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.
You’re not only a damn liar, but as I said earlier, your a deceitful disingenuous piece of work.
Ya make baseless allegations which you can’t even back up, or quote, and ya still run around pretending your BS fabrication is true...
Wow...
You should run for mayor or congress...You’d fit right in.
"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.”
You now believe the child was already dead.
I am not buying that so quickly based on one report of what someone "said." And especially not when I start analyzing it from some other angle than using it to porve my point.
Look at the report. They say they had to tase the father to keep him from entering a burning home on one hand, yet at the same time they say they had already found the dead child's body and were processing the fire scene.
Really?
So, how did they get into the burning home to make that discovery? How were they processing a scene in a burning home? The story line and time line from this report simply do not add up.
I based my response to you on the report that the father and mother got there at the same time as the responders and the father tried to get in to save his infant son. Which is all that any of knew at the time of those discussions. I believe the course of action in that circumstance was clear. Try and save the child.
You based your initial response on that same report, but now that there is a different report, have changed to say that the child was already dead and the responders knew it, therefore you were right.
Bravo sierra.
If they knew it, why didn't they tell the father? If the child was dead, then I agree, there is no reason to go back in...but you do not know, I do not know, and apparently the people reporting do not know that was the case. The stories don't match, and the later time line clearly has problems.
As I said earlier, if the father is trying to get in to sace his child, you help him. If the child is already diead, you tell him. Tasing him makes no sense.
And...blah blah blah...and go on and on about this controlling mind set that tyou he government has this obligatipon to restrain people in such circumstances. Clearly, the father thought he could save his child...and clearly the story is evolving. Some of it may be the fog of the incident...some of it may be CYA too.
And, BTW, despite you presumptions, I am not a libertarioan in the least I am a constitionnal conservative...who almost always votes Republican here in Idaho where we still have Republicans who understand the proper role of government.
In the end, no government official's perceived obligation to save me from myself trumps my obligation to protect and save my family. Period. Folks in government better figure that out. If they don't, as surely as night follows day, one day things will go badly for them.
The point is that an officer attacked a man panicked at the thought that his child was inside.
Tasers are to be used as an alternative to shooting someone.
Tasers are Not to be used for “crowd control”.
It would seem that the father, at that time, was not aware his son’s body had been recovered.
What was so important to “process” that “We’re so sorry for your loss” could not have been relayed to the child’s parents?
Exactly, in neither case is tasing the father appropriate.
“Sir, we’ve found your son” would be appropriate, if they didn’t want to say right then that the child was dead.
Tasing was not.
It's part of the job. If they can't enter through a door or window they will make an entry hole.
“You now believe the child was already dead.”
Yes. It’s called ‘factual evidence’.
“I am not buying that”
And not we are in the realm of myth and fable.
Mission accomplished.
Garbage can lids make great taser shields.
but at least I have honor enough not to attack the good men who did their damndestThey only thing we know for sure is that they did their damndest to prevent the father from making an attempt at saving his child. There is no dishonor in pointing out their lack of honor. They may have thought it futile; clearly the father did not -- or if he did, he was willing to risk it. His choice.
If the "rescuers" demonstrate as much "doubt" and "quit" as you seem to harbor, for all we know, there may have only been smoke showing. Just as it's possible the structure was fully involved and the roof had collapsed, it's just as possible it wasn't nearly as bad and the "rescuers" were more concerned about being out-performed by an amateur who wasn't saddled by their rules and/or cowardice. But now that they tasered the only person willing to take a shot at going after the child, you can bet your @$$ that the "official" story will be chock-a-block full of CYA.
Regardless, my point still stands and you have merely reinforced it. You still choose to hide behind your excuses. The only point you've made is that because *you* would be too cowardly to risk going in after the child, no-one else should be allowed to either.
And I'm not attacking your character as much as I'm making an observation of an obvious flaw in your character that others in the thread have also mentioned.
I don't expect you to like it. Heck, I wouldn't like it either.
So when I shoot you sweetie you will die happy knowing that you delayed me a bit.
What ever floats your boat I guess.
Good luck with trying to shoot me because I’m trying to save your life. :)
I’m sure that’s going to end well for you.
There’s no honor in running into a burning building to try to save someone who is already dead. If I know that person is already dead, I am going to try to stop the father from trying to go into the building.
What would you say to the cop, knowing that the son was already dead, did nothing and let the father go in and die? Would you consider him more morally upright than the cop who stopped the father, even tazing him, to stop him from going in?
“for all we know, there may have only been smoke showing.”
The facts that we do have state that the child was dead before the father attempted to go in to save the child.
Does that change the calculus or are you going to be like everyone else here and doubt direct evidence provided by witnesses at the scene because it proves that you are wrong?
Alaska, I know the drill. There were two parts of my statement...the burning building and processing a fire scene. If they knew the chiold was dead and went into a building to reciver the body at risk to their life, then that does not match up with restraining the father. If they had the body and were processing the scene, then the father should have been told that.
I work for the Federal Government and am trained as and had been a 1st responder for a number of years.
JC, unless you are privy to direct, early reports from the departments involved, there has been no "factual evidence" introduced yet. Just a reporter saying what someone else said.
So we have two reports that do not agree and we have a report of an already dead child whose time line does not match up to what they said about the father.
Like I said, if it turns out that the child was dead, clearly there was no reason to go back in the building. But, if they actually knew that and didn't inform the father and instead tased him, then that is simply wrong and does not add up.
That's all. My statement stands. If there was any chance the child was alive...you save the child. That was the initial report.
If the child was dead...and that becomes substantiated...then they should clearly have informed the father and mother, and helped them in their grief...not with hold the information and then tase the father on the day his child died.
But now the discussion is becoming circular, and I have stated nmy thoughts and feelings on the matter.
:No myth or fable, JC. I read the same reports you did. When they said that they held him back and tased him to keep from going into a burning building, and then say at the same time that the child was already dead and they were processing the fire scene...those two simply do not add up.”
Umm, yes, they completely add up.
You just refuse to accept eyewitness testimony that contradicts your sincerely held believe that the cop was wrong.
Which again, puts us in the realm of myth and fairy tales.
“not with hold the information and then tase the father on the day his child died.”
You taze him if he’s refusing to listen to reason and insists on rushing into the burning building to ‘see with his own eyes’ that his child is dead.
Grief is a hard thing. I’ve been there with my own family. I know what it feels like to lose a family member suddenly.
I didn’t have the luxury of falling apart because the rest of my family was relying on me. I had to keep everything together, inform the rest of the family, inform the folks they worked with, etc, till they got better and could function again.
As I said, to date, there is no factual evidence. What we have is a reporter saying what someone else said.
And, as I said earlier, when this discussion started, no such report had been made. You were willing to taze the man when the reports indicated that they had arrived there with the responders and was trying to save his daughter...when the understanding was that no one knew about the daughter. That is what I took the greatest issue with, as I have explained..
If the child is proven to have been dead...the man clearly did not need to enter the building. But if they did know that, and did not tell him, and then let him proceed not knowing that and then tazed him...as I said, that is simply wrong and should never have occurred.
OTOH, if it is shown that was not known...and I am willing yo wait on the actual facts either way...then you help the man attempt to save his child.
As do I. I was also a first responder and take all these stories/reports with a grain of salt.
Well said.
“you continue to cast dispersions and insults on this man,”
Nonsense. I think he means very well and I understand the why. I understand perfectly well why he wants to rush in and save his son.
I also understand that said attempt would be futile, it would not help the man, or his wife or his surviving child.
An act can be well motivated yet not the correct action at this point in time. The correct act would be to remain where you are - safe - outside of the house and looking after and comforting his wife and son. Does he not think they are grieving and suffering too? It’s not just about him. There are two other souls that he is responsible for and need him right now. What they do not need is the burden of a second funeral.
“you are not familiar with the “facts,” at all.”
The facts are simple in this case. The child was already dead. Attempting to rescue an already dead child is futile. Putting your own life at risk to rescue a child who is already dead is neither wise nor honorable. It is understandable, but it is not the correct choice of action.
“about him says a whole lot more about you, then it does him.”
Rushing into an already burning building to try to save the life of a child who is already dead is damn foolish. And I’d do my best to prevent that from happening, and straighten things out when the father is not utterly consumed with grief, and is in a reasonable state of mind.
“As I said, to date, there is no factual evidence.”
Yeah, there is factual evidence. You just don’t like it because it proves you 100 percent wrong.
“You were willing to taze the man”
I was willing to taze the man because I stepped back and asked myself, what is really going on here? It turns out that my assessment of the situation was the correct assessment, despite lacking the full information.
You were wrong and reached the incorrect assumption.
“That is what I took the greatest issue with, as I have explained.”
Sometimes you don’t have all the information and you have to make good decisions based on incomplete information that you have available. My assessment, reading into the situation is that the rescue was futile.
Again, just because a rescue can be attempted doesn’t mean that it ought to be attempted.
“If the child is proven to have been dead...the man clearly did not need to enter the building.”
It has already been proven that the child was dead.
“But if they did know that, and did not tell him, and then let him proceed not knowing that and then tazed him”
Again, you’re assuming that the cop did not tell him. We have zero evidence for this being the case. It is probable, given the circumstances that the man was not in a reasonable state of mind after losing his son and attempted to re-enter the building requiring the police officer to taze the man to protect his life.
“I am willing yo wait on the actual facts”
Then why are you rejecting the facts when they have already been presented to you?
Do you have any evidence that the report presented already is in fact wrong?
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.