- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 66,860
- Reaction score
- 30,125
- Location
- Rolesville, NC
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
People can hold their breath for a few minutes and he knows the layout of his own house and were is kid is mostly likely to be more than any other firefighter could. If he is willing to try they have no right to stop him.
People can hold their breath for a few minutes and he knows the layout of his own house and were is kid is mostly likely to be more than any other firefighter could. If he is willing to try they have no right to stop him.
Thats the dumbest thing I ever heard. I used to find sleeping brothers on the floor all the time with foot-sonar trying to get across the room when they passed out on weekends. Its pretty obvious when you step on a human. They are squishy.He expected his son to be on his bed. From what I read, it sounds like the boy was found on the floor. This means that given the fact that the man couldn't have seen at all in the house (thick smoke, night time, and no lights) and he likely would have been running into the fire, literally, he would have most likely stepped on his son and might not even have realized he did. Or he could have tripped over him. Or, if the son was on the floor on the other side of the room, he could have completely missed his son. There is no way he could have legitimately looked for him in smoke and fire. IF he would have been really lucky, the kid would have been on his bed. Most likely, he wouldn't have found him because of the dark, the smoke, and the fire.
Really? So tell me, why don't firefighters bring homeowners back into the house to guide the way, when they're trying to rescue people? :dohPeople can hold their breath for a few minutes and he knows the layout of his own house....
On the contrary. Not only do they have the right, they have a legal and moral obligation to do so. If they let him go, not only would they be remiss in their duties, they would be responsible for letting him die -- along with anyone else who decided to go after them.If he is willing to try they have no right to stop him.
Yes. The cops were there. They had full authority, and a moral obligation, to stop him from running back into the house. If they made a conscious decision to allow a hysterical man to run into a burning building, then they will be held responsible (legally and morally).Hey pal, the cops were there and giving orders. Period. They show up, you obey them. Period. Note the dripping sarcasm.
Really? So tell me, why don't firefighters bring homeowners back into the house to guide the way, when they're trying to rescue people? :doh
Why bother calling the fire department in the first place? Why not just have the neighbors turn on a few garden hoses? How dangerous can it be, when the entire house is engulfed in flames?
C'mon, people. This is not a comic book or an action movie. This is basic, grade school stuff. If you are not a firefighter, don't run into a burning building.
On the contrary. Not only do they have the right, they have a legal and moral obligation to do so. If they let him go, not only would they be remiss in their duties, they would be responsible for letting him die -- along with anyone else who decided to go after them.
Yes. The cops were there. They had full authority, and a moral obligation, to stop him from running back into the house. If they made a conscious decision to allow a hysterical man to run into a burning building, then they will be held responsible (legally and morally).
I.e. the cops and firefighters show up, you obey them. Period. Note the total lack of sarcasm.
Thats the dumbest thing I ever heard. I used to find sleeping brothers on the floor all the time with foot-sonar trying to get across the room when they passed out on weekends. Its pretty obvious when you step on a human. They are squishy.
Unless its your kid in there and you want to.... A father may be more willing to accept burns on half his body with a small chance of saving the kid than a firefighter would. The second "the city" starts telling specific people they cant try to save people and enforcing it if there is a chance of sacrifice then "the city" is more important than "people".
Let me tell you a little story. One that is true. Back in orange county there was a HUGE fire. Many houses were burned down. People were being todl they werent allowed to go near the fires and shood away by cops. Me and my friends got in a van and crossed the barrier during the choas before a good parimiter was established. We ended up driving all around spotting for houses that managed to get embers to float on them and alert fire fighters to the problem before it completely spread to roofs. We were past the cop barrier and the firefighters seemed to never even question us or wonder why we were there.
After a couple hours we get to a cualdesac and find a 2 firetrucks with 2 squads of people all laying down in peoples front yards, lounging in the grass jsut watching 3 houses begin to burn around them. Totally salvagable. I get out tell their little captain those houses are starting to catch. He looks and pretends he doesnt see it. I point to the fire just starting at a house and he looks right at it. Then pretends he didnt see it again. I start to yell at him and now a few people get weary and he starts to look nervous. Then he just proceeds to pretend I dont exist. Goes and sits down with his pals. And watches the houses proceed to burn.
Sorry for not trusting in the system when I know that true action and deeds stems from the personal. Not someones job.
When you are panicking, you are not going to notice stepping on that squishy human being until it is too late. Plus, there is the problem that after a while in a fire, stuff starts falling all over the ground. And we have no idea how well kept this child's room was. It is easy to think "sure it was probably clean", but my sons' room is usually a disaster area and they are 4 and 5, not much older than this child. It could have been very clean or it could have had toys, stuffed animals, clothes or anything there.
Im done. Sorry but all I hear is blah, blah, blah, blah at this point.
Of course you do. Because you feel that your emotional response is the "right one" and that all other responses are wrong and violate rights of parents to try to save their children, as do many others. You don't want to listen to a voice of reason because it would mean second guessing yourself and any future decisions you may make in such a moment. And a lot of it has to do with pride. Some people feel that they have to try to rescue their children/loved ones even if that attempt is ultimately futile in order to satisfy their personal pride. And I honestly sympathize. Heck, a man was convicted and executed (wrongly, in my opinion) with one of the points of evidence against him being "he didn't seem to make a big enough deal out of trying to save his children", despite having burns on his hands showing he tried to get back into the house. But this "people should try to save their children/loved ones despite the futility of the situation and anyone who tries to stop me is wrong" (because honestly I think it is the protesting against the police action that is the only wrong thing here) is just dumb.
You disobeyed the police and firemen? How dare you. Who do you think you are? Must be some kind of a wannabe hero. Don't you know the real heros are wearing badges and uniforms.
Yes. The cops were there. They had full authority, and a moral obligation, to stop him from running back into the house. If they made a conscious decision to allow a hysterical man to run into a burning building, then they will be held responsible (legally and morally).
I.e. the cops and firefighters show up, you obey them. Period. Note the total lack of sarcasm.
Yes. The cops were there. They had full authority, and a moral obligation, to stop him from running back into the house. If they made a conscious decision to allow a hysterical man to run into a burning building, then they will be held responsible (legally and morally).
I.e. the cops and firefighters show up, you obey them. Period. Note the total lack of sarcasm.
:?: I don't think I ever mentioned that . What does it mean ? It was more on the lines of a mother having to bury her husband as well as the child .
Nope, not even then.Unless its your kid in there and you want to....
This is not about the risks the father is willing to undertake, or your baseless presumption that a firefighter is unwilling to perform his duty.A father may be more willing to accept burns on half his body with a small chance of saving the kid than a firefighter would.
Uh, no, the goal is to stop more people from dying.The second "the city" starts telling specific people they cant try to save people and enforcing it if there is a chance of sacrifice then "the city" is more important than "people".
Yeah, cool story bro. I'm sure that firemen actually enjoy watching homes burn down. :roll:Let me tell you a little story. One that is true....
Yeah, good idea. Hey, I've got a good one! Let's just get rid of fire departments altogether, and give people big fire extinguishers instead. I'm sure that'll work out great.Sorry for not trusting in the system when I know that true action and deeds stems from the personal. Not someones job.
But it would still be better than what the guy had, which was nothing. In fact, just plain old flashlights and/or clothes would be better than what that guy had. He didn't even have any shoes on. He was extremely ill-equipped to go into a burning building and the odds of him actually locating his son (without stepping on him, which would definitely not have saved him) were extremely small.
Life is not a movie
Heroic if it was a decent chance stupid if you are likely to die in the process as in this scenario seriously how would this man see 3 feet in front of him with poisonous fumes and lack of oxygen and not die . .
He does not have the moral right to throw his life away, in a vain attempt to save his family. If nothing else, he has an obligation to the rest of his family, not to destroy his life on the same night as they lose their son.No. The man has a moral obligation to save his family and the cop has no authority or moral obligation to do anything to stop him.
Quite the opposite. The job of the cops is to prevent further loss of life. If they let people do whatever they wanted at the scene of a fire, the number of deaths in fires would skyrocket.If the man wants to risk his life the cop is to stand aside and butt the hell out.
Well then, I hope you're prepared to get hit by a taser.No one asked for his opinion and he should be respectful and keep it to himself. I will NOT obey a police officer or a firefighter that stops me from protecting my family.
Thanks, as an ex-fire fighter who has been in burning structures and life and death situations I truly appreciate your input on that.
Not your call. He is a the parent. Stay out of his way.
He does not have the moral right to throw his life away, in a vain attempt to save his family. If nothing else, he has an obligation to the rest of his family, not to destroy his life on the same night as they lose their son.
In a broader perspective: You cannot unilaterally declare the right to do whatever you want, because you perceive that your family is in danger. You could drive a fleet of trucks through that loophole.
In fact, if we believe his account, he already fulfilled his obligation; they tried to save the child before escaping the house. Unfortunately, he failed. He was unable to rescue the child before leaving. The odds that he would be able to go back in and save the child, when the fire had gotten worse, was pretty much zero.
Quite the opposite. The job of the cops is to prevent further loss of life. If they let people do whatever they wanted at the scene of a fire, the number of deaths in fires would skyrocket.
Well then, I hope you're prepared to get hit by a taser.
In fact, the "to hell with the cops, I'll do what I want" attitude is precisely why police are granted broad authority in these situations.
No its not mine it was the police and I believe they were correct in judgment . Its the firefighter's call as well and even they deemed it to hot .
You mean the man is willing to take a risk that might end his life? So what? It's his life and his child.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?