Homeowner tazed by police as he fought fire

[Mackey]

I had a near disaster atmy home last July 4th when a stray firework shot up into the attic of my home. I was on adrenaline as I rushed to get fire extinguishers and hose up into the attic. I don't think I would have stopped to say hello to the local police at that point. They would have had to taze me to stop me. It ended up being a dangerous situation for me and when I finally had the fire out, while in the attic I realized the smoke and the extinguisher powder was about to do me in. I coughed for a couple of days.

So, I would have disobeyed an order, but honestly, if we're asking police and fire fighters to risk their lives, I think they have the authority to sieze control of the situation.

The guys house didn't burn down and no lives lost. I hope the homeowner loses this battle.

 

[IndyDave1776]

We seem to have some recurring themes here.

1. Can someone explain how it is illegal for a man to be on his own property preventing his neighbor's fire from encroaching on his property and/or home while the fire department may or may not show up any time soon?

2. As previously addressed, it has been ruled that the police have no obligation to protect us individually. Presumably this extends to protecting us from ourselves.

3. Every time a situation arises in which the police may be expected to use a little good judgment, the standard excuse arises that they could do what they did within the law. If every law must be written as if all police are dumber than owl s**t in order to protect us from overreaching 'enforcement', isn't there a problem with the people being hired as police?

4. Why is it that the police appear to be more interested in pushing around people who are not harming anyone else, and often, as in this case, are balancing the risk of injury from a fire with the risk of homelessness than they are with stopping crime?

 

[Bunnykid68]

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.

You read that wrong. guess I should have finished the whole though " Yes I would make a very poor thug"

 

[caverjamie]

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.

As far as I'm concerned, they did plenty by warning him. It was only six minutes until the fire dept arrived. Don't we have any personal accountability in this country anymore? Driving on our public roads is quite dangerous - I'd feel safer with a water hose next to a burning house. If it gets too hot, I'll move away. If I get blown up, well tough cookies, it's not like there aren't another 6 billion people to take my place...

Reading some of these comments on the side of the police are unbelieveable. I don't consider a police officer the expert on structure fires, why should his opinion of my safety be any more valuable than my own opinion of my safety? He's just another regular guy with a job just like me, and neither of us fight structure fires for a living. Now, if the fire department showed up, I would gladly get out of the way.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I had a near disaster atmy home last July 4th when a stray firework shot up into the attic of my home. I was on adrenaline as I rushed to get fire extinguishers and hose up into the attic. I don't think I would have stopped to say hello to the local police at that point. They would have had to taze me to stop me. It ended up being a dangerous situation for me and when I finally had the fire out, while in the attic I realized the smoke and the extinguisher powder was about to do me in. I coughed for a couple of days.

So, I would have disobeyed an order, but honestly, if we're asking police and fire fighters to risk their lives, I think they have the authority to sieze control of the situation.

The guys house didn't burn down and no lives lost. I hope the homeowner loses this battle.

And had a cop showed up and tased you, you would be homeless because they flames would have been outrageous before the FD showed up

 

[drillsgt]

We seem to have some recurring themes here.

1. Can someone explain how it is illegal for a man to be on his own property preventing his neighbor's fire from encroaching on his property and/or home while the fire department may or may not show up any time soon?

2. As previously addressed, it has been ruled that the police have no obligation to protect us individually. Presumably this extends to protecting us from ourselves.

3. Every time a situation arises in which the police may be expected to use a little good judgment, the standard excuse arises that they could do what they did within the law. If every law must be written as if all police are dumber than owl s**t in order to protect us from overreaching 'enforcement', isn't there a problem with the people being hired as police?

4. Why is it that the police appear to be more interested in pushing around people who are not harming anyone else, and often, as in this case, are balancing the risk of injury from a fire with the risk of homelessness?

And that may be the problem.

 

[9mmfan]

We seem to have some recurring themes here.

1. Can someone explain how it is illegal for a man to be on his own property preventing his neighbor's fire from encroaching on his property and/or home while the fire department may or may not show up any time soon?

2. As previously addressed, it has been ruled that the police have no obligation to protect us individually. Presumably this extends to protecting us from ourselves.

3. Every time a situation arises in which the police may be expected to use a little good judgment, the standard excuse arises that they could do what they did within the law. If every law must be written as if all police are dumber than owl s**t in order to protect us from overreaching 'enforcement', isn't there a problem with the people being hired as police?

4. Why is it that the police appear to be more interested in pushing around people who are not harming anyone else, and often, as in this case, are balancing the risk of injury from a fire with the risk of homelessness than they are with stopping crime?

Very astute of you. It amazes me that so many people think the police officer was justified in his use of the tazer.

 

[Ted]

If this were to occur in Indiana, using such force might warrant the following act. Can anyone, or does anyone know if providing proof would have to be more of an affirmative defense?

IC 35-41-3-2

........(i) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to:
(1) protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force;
(2) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle; or
(3) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect.
(j) Notwithstanding subsection (i), a person is not justified in using force against a public servant if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes action by the public servant with intent to cause bodily injury to the public servant;
(3) the person has entered into combat with the public servant or is the initial aggressor, unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the public servant the intent to do so and the public servant nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action; or
(4) the person reasonably believes the public servant is:
(A) acting lawfully; or
(B) engaged in the lawful execution of the public servant's official duties.
(k) A person is not justified in using deadly force against a public servant whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a public servant unless:
(1) the person reasonably believes that the public servant is:
(A) acting unlawfully; or
(B) not engaged in the execution of the public servant's official duties; and
(2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person.
SECTION 2. An emergency is declared for this act.

 

[Kutnupe14]

We seem to have some recurring themes here.

1. Can someone explain how it is illegal for a man to be on his own property preventing his neighbor's fire from encroaching on his property and/or home while the fire department may or may not show up any time soon?

2. As previously addressed, it has been ruled that the police have no obligation to protect us individually. Presumably this extends to protecting us from ourselves.

3. Every time a situation arises in which the police may be expected to use a little good judgment, the standard excuse arises that they could do what they did within the law. If every law must be written as if all police are dumber than owl s**t in order to protect us from overreaching 'enforcement', isn't there a problem with the people being hired as police?

4. Why is it that the police appear to be more interested in pushing around people who are not harming anyone else, and often, as in this case, are balancing the risk of injury from a fire with the risk of homelessness than they are with stopping crime?

Let's run with that...

Is it your belief that police should not be expected to actively try and prevent murder, rape, theft, child abuse, burglary, assualt, and a number of other crimes if they occur in their presence? What do you personally expect?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Let's run with that...

Is it your belief that police should not be expected to actively try and prevent murder, rape, theft, child abuse, burglary, assualt, and a number of other crimes if they occur in their presence? What do you personally expect?

Kut, I expect 99.99 % would offer help, but why was there a ruling stating such? I honestly have no idea.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Kut, I expect 99.99 % would offer help, but why was there a ruling stating such? I honestly have no idea.

Because, I'm sure that I don't need to tell you, the Supreme Court is full of idiots. The whole "police have no duty to protect," I think most people don't quite know WHAT that ruling actually stated. It stated that "Police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts," it never addresses people who put themselves in harm's way when NO criminal act has been committed. There's a family now, who's suing police because her son choked and died on a piece of food stuck in his throat.

But within this case, this guy placed himself in danger. Below is the span between the two homes. I can't imagine how anyone would think that could possibly be safe with a fire raging next door. There's no doubt that at that distance, one is taking in high levels of carbon monoxide,which of course will kill you quicker than an actual fire itself. I'm sorry, but I'm NEVER going to let someone put themselves in that type of situation; for their safety primarily and mine next. I don't have air breathing equipment, and when that guy passes out after being overcome, I don't want to pass out trying to save him.

Is it his right to be stupid, and possibly kill himself? Sure, I guess. But it is also my duty to protect such people from their stupidity, and contrary to belief of many INGO'rs, the public believes this as well. If a woman slashes her wrists right in front of me, telling me she wants to die, do I try to save her, or do I let her bleed out? What would you have me do?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Here's the story over the student that choked to death.

Wofford College sued for death of Randall Heffron | GoUpstate.com

 

[Kutnupe14]

Here's a story of an officer who is being sued becuase he killed a hostage taker. The woman was traumatized so she wants $5 million.

Woman held at knifepoint in Woodbridge Center Mall plans to sue township for $5M | NJ.com

 

[Birds Away]

Here's a story of an officer who is being sued becuase he killed a hostage taker. The woman was traumatized so she wants $5 million.

Woman held at knifepoint in Woodbridge Center Mall plans to sue township for $5M | NJ.com

Both of those are just people looking for a pay day. Can anyone say tort reform?

 

[Ted]

Because, I'm sure that I don't need to tell you, the Supreme Court is full of idiots.

That much is certain. Though until the role of the courts are changed, the opinion of the courts have legal standing.

The whole "police have no duty to protect," I think most people don't quite know WHAT that ruling actually stated. It stated that "Police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts," it never addresses people who put themselves in harm's way when NO criminal act has been committed.

Actually it makes no such distinction. A 2011 ISC opinion, Putnam County Sheriff v. Price, summarizes the duty of LE as follows:

At issue in this case is whether a County Sheriff Department that neither owns, maintains, nor controls a county road nonetheless owes a common law duty to warn the public of known hazardous conditions upon the roadway. We conclude it does not.

There's a family now, who's suing police because her son choked and died on a piece of food stuck in his throat.

Anyone can be named in a civil action, regardless of liability.

But within this case, this guy placed himself in danger. Below is the span between the two homes. I can't imagine how anyone would think that could possibly be safe with a fire raging next door. There's no doubt that at that distance, one is taking in high levels of carbon monoxide,which of course will kill you quicker than an actual fire itself. I'm sorry, but I'm NEVER going to let someone put themselves in that type of situation; for their safety primarily and mine next. I don't have air breathing equipment, and when that guy passes out after being overcome, I don't want to pass out trying to save him.

Consider this: You taze and subsequently incapacitate an individual within such a situation, and remove his abilities to assist himself from danger.

Is it his right to be stupid, and possibly kill himself? Sure, I guess. But it is also my duty to protect such people from their stupidity, and contrary to belief of many INGO'rs, the public believes this as well. If a woman slashes her wrists right in front of me, telling me she wants to die, do I try to save her, or do I let her bleed out? What would you have me do?

Your argument seems to advocate the duty to protect people from themselves via the potential of a reckless act, but then you acknowledge, albeit reluctantly, that police have no lawful duty to protect the victim from criminal acts committed by another. Does this not somehow seem rather backward?

 

[Ted]

Let's run with that...

Is it your belief that police should not be expected to actively try and prevent murder, rape, theft, child abuse, burglary, assualt, and a number of other crimes if they occur in their presence? What do you personally expect?

What he is stating, regardless of personal belief, that the matter of the duty of LE to act has been long since established by the courts.

 

[Bapak2ja]

I'm not that smart

And that is why we no loner trust any police officer. Too many of them "are not that smart"!

And folks wonder why cops get trashed on here!

They get trashed because they earn it— most of the time.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Let's run with that...

Is it your belief that police should not be expected to actively try and prevent murder, rape, theft, child abuse, burglary, assualt, and a number of other crimes if they occur in their presence? What do you personally expect?

Once again we return to the difference between reasonable expectations and what the law says. Since the law as written and as interpreted by the courts often makes little if any since, it is not appropriate to attempt to amalgamate these two often mutually exclusive concepts.

As for what I personally expect, at minimum I expect to be left the hell alone while doing something that is not illegal on my own property. This is especially troubling when we have criminals in circulation at a huge surplus. Honestly, what was the cop with the taser thinking? "Why should I worry about criminals when I can d**k with some guy trying to keep his house from catching fire?"

 

[IndyDave1776]

Here we go...

Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

Police Have No Duty to Protect Individuals

Now think really carefully about these and try telling me that it is asking too much to expect the police to leave a man with a water hose alone.

 

[Ted]

Here we go...

Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone - New York Times

Police Have No Duty to Protect Individuals

Now think really carefully about these and try telling me that it is asking too much to expect the police to leave a man with a water hose alone.

This is more applicable, and the latest to Indiana: Putnam County Sheriff v. Price