TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.myfoxny.com/Story/23906473/p ... -from-fire

The family of a 3-year-old killed in a northern Missouri house fire says it is outraged after police used a stun gun on the boy's stepfather as he tried to run back in and save the child.

Maybe a case of doing someone a favor they didn't want. While I can see the police side, I do have a problem with the notion that the police have a right to stop an attempt to save my own child. My risk, my business.

I understand their policy, but it was his son and his own life. Unless they were running in after the child themselves to try and help they needed to let that dad make the decisions he needs to make. What perhaps they did not consider is that the dad likely knows where the child is and knows alternative routes out of the house and so had more of a chance of finding the child and getting out than they.

If they are not going to be the heros (and that is fine with me) then they need to stand aside and let other people do the hero work which involves risk.

edited to add: I would gladly run into a burning house to get my child out and I don't expect anyone to come in after me. If I die, I die. I am very ok with that. If I live and my child dies and I tried I can live with that. If I live and I did nothing, I can't live with that.

More of the thought that someone else knows what is best for another. If my kid was in there, I'd rather die trying to save him rather than just let him perish.

What a shame the cops thought they know what's best for him and let "policy" dictate actions that may have cost the child his life.

mojo84 wrote:More of the thought that someone else knows what is best for another. If my kid was in there, I'd rather die trying to save him rather than just let him perish.

What a shame the cops thought they know what's best for him and let "policy" dictate actions that may have cost the child his life.

very well stated.

mamabearCali wrote:I understand their policy, but it was his son and his own life. Unless they were running in after the child themselves to try and help they needed to let that dad make the decisions he needs to make. What perhaps they did not consider is that the dad likely knows where the child is and knows alternative routes out of the house and so had more of a chance of finding the child and getting out than they.

If they are not going to be the heros (and that is fine with me) then they need to stand aside and let other people do the hero work which involves risk.

edited to add: I would gladly run into a burning house to get my child out and I don't expect anyone to come in after me. If I die, I die. I am very ok with that. If I live and my child dies and I tried I can live with that. If I live and I did nothing, I can't live with that.

I agree. If I am trying to save a child (or grandchild) don't try to stop me. It's my decision to risk my life for theirs and that's not their concern.

RPBrown wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:I understand their policy, but it was his son and his own life. Unless they were running in after the child themselves to try and help they needed to let that dad make the decisions he needs to make. What perhaps they did not consider is that the dad likely knows where the child is and knows alternative routes out of the house and so had more of a chance of finding the child and getting out than they.

If they are not going to be the heros (and that is fine with me) then they need to stand aside and let other people do the hero work which involves risk.

edited to add: I would gladly run into a burning house to get my child out and I don't expect anyone to come in after me. If I die, I die. I am very ok with that. If I live and my child dies and I tried I can live with that. If I live and I did nothing, I can't live with that.

I agree. If I am trying to save a child (or grandchild) don't try to stop me. It's my decision to risk my life for theirs and that's not their concern.

Except of coourse, the fire fighters now have to risk their lives trying to rescue two people instead of one. We don't know the facts here. If the house is fully involved efinitely understand the police. Its a hard thing but horrible things happen in this life and there's no good outcome here.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

RPBrown wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:I understand their policy, but it was his son and his own life. Unless they were running in after the child themselves to try and help they needed to let that dad make the decisions he needs to make. What perhaps they did not consider is that the dad likely knows where the child is and knows alternative routes out of the house and so had more of a chance of finding the child and getting out than they.

If they are not going to be the heros (and that is fine with me) then they need to stand aside and let other people do the hero work which involves risk.

edited to add: I would gladly run into a burning house to get my child out and I don't expect anyone to come in after me. If I die, I die. I am very ok with that. If I live and my child dies and I tried I can live with that. If I live and I did nothing, I can't live with that.

I agree. If I am trying to save a child (or grandchild) don't try to stop me. It's my decision to risk my life for theirs and that's not their concern.

Except of coourse, the fire fighters now have to risk their lives trying to rescue two people instead of one. We don't know the facts here. If the house is fully involved efinitely understand the police. Its a hard thing but horrible things happen in this life and there's no good outcome here.

If they don't like the risk then they can find a new line of employment or be there fast enough so parents won't have to try and save their children from a horrific death. It is not the job of LEO's to save us from ourselves, they are there to enforce the law. So unless he was breaking the law what grounds do they have to tase him?

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

RPBrown wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:I understand their policy, but it was his son and his own life. Unless they were running in after the child themselves to try and help they needed to let that dad make the decisions he needs to make. What perhaps they did not consider is that the dad likely knows where the child is and knows alternative routes out of the house and so had more of a chance of finding the child and getting out than they.

If they are not going to be the heros (and that is fine with me) then they need to stand aside and let other people do the hero work which involves risk.

edited to add: I would gladly run into a burning house to get my child out and I don't expect anyone to come in after me. If I die, I die. I am very ok with that. If I live and my child dies and I tried I can live with that. If I live and I did nothing, I can't live with that.

I agree. If I am trying to save a child (or grandchild) don't try to stop me. It's my decision to risk my life for theirs and that's not their concern.

Except of course, the fire fighters now have to risk their lives trying to rescue two people instead of one. We don't know the facts here. If the house is fully involved efinitely understand the police. Its a hard thing but horrible things happen in this life and there's no good outcome here.

There's no evidence firefighters were in the home already. If they were at the scene and hadn't gone in after the 3 year old, then they certainly wouldn't have gone in after the step-father, so their lives wouldn't have been put at risk.

This was entirely the step-father's call and it was wrong (thought probably not unlawful) for the police to stop him from attempting a rescue. I rarely say what I'd do in certain circumstances, but if ANYONE prevents me from attempting to rescue my Granddaughter or Grandson from any situation, it will not go well form them if my loved ones die.

Chas.

That is tragic. I've worked massive wild fires to include the largest in CA history. We did massive evacuations and I have been in quite a few burning homes doing this. We never forced anybody that wanted to stay behind to try and save their home let alone a family member. I sure wouldn't force a dad from not trying to rescue his kid. Heck I probably would have gone in with him because I wouldn't be able to sit there knowing a child was going to burn to death. Side note the police almost always arrive ahead of the FD and do the evacuations.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

RPBrown wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:I understand their policy, but it was his son and his own life. Unless they were running in after the child themselves to try and help they needed to let that dad make the decisions he needs to make. What perhaps they did not consider is that the dad likely knows where the child is and knows alternative routes out of the house and so had more of a chance of finding the child and getting out than they.

If they are not going to be the heros (and that is fine with me) then they need to stand aside and let other people do the hero work which involves risk.

edited to add: I would gladly run into a burning house to get my child out and I don't expect anyone to come in after me. If I die, I die. I am very ok with that. If I live and my child dies and I tried I can live with that. If I live and I did nothing, I can't live with that.

I agree. If I am trying to save a child (or grandchild) don't try to stop me. It's my decision to risk my life for theirs and that's not their concern.

Except of course, the fire fighters now have to risk their lives trying to rescue two people instead of one. We don't know the facts here. If the house is fully involved efinitely understand the police. Its a hard thing but horrible things happen in this life and there's no good outcome here.

There's no evidence firefighters were in the home already. If they were at the scene and hadn't gone in after the 3 year old, then they certainly wouldn't have gone in after the step-father, so their lives wouldn't have been put at risk.

This was entirely the step-father's call and it was wrong (thought probably not unlawful) for the police to stop him from attempting a rescue. I rarely say what I'd do in certain circumstances, but if ANYONE prevents me from attempting to rescue of my Granddaughter or Grandson from any situation, it will not go well form them if my loved ones die.

Chas.

I understand your view (note my moniker). I'm just noting we don't ahve all the facts. This fire could have been fully and completely involved - aka they saved his life. You're right, per other reports the fire department arrived about four minutes later (still good time) and couldn't rescue the child.

I'm not second guessing the police and fire in this instance as I was not there. The fact that they did taze him multiple times is an indicator that they at least thought were trying to protect him from himself. Its a bad situation all around and I would have done the same if I were the dad.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:
I understand your view (note my moniker). I'm just noting we don't ahve all the facts. This fire could have been fully and completely involved - aka they saved his life. You're right, per other reports the fire department arrived about four minutes later (still good time) and couldn't rescue the child.

I'm not second guessing the police and fire in this instance as I was not there. The fact that they did taze him multiple times is an indicator that they at least thought were trying to protect him from himself. Its a bad situation all around and I would have done the same if I were the dad.

I don't believe they had the right to make that decision for someone else, but even if they were hellbent on "saving him from himself", then grab him and restrain him physically...don't grab tazers and shoot him...MULTIPLE times! In that situation, with his heart already racing from adrenalin, it's a wonder they didn't kill him themselves.