Well, that's not the state's job in individual cases like this. Protect the borders, track down criminals...but leave law abiding citizens alone. Let them try to help and protect their own kids. They are adults and perfectly capable of weighing the choices and making the decision. Either help them, or get out of the way.
The father was trying to save his son. Do you know what that means? This is not a case where he got there long after things had occurred and there was no hope. He got there at the same time as the responders. His duty and responsibility as a father for his infant son transcends what you feel is your duty if you were that state employee.
The father is an adult, and despite your feelings to the contrary, you are not his father, and he is not under your "charge."
His infant son is howerver under his "charge.". Both before man, and before God. The father in this case is his son's legal custodian.
You and the state want to assume and presume custodianship for all of us. Sorry, but it does not work that way... indeed it CANNOT work that way...in a free society.
The driving factor behind most of this on the state's part is simple...a fear of litigation. How shameful. Because that fear now supercedes, in the state's eyes, the life of those in true danger.
And you may say, "But I have a responbsibility to save that man's life" (and the fact that you call a man intent on saving his sons life a "fool" reveals all that need be said about your attitude if you are/were a state employee to your fellow citizens, who in fact are your employers).
Well, as I have indicatted, his responsibility this man had to his infant son, transcends your perceived responbsibility to him. Rather than tase the man, a number of people should have worked with him to do everything possible to save the child.
Period. Even at risk to themsleves.
He may have ultimately seen he could not do it...on the other hand, they may have been able to get to the child and save him. And finally, if he died or was injured in the attempt, well at least he did so of his own free will while trying to save his son, which is not only understandable, it is heroic and respresentative of the highest level of service someone can perform.
The act of tasing him to prevent that was far, far on the other end of the scale. Did not shwo any respect for his responsibilty or position as the father, trampled on his right to choose as an idividual, particularly when the life of his son was at stake, and IMHO, was in fact a cowardly act.
This reminds me of an incident outside of Waco, Texas in the mid 1980s. A man was traveling back from Houston to Denton, Texas with some computer equipment he had taken to a client in Houston to demonstrate. It was dusk and there was a flash in front of him a mile ot so ahead on the raod.
When he got there, he found a sedan that had been involved with a head-on collision with a pick-up truck. The sedan was burning in the engine compartment. As this man pulled up, he noiticed that a single car had stopped on the road in front of him and on the other side in the oncoming traffic with their occupants inside, watching. As he noticed this, another car pulled up on the other side.
This man got out, as did the male occupant of the other car that had just pulled up. They yelled to each other and went to the burning car. There was an older, negro man in the car, penned in by the steeing wheel, and barely conscience. They decided to try and extract him, even though the car was on fire.
As they did so, they got him from behind the wheel but found that his right leg and foot were entangled in some wreckage above and to the rear of the gas pedal. This man worked on getting that loose...but the fire was coming closer.
The other people had gotten out of their cars at this point, and were urging these two to come away from the burning car. But they continued.
The older black man's leg, as it turned out, was partially severed, being held on by a large part of his thigh, but the main bone was broken completely through. It was bleeding badly above, but was starting to be cauterized lower down. It began to burn the hands of the man helping.
At this point, the man got the foot and leg loose and he and the other man helping him, quickly pulled the black man away from the car. No more than five seconds after putting him down, there was a "whoosh" and the entire front of the car went up in flames.
The older gentleman was saved...but at great risk to the two who helped him.
Was that a mistake? Would you have tased those two men?
About two minutes later the first police car arrived, a county Sheriff's deputy. A minute or two after that, the first ambulance.
The officer congratulated the men on what they had done, and indicated that he only wished he had arrived earlier himself, TO HELP THEM GET THE MAN IN THE CAR OUT OF THE BURNING WRECKAGE AND TO SAFETY.
That, IMHO, is the necessary attitude.
I know this because I was the guy that worked on that black man's burnt leg, to get it free, so we could pull him out.
Five more seconds, and I suppose I would have died right there. But I did not think of that at the time...I thought about the chance to save a life.
If you had been there and tried to tase me, I would have done all in my power to cold-cock you, so I could go on about trying to save that man's life.
“IMHO, JC, you have a very poor, and short-sighted attitude.”
Hardly.
I think the knee jerk libertarian condemnation of first responders and the police was exposed for what it was here -total bullshit.
All of you had your minds made up that the police was oppressing this man when the reality is that the officer saved this man from killing himself.
How can I be shortsighted when I was the one who had the correct understanding of what was actually going on? I believe the term is perspicacity.
“It is one, in our day that is sadly born of a state/government that feels it is their job to restrict and order the actions of its citizens”
Yawn. Libertarian bullshit that would have resulted in two funerals. We have an obligation to our fellow man as human beings. Had the police officer adopted your point of view here - yes, the husband would have died here too.
Because the police officer actually did his job here - he saved the man’s life.
“for what it perceives to be their “safety.”
I should think that the police officer should be commended for his level-headed solution to a very difficult situation. Not only did he save the man’s life, he also did so in a way that will not leave permanent damage. There are much worse outcomes to this story.
“Well, that’s not the state’s job in individual cases like this.”
Yes, it is the job of the police officer here to do what he exactly did, save the life of the father.
“but leave law abiding citizens alone.”
Again- had the officer done this here, the husband would have charged into the burning building and died.
“The father was trying to save his son.”
His son was already dead. Do you know what that means?
“This is not a case where he got there long after things had occurred and there was no hope.”
HIS SON WAS ALREADY DEAD. THERE WAS NO HOPE.
“His duty and responsibility as a father”
HIS SON WAS ALREADY DEAD. He had an obligation to live as a father to his other son, who survived, not to die in a futile effort to save someone already dead.
“for his infant son transcends what you feel is your duty if you were that state employee.”
NOT WHEN THE SON IS ALREADY DEAD.
“The father is an adult, and despite your feelings to the contrary, you are not his father, and he is not under your “charge.” “
With his son being dead, damn straight I’m going to keep him from killing himself.
“The father in this case is his son’s legal custodian.”
HIS SON WAS ALREADY DEAD, he was no longer legal custodian. The cop, however, had an obligation to prevent people from entering the burning building and dying.
“You and the state want to assume and presume custodianship for all of us.”
*sigh*. I am asserting that the cop had a job to do here in protecting the father from killing himself and keeping the father and the general public out of the damn building. By force if necessary.
“Sorry, but it does not work that way... indeed it CANNOT work that way...in a free society.”
Can’t see the forest for the trees.
“(and the fact that you call a man intent on saving his sons life a “fool” reveals all that need be said about your attitude if you are/were a state employee to your fellow citizens, who in fact are your employers).”
He was a damn fool. His son was already dead. There was no point to him killing himself by entering the building which was already on fire.
“his responsibility this man had to his infant son”
HIS SON WAS DEAD.
“a number of people should have worked with him to do everything possible to save the child.”
Again,
HIS SON WAS ALREADY DEAD BEFORE HE TRIED TO ENTER THE BUILDING. The cop stopped him from trying to kill himself for nothing.
“it is heroic and respresentative of the highest level of service someone can perform.”
It is not heroic to kill yourself trying to rescue someone who is already known to be dead. It is foolish. It is stupid and it is a complete and total waste of time.
‘The act of tasing him to prevent that was far, far on the other end of the scale.”
Again. Bullshit. The cop saved this man’s life.
“Did not shwo any respect for his responsibilty or position as the father”
FFS - what was the cop to do? He knew the son was dead. There was absolutely nothing to gain by re-entering the burning building.
“and IMHO, was in fact a cowardly act.”
Finally. Libertarian coming right out and calling a first responder a goddamn coward for saving the man’s life.
And you can believe I’d do the same to you.
“If you had been there and tried to tase me, I would have done all in my power to cold-cock you, so I could go on about trying to save that man’s life.”
Again, this situation is not like that. You’d be risking your life for someone I already knew to be dead.