As I said, to date, there is no factual evidence. What we have is a reporter saying what someone else said.
And, as I said earlier, when this discussion started, no such report had been made. You were willing to taze the man when the reports indicated that they had arrived there with the responders and was trying to save his daughter...when the understanding was that no one knew about the daughter. That is what I took the greatest issue with, as I have explained..
If the child is proven to have been dead...the man clearly did not need to enter the building. But if they did know that, and did not tell him, and then let him proceed not knowing that and then tazed him...as I said, that is simply wrong and should never have occurred.
OTOH, if it is shown that was not known...and I am willing yo wait on the actual facts either way...then you help the man attempt to save his child.
Well said.
“you continue to cast dispersions and insults on this man,”
Nonsense. I think he means very well and I understand the why. I understand perfectly well why he wants to rush in and save his son.
I also understand that said attempt would be futile, it would not help the man, or his wife or his surviving child.
An act can be well motivated yet not the correct action at this point in time. The correct act would be to remain where you are - safe - outside of the house and looking after and comforting his wife and son. Does he not think they are grieving and suffering too? It’s not just about him. There are two other souls that he is responsible for and need him right now. What they do not need is the burden of a second funeral.
“you are not familiar with the “facts,” at all.”
The facts are simple in this case. The child was already dead. Attempting to rescue an already dead child is futile. Putting your own life at risk to rescue a child who is already dead is neither wise nor honorable. It is understandable, but it is not the correct choice of action.
“about him says a whole lot more about you, then it does him.”
Rushing into an already burning building to try to save the life of a child who is already dead is damn foolish. And I’d do my best to prevent that from happening, and straighten things out when the father is not utterly consumed with grief, and is in a reasonable state of mind.
“As I said, to date, there is no factual evidence.”
Yeah, there is factual evidence. You just don’t like it because it proves you 100 percent wrong.
“You were willing to taze the man”
I was willing to taze the man because I stepped back and asked myself, what is really going on here? It turns out that my assessment of the situation was the correct assessment, despite lacking the full information.
You were wrong and reached the incorrect assumption.
“That is what I took the greatest issue with, as I have explained.”
Sometimes you don’t have all the information and you have to make good decisions based on incomplete information that you have available. My assessment, reading into the situation is that the rescue was futile.
Again, just because a rescue can be attempted doesn’t mean that it ought to be attempted.
“If the child is proven to have been dead...the man clearly did not need to enter the building.”
It has already been proven that the child was dead.
“But if they did know that, and did not tell him, and then let him proceed not knowing that and then tazed him”
Again, you’re assuming that the cop did not tell him. We have zero evidence for this being the case. It is probable, given the circumstances that the man was not in a reasonable state of mind after losing his son and attempted to re-enter the building requiring the police officer to taze the man to protect his life.
“I am willing yo wait on the actual facts”
Then why are you rejecting the facts when they have already been presented to you?