Your reply is circular. Either one is free or one is not free to make the decision. How do you know he would have died? I can just as well assume the cops/fire department were concerned about a potential lawsuit. I find your logic illogical.
I'm not sure if you understand the term "circular."
What we have here were two free individuals who both did what they thought was right at the moment.
Either one is free or one is not free to make the decision.
They both made a decision. One prevailed, the other did not.
How do you know he would have died?
Physics.
I can just as well assume the cops/fire department were concerned about a potential lawsuit.
There is a lawsuit either way. If you let him go inside, you can get sued.
If you don't let him go inside you will be sued.
I find your logic illogical.
It's not hard to follow.
You have two men, one who has diminished capacity (he is full of panic and fear over his son) and a lack of experience (it's probably his first fire).
The other has likely been called out to fires on many prior occasions and he does not have diminished capacity - he has equal concern for the welfare of both stepfather and stepson.
Both men disagree on what the right thing to do at that moment is, and both do what they think is right at that moment.
Now one of them, probably feeling horrible about not getting the child out of the building when he first decided to leave, has decided to blame the cop for his presence of mind.
And FR is joining the pile-on, in large part.