Arrest in dog rescue outrages pet lovers

Tennesseean.com ^

[mom4kittys]

Jarrod Martin was repeatedly told to back away from a roaring fire in his apartment building, but the sight of his dog jumping up and down against a glass door in a room filled with smoke was too much, he said.

[sinkspur]

Unfortunately, dog lovers, the life of a firefighter trumps the life of a dog, no matter how dear a pet.

No firefighter lost his life, the dog was saved, and everybody's happy, except a couple of bureaucrats.

And don't give me "might haves." Deal with what actually happened here.

What's the problem with what Martin did?

[Fraulein]

Good post.

[Fred Mertz]

I'm surprised that the cops didn't shoot the dog after it was rescued.

[sinkspur]

Sink, I'm surprised and disappointed. I never would have expected such a response from you.

Well, adjust your expectations.

If my house is ever on fire, the Euless, Tx., FD better be packing, because they'll have to shoot me to keep me from rescuing my dogs.

[Movemout]

I have two dogs and two cats. Their lives are of equal value to mine. They would save me if they could figure out how to do it. I would save them if I could. I think that this notion of putting a firefighter at risk is overblown.

[Illbay]

You don't have the choice to run into a burning building where there are firefighters about.

Sorry, it's the law. You don't like it, change it.

Or you can join the Lefties, and determine whatever law you don't like, doesn't apply.

[sinkspur]

I'm surprised that the cops didn't shoot the dog after it was rescued.

Since this happened in Tennessee, so am I.

[Illbay]

Twenty-twenty hindsight, sink.

The law's there for a reason.

[Sir Gawain]

At least they didn't shoot the dog after he rescued it. Hey, it is Tennessee after all.

[vigilante2]

ya

[Illbay]

Hey, remember, we're in Texas.

They'll rescue the dogs even BEFORE the hunting rifles.

[Mulder]

The idiot should be charged with reckless endangerment.

WHO did he endanger?

He (the dog owner) could've been overcome by smoke which would have meant a firefighter would've had to risk his life to go in there and get him.

He had every Right to risk his own life.

A firefighter's job is risky enough.

The *riskiest* thing most firefighters do on a daily basis is get in their cars and drive, (which is also the riskiest thing most folks do in their lives). Yes, it's a dangerous job but they spend $$$$ on top-notch equipment, and the smart ones don't take unnessasary risks.

[sinkspur]

Sorry, it's the law. You don't like it, change it.

If my dog's about to be barbecued, f*** the law.

[Mulder]

And based on the bs response by these people it just sounds like the government teaching this guy who the boss is

Exactly. The worst thing in the mind of most gov't workers is when someone demonstrates that they really aren't needed

[briant]

Or you can live in a police state where they dictate what your life is worth. No thanks. Save you condecending crap for someone else. Don't try that, "if you disagree with me you're a leftist" crap either. It's BS and lazy.

[GovernmentShrinker]

He didn't go into the building, he just broke the glass door to let the dog out, so there was no possibility of the firefighters having to go in an rescue him. There was a link to the video on an earlier thread. If the firefighters didn't have enough manpower to go over and break the door themselves, they should be glad the guy took care of it himself.

And think about this: Lawson was asked what fire officials would have done if Martin had run to save his child from a burning building. ''That would be something that would be a split-second decision depending on the circumstances,'' she said. Lawson said it's the Fire Department's responsibility, not that of citizens, to rescue animals and people from burning buildings. ''We don't draw lines. We are here for lives, period. If any situation proves safe, we would go in for a child, a dog, a pet, when the situation was safe enough.

The position of this fire department is that if you see your CHILD stuck behind a glass door or window in a burning building, the (government) firefighters have the right to prevent you from going to break the door/window to save your child, if THEY think it's not "safe enough".

[Fraulein]

The guy just lost everything he owned, except for his dog, and now the government wants him to give them money (for failing to save his dog).

They may also put this guy in jail. I'm sure we will all be sleeping safer at night. /sarcasm

[briant]

The worst thing in the mind of most gov't workers is when someone demonstrates that they really aren't needed

LOL, exactly.

[Mulder]

But is it worth it to put firefighters' lives potentially at risk?

How did he put the firefighters' lives at risk? He didn't order them at gunpoint (only criminals and JBTs do that) to go into a burning house.

Everything worked out okay. No harm, no foul, except in a fascist police state.