that his son was dead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.