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.
In the age of the taser, trying to restrain someone means barking orders.
Your thoughts on the use of a taser coincide with free citizens being tased into compliance, and dogs being shot on private property. It has followed the militarization of the police, and the theory that risk is no longer acceptable to LEOs.
If a cop wouldn’t shoot someone, then they shouldn’t tase them. That is where you and I fundamentally disagree. There is no more relevant point.
I would agree with shooting someone trying to get into a burning building.
Trying to tie up the debate in ambiguity seems...cowardly.
I’m talking to the average person caught in a house fire. They need to get out. They are not a first responder - they are not trained to deal with the situation.
You made no such distinction. From your post #32, "First lesson of a fire - if you are out do not go back in." Your statement was absolute, and cowardly, regardless of whom you now attempt to retroactively direct it toward.
Now, that the facts have confirmed that:
Decisions are made with the information available at the time. Unless a the baby was physically examined and a diagnosis of death had been made, no one could say with any certainty that the child was already dead. The opinions of cowardly first responders standing outside the structure are both completely biased and completely unqualified to ascertain the status of a baby inside. The only thing that is certain is that the baby is dead now. Their culpability in the death is still in question.
1, the firemen already knew that the kid was dead, now,
No he could not have know that at that time, although I am sure that these cowards are trying to find some solace in that false claim.
it make sense what the police officer did by saving the life of the father?
There is no indication whether they did or did not save the father's life with their cowardly actions. The only aspect of this that can be known for certain is that they prevented any chance of anyone saving the baby.
It’s a damn good thing he did too, because otherwise there would be two funerals and not one.
Again, cowards try to excuse cowardly behavior by completely ignoring likelihoods and instead retroactively dwelling solely on the negative outcomes which were created by their cowardice.
There’s absolutely nothing cowardly about choosing to accept reality here. Kid was dead. Nothing more could be done.
The was no way of know what the reality was. All their cowardice did was to insure the death of that child.
Actually, I had the situation pegged.
The excuses and equivocations of the cowardly first responders do nothing to bolster your defense of their cowardice. They could not have been certain, and neither can you be.
There was exactly zero benefit to him going in and risking his life for someone already dead.
Again, they could not have known the baby was already dead since they were too cowardly to go in and find out if the baby was still alive.
No risk was acceptable in this circumstance.
According to your cowardly post #32, no risk is ever acceptable regardless of the circumstance.
Not with the kid being dead, there’s simply no point in risking someone’s life.
You go right ahead and keep telling yourself that the baby was already dead when no one at the time could have definitely made that determination. It's what cowards do.
“Your faulty absolutist view does not allow for a rescuer to take even a very small risk for an almost certain rescue.” ‘Certain rescue’? There was certainty, but it wasn’t a rescue.
That was the general conclusion of your cowardly statements in your post #32 that "First lesson of a fire - if you are out do not go back in. and "That was our rule with a fire. Don’t look around for anybody else." If you would get out without saving anyone and would not go back in to save anyone, you wouldn't save anyone. That seems very cowardly.
I was trained how to get out. We never had a single fire. God willing never will.
From what you said about your family in post #32, you come from a family of cowards.
Best cause is preventation. Plan for the worst but do what you can to prevent being in the situation in the first place.
And if prevention fails, your family will abandon you or you will abandon them. At least there would be some sad justice in the mutual cowardice.
Yeah, I had parents who loved me enough to teach me how to be self-reliant in the situation where I was in danger and gave me the skills necessary to look after myself. Yeah, they really didn’t love me at all there.
I don't know what love could mean to someone too cowardly to put themselves at risk for someone they supposedly love. That's simply not love.
Like I said, we did drills. Timed drills. I said this exact same thing to my father so he said - well, let’s try it your way. So we did. Fire alarm came, my father went to go check up on me, I went to go check up on my father, my mother on us, my brothers on each other. By the time we all managed to find the other, we were still in the house and now clustered together. We still had to find the exit of the house and get out. We didn’t make it in 10 minutes and my dad said, “you’re dead”. Point driven home.
That is very sad, and sort of funny, on many levels. I reiterate that I would hate to be born into your family!
We did it his way, and we consistantly got everyone out of the house in 10 minutes easily. Everyone knew his job and where to go and where to meet up. Nobody had to stop and figure things out we all knew what to do when it happened.
Of course everyone got out, it was just a drill!!!
Escape plans either work or they do not. You don’t have time to fix it if it doesn’t work. It has to be right the first time.
And if anyone in your family finds they need help, they're on their own!
How so? Like I said, escape plans either work or they do not.
This goes back to your inability to comprehend likelihoods. No plan can possible anticipate every contingency or never require revision. To think otherwise is naive.
Yawn. Ronaldus minimus apparently has forgotten Ronald’s rules about personal attacks.
I have made no personal attacks. I have merely made logically unavoidable conclusions based on what you have written on this thread. And I do pity you.
“You made no such distinction.”
Which is why I made the clarification. I am not talking to first responders who are trained to deal with these situations. I’m talking about someone who is at home and when their home is on fire.
I go on to discuss how my family had prepared itself to protect themselves in the event of a fire. We were trained specifically to seek the quickest exit out of the house - all of us, and not to waste time looking. Get out. We drilled and were timed. If we were not out in 10 minutes my dad would drill us sometime again when we weren’t expecting it until we were out in ten minutes.
It became especially clear to us the importance of keeping clear lines of movement to the nearest exits. There were times when clutter was a problem, and we had to go and clean stuff out so that things were clear again. Something we would not have had time to do in case of a fire.
“Your statement was absolute, and cowardly,”
This is a personal attack.
“Unless a the baby was physically examined and a diagnosis of death had been made, no one could say with any certainty that the child was already dead.”
Ok. Fireman goes into house. Finds a completely charred and blackened crib with the remains of a child in it.
Is this child alive? No. Is there much doubt that the child is no longer alive? Also no. Physical examination is not necessary to determine that a child is dead in a fire.
“cowardly first responders standing outside the structure are both completely biased and completely unqualified”
And Rambo minimus here is awfully brave behind his keyboard.
“Their culpability in the death is still in question.”
Yeah, I’m sure that the father’s family will sue the fire department, which in turn will take more money from the taxpayer thanks to folks like you, meaning that our taxes will go up. Thanks! I appreciate your concern for the welfare of the family by attacking the people who had tried to help.
“No he could not have know that at that time”
Sez who? You? Yes, he could have known at the time the father was trying to get into the house, because he went into the house to look for the kid when it became apparent that they were short one by the headcount.
“false claim.”
Prove it!
“There is no indication whether they did or did not save the father’s life”
Yes, they did save the life of the father by preventing him from rushing into a burning building. What would you have thought of the police officer had he not done his job and let the man run in to the house and then die?
What then, Rambo minimus?
“that they prevented any chance of anyone saving the baby.”
The baby was already dead before the father attempted to go in. Making further attempts was futile.
Risking your life to save someone you know is already dead is pointless. It’s not cowardice, it’s reason.
“The was no way of know what the reality was”
Absolutely there was. The child - was already dead. The Father was told and informed of this before attempting to rush into the house. The cop restrained him, and then continued to attempt to enter the house and was Tazed.
“They could not have been certain, and neither can you be.”
Absolutely they could have been certain that the child was dead.
“Again, they could not have known the baby was already dead since they were too cowardly to go in and find out if the baby was still alive.”
They had already gone in after they knew that the headcount was short one. They found the child dead. Then the father attempted to go into the building, and they restrained him from doing so.
“According to your cowardly post #32, no risk is ever acceptable regardless of the circumstance.”
No risk is acceptable when the object of that risk is already dead.
“If you would get out without saving anyone and would not go back in to save anyone, you wouldn’t save anyone. That seems very cowardly.”
It’s not my job to save anyone. It’s my job to get out. If everyone does their job, the way they are supposed to do their job, then everyone will get out safe. Again, we practiced and drilled together. We had a system that consistantly got people out within 10 minutes of an alarm.
Thankfully we never had to test it in a real fire. If we had, I am confident that everyone would have survived.
“From what you said about your family in post #32, you come from a family of cowards.”
This is a personal attack.
“And if prevention fails, your family will abandon you or you will abandon them.”
Nonsense. Everyone gets out of the house and then we know that we are safe. It’s imperative that everyone does his job and holds up his own end. My job, and it was drilled in me - was to get out. Same with everyone else.
“to put themselves at risk for someone they supposedly love.”
What’s more important? A system that works, or a system that puts someone you love in danger?
I love my father and my mother. Did I want them putting themselves at risk to try to save me because I did not do my job? No. I would rather do as I was told and ensure that all of us get out safely without having to put each other at risk. That’s the whole point of it.
If you love someone, you want them to be safe.
“That is very sad, and sort of funny, on many levels. I reiterate that I would hate to be born into your family!”
It wasn’t funny at all. Dad was being deadly serious.
I appreciate your honesty.
firefighters went in saw the room that the child was in and discovered that the child was deadAgain -- since it appears you missed it the first time -- Who went in to check to determine the child was dead before the father was tased -and- if they were right there with the child, why did they *leave* the child? Or, is this hind-sight reporting? That is, *IF* they actually went in and checked for signs of life at all? What did they look from binoculars? Just poke their head in the front door? Or did they lay hands on the child and check for breath & pulse? And if they did, why did they leave the child behind, dead or alive?
Yep. Nice piece of work by these so called, "heroes"...
A more reasonable and prudent read indicates this is just a hind-sight story to cover their backsides. Fortunately for them, the evidence was burned to a crisp and the coroner already has their narrative. The only thing anyone knows without a doubt is: "That's their story and they're sticking to it".
“Again — since it appears you missed it the first time — Who went in to check to determine the child was dead before the father was tased”
One of the firefighters.
“if they were right there with the child, why did they *leave* the child?”
The child was dead by the time they got to him.
“That is, *IF* they actually went in and checked for signs”
You assert that they did not go in. Where’s your evidence for this? I have evidence to support me. You do not.
“Yep. Nice piece of work by these so called, “heroes”
I suggest you tell them in person what you just told me.
“A more reasonable and prudent read indicates this is just a hind-sight story to cover their backsides.”
Do you have any evidence to support your allegation?
The child was dead by the time they got to himSo these "heroes" went in and found the child, determined there were no vital signs, then left the corpse to burn completely? Bull-Butter! If they were close enough to check vitals, they were close enough to retrieve the body of a CHILD -- and they didn't. I wonder why... A reasonable & prudent person might surmise it's because they weren't anywhere *near* the child to know one way or the other. Perhaps it was too hot for their delicate constitutions and they "phoned it in".
Like I said, it sounds like they are covering their butts with the story. If I've seen it once, I've seen it a hundred times -- the weaker breeds of cops and fire-flunkies alike both huddle-up and ensure that whatever goes on record is (ahem) "accurate" when there's potential for bad press. Got to keep that report-mangling consistent! And the only evidence you have otherwise is their *word*. Lol!
I suggest you tell them in person what you just told meIf you know them, you can feel free to pass that along. If I knew them, I'd tell it to their yellow-livered faces. I always made it a point to shine the light on the chicken-$hit$ when they "outed" themselves. Back in my day, fire-fighters used to routinely take *significant* risks and *earn* their heroism. As for this modern crop of risk averse, rule-mongering, CYA-covering jokers whose legs you seem so eager to hump? Not so much, as this story so amply demonstrates.
Go fish. Find someone who's willing to suspend disbelief and buy the snake-oil you're selling. You keep taking them at their word. I'll keep horse-laughing you!
“Go fish. Find someone who’s willing to suspend disbelief and buy the snake-oil you’re selling. You keep taking them at their word. I’ll keep horse-laughing you!”
As always - where’s the evidence to support your position?
You say it’s a cover story - so prove it! Prove that the child was alive when the father attempted to save him.
You say it’s a cover story - so prove it! Prove that the child was alive when the father attempted to save him.Prove the child was dead (see, I can do it too!).
The only "proof" you have is the story of the firefighters who *claimed* they determined the child was dead, but left the body to burn instead of retrieving it when they *claimed* they were close enough to check for signs of life. Your big "heroes" (spit) couldn't manage to retrieve a *child* when they were close enough to check signs of life. And *you* believe their CYA story! Sounds like fan-boi blinders to me.
The *ONLY* thing you could possibly know for sure is "that's their story and they're sticking to it!" That large hook in your lip is unbecoming. Go fish.
“you have is the story of the firefighters”
Which is more than you have. Is there any evidence for your take on things?
Is there any evidence for your take on things?Yeah, the evidence you keep ignoring: Your big "heroes" (spit) couldn't manage to retrieve a *child* when they were close enough to check signs of life.
Ergo, they didn't actually check. If they did, they would have come out with the child, dead or alive. Their story *clearly* fails the common-sense, common-decency and the humanity tests. Neither they, nor their fan-boi leg-humpers deserve any respect in my opinion.
Keep fishing... I ain't biting...
So. No actual evidence then!
Sure it is. In the 0bamanation, tasers are for reminding the peons that they are helpless, and must depend on the agents of the Almighty State for everything.
So. No actual evidence then!It's same evidence as you have presented; it's just a logical, reasonable & prudent persons evaluation of the obvious CYA tale you keep spouting.
You indicated they claimed to have checked for signs of life. If they were close enough to check for signs of life, why did the big, burly heroes fail to pick up the *SMALL-CHILD* (dead or alive) and egress? Ergo, the lying, cowardly sacks of bull-mess didn't actually check. You've been dodging that question all along, perhaps because you doubt their CYA tale too, but can't bring yourself to admit it.
The father was within his rights to try and the cowards stopped him. Part of their reason was likely because they didn't want him to show them up by doing the job *they* were supposed to do. You just can't pry yourself off their legs long enough to apply the least bit of critical thinking to their implausible CYA tale.
For the Nth time: Go Fish.
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.