Man Tasered and Prevented from Rescuing Son

Post Reply New Topic

Police shock man 3 times with stun gun to keep him from trying to save son inside burning home

So were the police right to stop this man from entering the burning home to rescue his 3 year old step-son?

I think they should have let him try. People have a special obligation to their children.

This is horrible.

Chances are there would have been another death if the tasering hadn't have taken place - if a firefighter with full protective gear couldn't enter the building.

I think the policeman who had to make that choice, had his professional duty to perform. I can see it from both points of view.

Regardless, it's just horrible, whatever was right or wrong.

Yes, but does the father have the right to risk/give his life in the effort? Don't you have a right to defend your own children, even to the death?

This is really a tough one.

I am a firefighter and when I do public safety lectures, we always talk about this. The reality of it is in the toxic atmosphere generated by a fire, you probably won't make it to rescue your child. That's why we have breathing air and gear that withstand the 600+ degree temps. What complicates the matter, if you go in and collapse, we cannot skip over you. If I make entry and find you collapsed in the hall way, I CANNOT continue the search. I must legally rescue you first. When complete, I can go back in if it's still safe and attempt the rescue, but it's also possible that conditions will get worse and we can't enter the structure. We spent a lot of time focusing on teaching kids how to protect themselves if they are trapped in a room by a fire.

So it is a tough question. Does he have a right to try the rescue? Maybe. But at the same time, our turnout gear can protect us against 600-900 degree temps. If the fire was so hot that the gear can't protect the firefighters, there is NO way ON EARTH he could rescue the child. It's also probable the house flashed (it gets so hot everything catches on fire) and even a firefighter in full protective gear can't survive more than a few seconds in a flashover so I'd bet the kid died in the flashover.

I feel for the guy but the cop saved his life.

I agree that he probably wouldn't survive or may be injured, but I think this is his choice to make. The use of tasers particularly disturbs me - it gives the police a level of control I feel uncomfortable with.

So, police officers save the life of a man by using tasers, and *this* makes you uncomfortable?

How about focusing on the numerous cases of excessive taser use instead of an obvious case where medals should be handed out for their use?

Really, medals? I guess they're not worth much these days.

As far as taser overuse goes, I agree. There was a case in Toronto recently where an 80 old woman with a bread knife (and dementia) was tasered. She fell and broke her hip. I think that's pure laziness on the part of the police - surely these fit young people can take down an elderly woman without the use of a taser.

It seems like they could have just physically restrained him.But they did save him from what would be suicide.He would be so overcome with grief that he most likely was not in his right mind.His son would not have wanted him to die.

If the firefighters in gear couldn't make entry, he would not have lived to make it to his son's body.

That is so sad. I can see both sides to this. I know any parent would try and save their child in a fire but they didn't want another death so they tried to keep him outside. But yet if the man didn't run back inside, people would see him as a bad step father for not trying to save his son but yet if you try and save your child, you get tasered, you can't win as a parent.

There is no such thing as just "both sides".

The man had another son. Should this son be bereaved of his father because of some frivolous theoretical principle?

thewhitrbbit made the point. This is a *non-issue*.

Society is too paternalistic . . . sometimes you have to let people make their own decisions.
Police and firefighters think that because they can save lives that they have the authority to make moral decisions. They don't.

It's a tragedy, any way you look at it.

If you have to let people make their own decisions, then where do you sit on the police officers' decision to prevent this man from killing himself in a vain attempt to save his (likely already deceased) stepson?

This wasn't a moral decision, it was acting on a professional imperative: save lives.

I'm not trying to be depressing, but I think there are other considerations besides saving lives. In this case, the father's right to die protecting his son.