police tase father trying to save son

I started posting this in horrible news thread because what this family went through is indeed horrible news, but there's also a fair bit of p&c here.

cnn video police tase father trying to enter burning building to save his son.

This seems messy,

At some point going back into a burning building is completely futile and only going to result in more death, given that it's the job of the police to 'protect' including protecting you from yourself this seems appropriate - let the professionals with gear enter the building if viable.

On the other hand a parent who linked me this news said they'd rather die at least TRYING to save their child and would be very pissed if the police denied them that choice.

I'm not sure there's a "right" answer but I'd like to read the thoughts of others here.

Holy sh*t, that's just awful for everyone involved.

Honestly, it depends on the state of the fire and the building at the time as to whether I'd say the police should stop the parent or not. If it were me, I'd rather die trying to save my child too, but maybe someone not in the emotional rollercoaster of the moment would be able to recognize that there would be no saving anyone at that point and be in the right to stop me.

I don't know. It's just awful all around.

This reminds me of the guy getting arrested for running into a burning building to save his dog. Personally I think people have the right to die if they want which also extend to the right to risk their lives if they want.

Stopping this guys just tells me our lives aren't our own, we belong to the state.

Baron Of Hell wrote:

This reminds me of the guy getting arrested for running into a burning building to save his dog. Personally I think people have the right to die if they want which also extend to the right to risk their lives if they want.

Stopping this guys just tells me our lives aren't our own, we belong to the state.

And sadly, now he's going to live with the guilt of not being allowed to try.

On the one hand, running into a dangerous situation means emergency personnel would end up putting themselves in danger to save you. And if they're in the process of finding that trapped person, running in there would interrupt the rescue.

On the other hand, that's my baby. I won't stand by as my child burns to death. Try and stop me.

I won't stand by as my child burns to death. Try and stop me.

Mr. Taser, he says no.

My question: What changes in this story between the historical image of police or firefighters holding back a parent trying to rush into a burning building using brute force, and the modern one of police or firefighters holding back a parent trying to rush into a burning building using a taser? To my eyes, these situations are the same, except that when using brute force injury to both the parent and to the public safety officers is greater.

This sort of situation is tragic, and it always has been. Of course the parent wants nothing more than to risk their life to save their child... and of course the public safety officer's duty is to protect that parent's life, even against the parent's will. If the parent breaks free and makes it into the burning building, it is then their duty to judge whether they should attempt to save the parent at great hazard to their own life... and the need to bring them out of the burning building by force makes it even more dangerous for everyone involved. The parent could also end up being a distraction to other firefighters who might already be in the building, and prevent them from saving others.

Nothing has changed by introducing the taser, except for some impression that being knocked out by electricity is somehow worse than being restrained by someone who might otherwise be able to do their job to help save other people.

Hypatian wrote:

My question: What changes in this story between the historical image of police or firefighters holding back a parent trying to rush into a burning building using brute force, and the modern one of police or firefighters holding back a parent trying to rush into a burning building using a taser?

The difference is 50,000 volts? The difference is extreme pain and the possibility of cardiac arrest? I know tasers are treated as jokes, but tasing someone is a much more extreme action than merely using physical restraint. A taser's meant to be a nonlethal subsitute for a firearm, not as a first resort to deal with a distraught parent.

It shows the ineptitude of so called professionals to deal with more difficult situations. Where is the training for these people to deal
with these situations? I doubt they start tasing during training as well.
And then there is the question if they are actually allowed to stop a parent from at least attempting to save
their child. Especially if no one else is going to. What if the parents press charges for murder/man slaughter?
Besides assault, which should be a no brainer to win at least.

jonstock wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

My question: What changes in this story between the historical image of police or firefighters holding back a parent trying to rush into a burning building using brute force, and the modern one of police or firefighters holding back a parent trying to rush into a burning building using a taser?

The difference is 50,000 volts? The difference is extreme pain and the possibility of cardiac arrest? I know tasers are treated as jokes, but tasing someone is a much more extreme action than merely using physical restraint. A taser's meant to be a nonlethal subsitute for a firearm, not as a first resort to deal with a distraught parent.

According to the video, it wasn't the first resort:

...he had to be subdued and they eventually tased him.

The appropriateness of it would entirely depend on how violently he fought the officers.

Sure, for this particular situation it depends on the details, which we don't have. I was just responding to Hypatian's idea that using a taser should be considered as innocuous as physically holding someone back. It really shouldn't.

*nod* I was mainly confused by the overall attitude towards the event, which seemed to be that holding back a parent from entering a burning building was somehow some new disturbing piece of state interference.

I had assumed that the parent needed to be forcibly restrained, which is why I was comparing using brute force to using a taser. In both of those cases, determining the appropriate level of force is a complicated judgement call. Clearly a taser is not equivalent force to simply holding on to someone trying to run past--but it's probably comparable to applying a submission hold or dropping someone in order to cuff them. At that point I think it's difficult to argue that the taser is less safe or appropriate.

I'm totally with Hypatian here. Cop holds screaming mother back from burning building, hero. Cop tases father fighting his way into burning building, villain...? I feel like there are two important truths about Tasers: Police officers use them more than they should and Armchair Cops protest their use more than they should.

Comparing tasering someone with "holding them back" isn't anywhere close to a fair comparison. If you can "hold them back" either you have complete and total physical superiority over the other party, or that other party is really just putting on a show. If neither of those things are true then that ensuing altercation is going to have more potential for injury than being tased. If there is anything approaching physical parity that desperate father is going to be kicking, biting, squirming, all in close proximity to a building that is so far gone that emergency personnel have decided no more operations can take place near it.

Honestly, I can think of few BETTER scenarios that justify the use of a taser than this one.

Malor wrote:
I won't stand by as my child burns to death. Try and stop me.

Mr. Taser, he says no.

Violet has +5 resistance to Electric, ain't nothing Mr. Taser can do.

Violet has +5 resistance to Electric, ain't nothing Mr. Taser can do.

49,995 volts is probably not going to be materially different than 50,000.

I'm testing my smoke detectors when I get home. And making a fire escape plan. And hugging my daughter.

Make sure there is one on each floor, as well. Minimum.

jonstock wrote:

A taser's meant to be a nonlethal subsitute for a firearm, not as a first resort to deal with a distraught parent.

No it's not. A taser is meant to be a non-lethal means of incapacitation. It's a substitute for a night stick or physically restraining the suspect, not for a firearm. It is used because it is mostly safe, and, though I've not done the research here, I would bet it has greatly decreased injury, to both suspects and police, since it has been used.

As for this issue, I don't think you can stop someone trying to save his/her kid. It's a tough call, and depends largely on where the fire was at. I mean you couldn't let a guy into a raging inferno where the house is completely engulfed, but if it's at some point less than that I would say let the guy go. If he dies at least he died trying.

Then, his family sues the fire department, the police department and the local government for $100 million, alleging negligence, and wins...

And he's not going to sue now that they prevented him from going in and attempting to save his son from burning to death?

cheeba wrote:

And he's not going to sue now that they prevented him from going in and attempting to save his son from burning to death?

Really? I feel silly even answering this...

He could try to sue (it being the US and all), but one of the jobs of the police is, once the scene has been secured, to prevent further civilian injuries. In those situations, they are allowed to use reasonable force to do so. If they had let him go in, as mentioned above, the officers, city and department could have been sued for negligence (Not a lawyer).

In other words, it is their job to keep him out of the burning house.

mudbunny wrote:
cheeba wrote:

And he's not going to sue now that they prevented him from going in and attempting to save his son from burning to death?

Really? I feel silly even answering this...

He could try to sue (it being the US and all), but one of the jobs of the police is, once the scene has been secured, to prevent further civilian injuries. In those situations, they are allowed to use reasonable force to do so. If they had let him go in, as mentioned above, the officers, city and department could have been sued for negligence (Not a lawyer).

In other words, it is their job to keep him out of the burning house.

I think he brought it up to counter Robear's statement that his family would sue if he died trying to get into the house. They were going to get sued anyway, at least this way there's one less death.