Homeowner tazed by police as he fought fire

[mrjarrell]

According to the story, the firefighters weren't on-scene yet. In that case, I say let the guy have at it. Once the firefighters arrive though you need to get out of the way so they can properly extinguish the fire.

And that's the sane response, too.

 

[Kutnupe14]

If a homeowner wants to put himself in danger protecting his home, what gives the 'state' a right to pull him 'out' of said danger?

This, I actually agree with. However, until the public acknowledges that law enforcement doesn't have to protect the lives of the stupid (regardless of the USSC), we're in a catch 22.
I one had to fight a fat naked guy on a staircase because he wanted to save his cats from a fire. TRUST me, I didn't want to touch the guy.
But overwhelmingly, the public EXPECTS police to prevent persons from meeting their demise at their own hands.
Should LE respond to welfare checks, suicide calls, children left alone, and the like? You'll find lots of officers that would LOVE not having that responsibility. The question is, is that a "good" thing?

 

[redneckmedic]

You folks live in some weird world where you think rights means if you disagree your rights are being stomped on.

Tasers...protect both Leo and those being tased. It take fewer cops to restrain someone once tased. There for nobody gets the crap kicked out of them...and regardless to Hollywood and the media, they won't kill or knock you out.

When a person becomes danderous to their self or others they loose their rights to make decisions, become immediately detained or ID'd and held for further situational review. Either way the situation is stopped- generally peacefully. Like it or not that is how most metros work. It saves lives and keeps both Leo and Fire/EMS safe as well... not to mention 1000s of drunks, teenagers, and bitter clingers.

A few posts above are interesting... when the gets hot, humans will jump from skyscrapers to avoid getting burned...this guy will move too.

Turning off the water is a very armchair thought... where was rpthe shutoff? What was the smoke conditions/ wind direction/ % burned...or reality is cops aren't trained to read fire conditions, they saw danger and stopped it from getting worse.

Regardless, under a high stress situation making a good decision vs the best decision is all I will ever ask for from my public safety and military. Leo did a good thing here, a water hose is worthless against class b fire, collapse risk, toxic smoke inhalation, arson fire investigation, nearby gas meters, ect.

I don't always take the side of Leo, but when they potentially save a life, I will.

 

[jsharmon7]

After thinking about this more, I think it would depend on the situation. If he's just standing there with a hose then let him give it the ol' college try until professionals arrive. If he's trying to enter the house or something then he needs to be stopped. My reasoning for this would be that if he goes back in and ends up incapacitated on the floor then saving his butt becomes one more obstacle for the firefighters to face when they arrive. In this scenario it sounds like he was just standing there with a hose. Let him have at it.

 

[Wild Deuce]

Training failure ... When your favorite tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

I don't always take the side of Leo, but when they potentially save a life, I will.

Having been a medic , I really want to agree with you here .

"But" , didn't the supreme court rule that the police don't have a " duty to protect and serve " ?

Kinda seems like when you actually need them they're nowhere to be found . When you don't need / want them around is when they wanna get nosy .

Drunks , druggies , tards and dregs ok , some folks don't know any better but for the rest of us why shouldn't they have let him have a go at it ?

Natural selection at work , stupid should hurt and play stupid games win stupid prizes , take your pick , where's the problem with any of 'em ?

 

[cordex]

After thinking about this more, I think it would depend on the situation. If he's just standing there with a hose then let him give it the ol' college try until professionals arrive. If he's trying to enter the house or something then he needs to be stopped. My reasoning for this would be that if he goes back in and ends up incapacitated on the floor then saving his butt becomes one more obstacle for the firefighters to face when they arrive. In this scenario it sounds like he was just standing there with a hose. Let him have at it.

This makes sense to me.

 

[pirate]

I love the excuse that you shouldn't let someone do something dangerous because it could unnecessarily endanger public safety officials if/when they have to go in after the person who "might" endanger themselves.

If one makes his decisions, one must live with the consequences.. This is the world we live in now, where everyone must be safe not always in the name of safety itself, but lawsuits and bad press.


The old saying, "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" comes to mind.

Let them do what they want on their property.

 

[popsmoke]

I couldn't tell from the article. Were the cops on the homeowner's property when they tazed him? Because I could see that being a potential legal issue, if they were on his property obviously against his will.

I don't know the law well enough to say for certain, but shouldn't they have left it alone since they aren't trained fire rescue, and his house isn't on fire? They didn't even know for sure if it would spread to his house.

I understand they were just trying to do what they thought was the right thing, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[henktermaat]

I'm not that smart

Housefire vs waterhose? My money is on the housefire.

The guy was given a chance to leave peacefully, for his own safety. After looking at the pics, those houses were very, very close together. The guy, by going back, proved he wasnt going to listen to police. So police are supposed wrastle around with a guy feet away from an active fire? Sorry bro, I'm not taking that risk. I would have tased him too.

And here I thought you were one of the good ones.

 

[redneckmedic]

I love the excuse that you shouldn't let someone do something dangerous because it could unnecessarily endanger public safety officials ....

So you're OK with adding extra danger to public safety's job?

I know that's putting words in your mouth, but I can't find a better way of translating it.

 

[redneckmedic]

I understand they were just trying to do what they thought was the right thing, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Yet some would argue that for evil to prevail is for good folks to stand by and do noth'n... which is it, do nothing or do what you think right with the best of intentions.

 

[Bunnykid68]

i would leave and/or get out of the way when the fire department shows up. if i simply have a hose and spraying water on my house i will tell anyone to pound sand. Go ahead and taze me tough guy, not your house on fire is it.

 

[XMil]

After reading your posts on INGO, I suspect otherwise.

No, I think his posts in this thread alone are sufficient to prove his point.

 

[Benny]

After thinking about this more, I think it would depend on the situation. If he's just standing there with a hose then let him give it the ol' college try until professionals arrive. If he's trying to enter the house or something then he needs to be stopped. My reasoning for this would be that if he goes back in and ends up incapacitated on the floor then saving his butt becomes one more obstacle for the firefighters to face when they arrive. In this scenario it sounds like he was just standing there with a hose. Let him have at it.

This.

Except if he wants to be a dumbass and go back into his house, 1 warning to NOT go back in should be enough to where no public servants should have to go in after him. Killing yourself shouldn't be illegal.

Yes, I'm talking perfect world here.

 

[Bunnykid68]

This.

Except if he wants to be a dumbass and go back into his house, 1 warning to NOT go back in should be enough to where no public servants should have to go in after him. Killing yourself shouldn't be illegal.

Yes, I'm talking perfect world here.

I like this answer

 

[XMil]

I like this answer

You'd make a lousy government thug.

 

[Bunnykid68]

You'd make a lousy government thug.

Yes I would. Thank you for the best compliment I have gotten in a while

 

[jsharmon7]

Yes I would. Thank you for the best compliment I have gotten in a while

I've never met you, but I don't get the impression that you'd be a very good thug at all. Pants sagging, hat on sideways...I just don't see it.

 

[Ted]

......Turning off the water is a very armchair thought... where was rpthe shutoff? What was the smoke conditions/ wind direction/ % burned...or reality is cops aren't trained to read fire conditions, they saw danger and stopped it from getting worse......

Armchair or not, it was the very first thing I thought after reading the story. Aren't police supposed to possess critical thinking skills, and are trained in techniques to deescalate a situation, instead of increasing the force continuum?

Secondly, who cares where the shut off is? Take a knife, cut the hose.

As stated before, it is well established law (Warren v. D.C......et al) that the police have no duty to protect the individual, but only the public at large. If the police have no obligation to protect a woman or women from being rape and brutalized, then they have no duty to tazer this guy for his own protection.