"According to Wallace, Darion's father tried to run back into the burning home to save his son but was restrained when he was shot with a Taser by San Antonio police. A spokesman for SAPD said the infant's body had already been discovered, “and the scene was being processed when (the) male tried to forcibly enter the scene.”
You now believe the child was already dead.
I am not buying that so quickly based on one report of what someone "said." And especially not when I start analyzing it from some other angle than using it to porve my point.
Look at the report. They say they had to tase the father to keep him from entering a burning home on one hand, yet at the same time they say they had already found the dead child's body and were processing the fire scene.
Really?
So, how did they get into the burning home to make that discovery? How were they processing a scene in a burning home? The story line and time line from this report simply do not add up.
I based my response to you on the report that the father and mother got there at the same time as the responders and the father tried to get in to save his infant son. Which is all that any of knew at the time of those discussions. I believe the course of action in that circumstance was clear. Try and save the child.
You based your initial response on that same report, but now that there is a different report, have changed to say that the child was already dead and the responders knew it, therefore you were right.
Bravo sierra.
If they knew it, why didn't they tell the father? If the child was dead, then I agree, there is no reason to go back in...but you do not know, I do not know, and apparently the people reporting do not know that was the case. The stories don't match, and the later time line clearly has problems.
As I said earlier, if the father is trying to get in to sace his child, you help him. If the child is already diead, you tell him. Tasing him makes no sense.
And...blah blah blah...and go on and on about this controlling mind set that tyou he government has this obligatipon to restrain people in such circumstances. Clearly, the father thought he could save his child...and clearly the story is evolving. Some of it may be the fog of the incident...some of it may be CYA too.
And, BTW, despite you presumptions, I am not a libertarioan in the least I am a constitionnal conservative...who almost always votes Republican here in Idaho where we still have Republicans who understand the proper role of government.
In the end, no government official's perceived obligation to save me from myself trumps my obligation to protect and save my family. Period. Folks in government better figure that out. If they don't, as surely as night follows day, one day things will go badly for them.
Exactly, in neither case is tasing the father appropriate.
“Sir, we’ve found your son” would be appropriate, if they didn’t want to say right then that the child was dead.
Tasing was not.
It's part of the job. If they can't enter through a door or window they will make an entry hole.
“You now believe the child was already dead.”
Yes. It’s called ‘factual evidence’.
“I am not buying that”
And not we are in the realm of myth and fable.