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.
Just my experience with initial reports which are rarely accurate. I doubt firefighters have any reason to lie.
Me neither. I’m also willing to give the cop the benefit of the doubt rather than going into full blown ‘don’t taze me bro’ police brutality.
2:30 AM and the parents are dropping off kids? Shortly after a conflagration engulfs the home so that the adults couldn’t escape with both children? Something is rotten in old San Antone.
Also two blocks away from Martin Luther King in San Antonio.
Vacant lot right next to it. House appraised 60k. I’d like to see what the insurance policies on it were.
I am rejecting nothing factual. I am rejecting as fact a report you want me to say is fact.
What....because you said?
Or, because a reporter said what he heard?
Sorry, JC, it is you that are grabbing at reports and claiming them to be fact because they supports your thesis.
Facts are proven in a court of law, or, are laid out in a final report with factual evidence (ie Coroner's Report, etc.), and then even that can be called into question if the family experienced something different and challenges it.
You are calling a news report a "fact," I choose not to.
Has nothing to do with proving me wrong or right. I have said that if the child is shown by factual evidence (which has not been presented yet) to have been dead, then the man should definitely not have tried to get into the house, particularly if he was told by the people on the scene that the child was already dead. But we do not know any of that yet.
If they did know, and told him, and he continued to try, then restraining him is appropriate and they could have tried that...but not tazing him.
You are willing to jump to your own conclusions when you believe the reports substantiate what you believe. Fine. I prefer to wait until that is all shown to be in fact the case.
Been there done that.
If those reports substantiate the child's death at the time of the incident, and the family agrees to it and eacceots it...and if they show they informed the father of the death, then yes, he should definitely have not tried to get inside, and they should have restrained him if necessary. I still believe tazing him was unnecessary.
Bravo Zulu.
Not familiar with that word.
“You are calling a news report a “fact,” I choose not to.”
So facts apparently are whatever you make of them.
FACTS are not a news report. That's pretty easy concept to understand.
I explained it very well in the last post. You just cherry picked a phrase to try and score some kind of point here on the board. Luckily, in my 15 years here, I have found most members of FR to be a little more discrimination than that.
My bad.
There were no dogs around to shoot.
I *love* eacceots! Fresh from the baker's rack with that wonderful cherry filling and the confectioners sugar drizzled on the top... MMMmmmmmmmm
The facts that we do have state that the child was dead before the father attempted to go in to save the child.Who went in to check to determine the child was dead before the father was tased and why didn't they remove the child at the time? Or, is this hind-sight reporting?
The point being, it is tragic and no-one knew for sure if the child could be saved in the heat of the moment. The father was willing to risk it. It was his decision.
The cowards stopped him because *they* couldn't muster the nerve to go in and check, so they were damned determined to keep anyone else from trying.
The point still stands. Care to take another feeble swipe at it or are you ready to *quit*?
Exactly how do you know that?
You completely ignored my point that tasers are not meant for compliance. That tells me that you believe it’s okay. That is unsettling.
Whether it’s right for him to do so is not up to the whim of a cop who wants to electrocute him. If had tackled the guy, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
To put it quite bluntly you have no business getting in my way. You ain't the boss of me.
And I will use every means at my disposal to do what I know is my job. So enjoy the after life knowing that you did absolutely nothing except waste my precious time and get your self killed.
Should I and my loved one end up getting out alive please know that I will not have a moment of regret for your passing. You will have asked for it.
Nothing that has been provided which indicates they were not going in with the correct equipment.
“To put it quite bluntly you have no business getting in my way. You ain’t the boss of me.”
If I’m this cop and I know your son is dead since the firefighters told me? I have a human obligation to do whatever the hell it takes to keep you out of that building. Including tazing your ass if you attempt to run through me to get in.
“whim of a cop who wants to electrocute him.”
Right, the cop tazed his ass after he tried, multiple times to get into the house and presumably wasn’t listening to anybody, certainly not to the cop trying to save his life.
See, this is the problem right there - you’re biased against the cop here who did exactly what his job is supposed to do.
“no-one knew for sure if the child could be saved in the heat of the moment”
Couple things here - there was a delay between the firefighters showing up, the parents showing up and the start of the fire.
So the parents weren’t home. The firefighters went in saw the room that the child was in and discovered that the child was dead before they even managed to get there.
Yes, it’s tragic - but they did their job and there was nothing more they could do.
Yes, they did know that the child was dead before the father tried to rush in. That is why they restrained him, and eventually tazed him when he would not listen to reason.
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.