Skip to comments.SAPD: Man Tasered while attempting to save infant son from a house fire
Posted on 06/04/2013 8:43:47 PM PDT by Altariel
SAN ANTONIO -- A father was tazed by San Antonio police while trying to save his infant boy from a house fire.
The incident occurred at around 2:30 a.m. Sunday during a house fire in the 100 block of Morningview Drive.
Investigators said the parents of the eight-month-old boy had dropped off their children at their grandparents' house. Somehow, a fire got started inside the home shortly thereafter.
The grandparents managed to grab one boy and rush to safety. That's when they realized one boy was still trapped inside.
Emergency crews and the children's parents arrived on the scene at around that time.
The boy's father tried several times to enter the burning home, but police held him back and ended up tazing him. SAPD said it was for his own safety.
The infant died from injuries sustained during the blaze.
Arson is under investigation. Police said the stories just don't add up.
No criminal charges have been filed.
The family is now looking for a new place to stay.
It’s not bs.
Building on fire, get out of the damn building ASAP and stay out of the damn building. Don’t rush your damned fool ass back into the fire after getting out safely.
“People really need help but may attack you if you do help them.”
You believe the man was amenable to reason at that point in time, knowing that he had failed to get his child out of the house and had inadvertently left him in there? I don’t think he was at all. I think he would have done whatever it took to go back in and would not have cared a whit for his own safety. Chance or no chance, he would have seen dying there preferable to survival.
Which means that he’s not capable of properly assessing the situation in such a way that he had a chance to actually succeed.
The problem is this - he has a son and a wife and what is left of the remainder of his family. He still has obligations to them as well. Is it right for him to throw away those responsibilities?
No, it's not. As a free human being, my life is mine to decide what to do with it. If I decide to risk it to safe my child, that is my decision to make. I don't need any nanny-state power-tripping control freak deciding for me.
I can no more let you go and die than you can go and let your son die.
My son is my responsibility. I am not yours, despite your beliefs to the contrary. I neither want nor need your 'protection.' As a grown adult, you are not responsible for my actions.
If I let you in
'Let' me in? Once again, it is not your place to 'allow' me to risk my life.
C.S. Lewis said it best when it comes to people like you who think they are better equipped to make decisions for other people than the person himself: "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
What else do you expect from reporters? It is tacky and probably meant to be insulting. Bur if they were decent individuals, they would not be reporters.
To thank him for saving the other child's father?
“No, it’s not. As a free human being, my life is mine to decide what to do with it.”
If I see someone trying to run into a burning building I am going to try to stop them, because I have a human obligation to try to save their life.
“If I decide to risk it to safe my child, that is my decision to make.”
And I have an obligation to try to stop you.
“I don’t need any nanny-state power-tripping control freak deciding for me.”
Ok, so let me ask you something then. You see someone on a bridge and it looks like he’s going to jump. Do you get out and try to save his life, or do you drive away and carry on with your day?
“My son is my responsibility. I am not yours”
Yes, you are my responsibility if I see you trying to run into a burning building and I am in a position to intervene. Again, I have an obligation as a human being to try to save your life.
“I neither want nor need your ‘protection.’ “
Well, tough beans. You’ve got it.
“As a grown adult, you are not responsible for my actions.”
Actually, that is not true here - the police officer is responsible if he lets you run into the building. This is negligence on his part because it is his job to keep the building secure and keep people from running into it and dying.
So, not only does he have a human obligation to save your life, he has a professional obligation to keep you out of the building.
“Once again, it is not your place to ‘allow’ me to risk my life.”
It’s my obligation as the police officer to keep everyone out. This includes you.
I sincerely doubt that C.S. Lewis would countenance letting someone kill themselves. I have an obligation to try to save your life if I see you rushing into a burning building.
More to the point. I call your attention to the REAL STORY as found in the San Antonio Express News....
According to Wallace, Darion's father tried to run back into the burning home to save his son but was restrained when he was shot with a Taser by San Antonio police. A spokesman for SAPD said the infant's body had already been discovered, “and the scene was being processed when (the) male tried to forcibly enter the scene.”
Now, its possible the Express News got the story wrong even worse than KENS-TV. But we do know the parents, the cops and the fire department all arrived on the scene AFTER the fire started, and its safe to assume the SAPD is right: The baby was dead and officials knew it. And when a distraught father tried to risk his life in vain - the cops did the right thing as tazed him.
But that makes for a boring TV news story. So what do TV journo-wanna-be's do? EMBELLISH!
Too much of the necessary information is missing ...
No kidding. See post 89 for details on what really happened.
See post 89. The baby was already dead before the father tried to rush in.
They knew that.
So. Does that change the equation?
That may be your rule, but all of the many first responders I personally know have put their own lives in jeopardy going into burning buildings, cars, and airplanes whenever they could be of aid to others.
Are you suggesting its the motivation of cowardice to follow this rule?
There is not enough information in the article to determine definitively whether it was cowardice, but based on the facts presented it certainly appears to be a major factor.
Real life is not the movies. Sure, it sounds great to run in there and try to save your kid and get back out - but if you run in there and die how does that help anyone?
Your overly simplistic analysis completely neglects the likelihoods involved of the danger to the rescuer and the chance of rescue of the victim. Most people I know would gladly put themselves at some risk to provide others a significant hope. Your faulty absolutist view does not allow for a rescuer to take even a very small risk for an almost certain rescue. That does seem cowardly.
I have two younger brothers. I have had to look after them since they were small. Both my mother and my father would have excoriated me for ever going back inside in a fire for any reason.
Now we can all see where you developed this odd point of view. I would hate to be born into your family. You are lucky to have survived that abject lack of parental and familial self-sacrificial love. I hope you never find yourself in any danger, you would be on your own!
Get the hell out. Get away from the fire. Do whatever you have to do to get out. If it means jumping out the top window and breaking a leg - break the damn leg.
And whatever you do, don't slow down to save someone else! Am I starting to figure you out?
That was our rule with a fire. Dont look around for anybody else. Get the hell out. Worry about the rest of it - once you are out of the house and safe.
Wow, I was right about you! This along with your earlier advice to never run into a burning home means that you would never incur any risk to help anyone else. This really paints an ugly picture of you as a person. Can you see that?
You are not superman.
And from everything you have posted here, you aren't even a man. I pity you.
Just pinging a few of the posters on this thread to post 89.
It galls me that so many FReepers knee-jerk over an idiot TV news report that has little to no info.
Not saying the Express News report is actual and factual, but it makes sense to believe police and fire officials KNEW the poor baby was dead and thats why they prevented the father from becoming another victim.
Read more here...
If the FD wasn’t going in WITH THE CORRECT EQUIPMENT, I doubt the outcome would have been anything less than TWO dead people.
Boy, that makes a lot of sense...lol
And the father saw it as his obligation to try to save his child's life. Where do you get off deciding that your obligation, to a person in general, is greater than that person's obligation to their child?
Well, tough beans. Youve got it.
You need to remember for whom you work. A little more 'Serve' and a little less 'rule' is in order. For you and 98% of the folks in your job
This is negligence on his part because it is his job to keep the building secure
'The building?' When did I lose my private property rights? It's not your building.
Do you get out and try to save his life, or do you drive away and carry on with your day?
Let me ask you a question. If you incur a certain amount of risk in trying to save his life by going out on the bridge with him, who decides if the risk is warranted? You, or Big Brother? Same thing here. Who decides whether the risk was warranted? The father, not you. As a police officer, you have no extra-citizen power or control. If I couldn't tazer the guy, and I couldn't, neither can you.
“Where do you get off deciding that your obligation, to a person in general, is greater than that person’s obligation to their child?”
I don’t. I have an obligation. You have an obligation. I have to try to stop you and you’ll try to push through me.
“You need to remember for whom you work. A little more ‘Serve’ and a little less ‘rule’ is in order. For you and 98% of the folks in your job”
One, I’m not a cop. I’m saying, if I were a cop - I would have done what he did. I believe he did the right thing.
” ‘The building?’ When did I lose my private property rights? It’s not your building.”
What building. It’s on fire. You’ve called the firemen to try to put the fire out. By the time that happens, the house is mostly gone and they aren’t going to save it. Now you’re going to run into the building? Not a chance.
“Let me ask you a question. If you incur a certain amount of risk in trying to save his life by going out on the bridge with him, who decides if the risk is warranted?”
Answer my question first.
Do you get out and try to save that person’s life or do you drive on. You yourself have just stated that you don’t believe you have a personal obligation to anyone outside of your immediate family.
Well, looks like we have our answer.
Glad to see that the evidence confirms that I was completely right here.
Not on my end. Ask Tex how he feels about rushing in to save someone that the cops already know is dead.
“That may be your rule, but all of the many first responders I personally know have put their own lives in jeopardy going into burning buildings, cars, and airplanes whenever they could be of aid to others.”
Ok. Am I talking about first responders or am I talking about the average person caught in a house fire. I’m talking to the average person caught in a house fire. They need to get out. They are not a first responder - they are not trained to deal with the situation.
“There is not enough information in the article to determine definitively whether it was cowardice, but based on the facts presented it certainly appears to be a major factor.”
Now, that the facts have confirmed that:
1, the firemen already knew that the kid was dead, now, it make sense what the police officer did by saving the life of the father? It’s a damn good thing he did too, because otherwise there would be two funerals and not one.
There’s absolutely nothing cowardly about choosing to accept reality here. Kid was dead. Nothing more could be done.
“Your overly simplistic analysis completely neglects the likelihoods involved of the danger”
Actually, I had the situation pegged. There was exactly zero benefit to him going in and risking his life for someone already dead. No risk was acceptable in this circumstance.
“Most people I know would gladly put themselves at some risk to provide others a significant hope.”
Not with the kid being dead, there’s simply no point in risking someone’s life.
“Your faulty absolutist view does not allow for a rescuer to take even a very small risk for an almost certain rescue.”
‘Certain rescue’? There was certainty, but it wasn’t a rescue.
“Now we can all see where you developed this odd point of view.”
I was trained how to get out. We never had a single fire. God willing never will.
“I would hate to be born into your family.”
Best cause is preventation. Plan for the worst but do what you can to prevent being in the situation in the first place.
“I hope you never find yourself in any danger, you would be on your own!”
Yeah, I had parents who loved me enough to teach me how to be self-reliant in the situation where I was in danger and gave me the skills necessary to look after myself. Yeah, they really didn’t love me at all there.
“And whatever you do, don’t slow down to save someone else! Am I starting to figure you out?”
Like I said, we did drills. Timed drills. I said this exact same thing to my father so he said - well, let’s try it your way. So we did. Fire alarm came, my father went to go check up on me, I went to go check up on my father, my mother on us, my brothers on each other.
By the time we all managed to find the other, we were still in the house and now clustered together. We still had to find the exit of the house and get out.
We didn’t make it in 10 minutes and my dad said, “you’re dead”.
Point driven home.
We did it his way, and we consistantly got everyone out of the house in 10 minutes easily. Everyone knew his job and where to go and where to meet up. Nobody had to stop and figure things out we all knew what to do when it happened.
Escape plans either work or they do not. You don’t have time to fix it if it doesn’t work. It has to be right the first time.
“Can you see that?”
How so? Like I said, escape plans either work or they do not.
“And from everything you have posted here, you aren’t even a man. I pity you.”
Yawn. Ronaldus minimus apparently has forgotten Ronald’s rules about personal attacks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.