Homeowner tazed by police as he fought fire

[Kutnupe14]

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.

Sarcasm meter broken?

 

[Kutnupe14]

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?"

Probably not what they were thinking... and you haven't answered the question I asked about crimes committed in the presence of LE. Is it their duty to act, or not?

 

[mgoldsch]

This reminds me of the kid in Oklahoman who got a ticket for peeing in his front yard. The kid was 3 years old. Some cop drove by and wrote him a ticket for public indecency

 

[IndyDave1776]

Probably not what they were thinking... and you haven't answered the question I asked about crimes committed in the presence of LE. Is it their duty to act, or not?

In order for the question to be applicable a crime must be committed. To the best of my knowledge, putting water on a fire is not illegal.

As for the crimes, I would hope that they would act on an actual crime in progress, but as I previously addressed, according to the Supreme Court, they apparently are not obligated to do so. Once again, we rediscover the issue of the police alternately using the widest and narrowest possible interpretations of law to justify doing as they prefer.

 

[IndyDave1776]

This reminds me of the kid in Oklahoman who got a ticket for peeing in his front yard. The kid was 3 years old. Some cop drove by and wrote him a ticket for public indecency

It just makes you feel so much safer knowing that the community was apparently devoid of murderers, robbers, rapists, and assorted other criminals that week.[/COLOR]

 

[newdumdum9825]

dont yall know, that his hose is a registered weapon???

 

[steveh_131]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybZiY79qDVU&feature=g-high-u

Here is an interview with the homeowner.

He was hosing down the area around his daughter's room because he didn't know if she was in there.

 

[Benny]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybZiY79qDVU&feature=g-high-u

Here is an interview with the homeowner.

He was hosing down the area around his daughter's room because he didn't know if she was in there.

They could charge him with obstruction for what? Hosing down his roof, from his property, using his water and hose?

 

[steveh_131]

They could charge him with obstruction for what? Hosing down his roof, from his property, using his water and hose?

Is this question meant for me? I have no idea how they could manufacture an obstruction charge out of this nonsense

 

[HeadlessRoland]

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.

But under what obligation are the police to evacuate and rescue him? Supreme Court has said already, it's a broad, general, public duty to serve and protect, not an individual duty. Why not let him roast on his own rotisserie peacefully?

 

[IndyDave1776]

But under what obligation are the police to evacuate and rescue him? Supreme Court has said already, it's a broad, general, public duty to serve and protect, not an individual duty. Why not let him roast on his own rotisserie peacefully?

It seems that in practice they have as much 'duty' as they arbitrarily choose to have at any given time. Gets tiresome.

 

[Benny]

Is this question meant for me? I have no idea how they could manufacture an obstruction charge out of this nonsense

It's meant for anyone listening. I guess they said that as a threat in case he pursues (justified) charges against the PD?

This whole situation is rather unbelievable.

 

[steveh_131]

It's meant for anyone listening. I guess they said that as a threat in case he pursues (justified) charges against the PD?

This whole situation is rather unbelievable.

It's awful, it really is. I really felt for the guy during that interview.

 

[Kutnupe14]

But under what obligation are the police to evacuate and rescue him? Supreme Court has said already, it's a broad, general, public duty to serve and protect, not an individual duty. Why not let him roast on his own rotisserie peacefully?

In an obligation to the rest of the general public for their safety and tax dollars being wasted foolishly.
Ok let's say this guy does have a "right" to place himself in danger. Now suppose he dies, either from CO2, burns, or the structure falls on him. Then what? Who responsibility does it fall to see after the body? At the point that a private individual makes his decision to disregard the recommendations of the police or fire or any other agent of the govt, he has in effect denied ALL services right? Or does he have the right to pick and choose?

So if he does die, some poor officer or firefighter, is going to have to expose himself to a biological hazard, the coroner is going to have be called out from home to pick up the body, an autopsy will be performed, and he will be kept in "storage," until his family picks him up.... all at the expense of the taxpayer.

The dead guy's decision, forces the action of a variety of other services, expensive services. In a perfect world, once the guy made his decision to fight the fire and is subsequently killed, his next of kin would be contact to inform them where to pick up the body, or it would be simply left to rot. After all, "police have no obligation to protect and serve" right? A rotting body and all the diseases that can spread from it, is whose problem exactly?

So tell me, what would one expect if the guy had died fighting the fire? Based on what many posters are stating here, nothing should be done. I obviously disagree, and believe that action should be taken prior to the man meeting his possible demise.