Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Police tazer guy who tries to save his child.

Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 3:51:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
A guy attempts to run into a burning house to save his 3 year old child. The cops taze him and prevent him from doing so. This article is one I found that seems to give both sides of the story best. The other articles for the most part only have one side of the story. http://m.nydailynews.com...

What do you guys think? Should you have the right to put your life on the line to save your kid?

Please read article before responding. It provides details I left out.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 4:03:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I created this poll. I wanted to see how people answered it differently that read that particular news story than the people who are provided no context or story. http://www.debate.org...
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 5:31:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yes he should have been allowed to save his son. However, the police seemed to be acting out of their best interest, but had they let him go in the boy may have lived.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 5:34:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 5:31:41 PM, Varrack wrote:
Yes he should have been allowed to save his son. However, the police seemed to be acting out of their best interest, but had they let him go in the boy may have lived.

What if the officer knew for a fact that the guy would be unsuccessful? What if he knew it was a suicide mission? Would that change your stance?
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 5:35:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 5:34:08 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/20/2015 5:31:41 PM, Varrack wrote:
Yes he should have been allowed to save his son. However, the police seemed to be acting out of their best interest, but had they let him go in the boy may have lived.

What if the officer knew for a fact that the guy would be unsuccessful? What if he knew it was a suicide mission? Would that change your stance?

Yes, I don't see a reason why he would have let them in that case.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 5:40:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 5:35:23 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 3/20/2015 5:34:08 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/20/2015 5:31:41 PM, Varrack wrote:
Yes he should have been allowed to save his son. However, the police seemed to be acting out of their best interest, but had they let him go in the boy may have lived.

What if the officer knew for a fact that the guy would be unsuccessful? What if he knew it was a suicide mission? Would that change your stance?

Yes, I don't see a reason why he would have let them in that case.

I think the officer estimated close to a zero percent chance of success. Does somebody not have liberty over their own body? Does the government get to decide whether I should be allowed to commit suicide for a noble cause (to rescue a loved one)?
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 5:47:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 5:40:00 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/20/2015 5:35:23 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 3/20/2015 5:34:08 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/20/2015 5:31:41 PM, Varrack wrote:
Yes he should have been allowed to save his son. However, the police seemed to be acting out of their best interest, but had they let him go in the boy may have lived.

What if the officer knew for a fact that the guy would be unsuccessful? What if he knew it was a suicide mission? Would that change your stance?

Yes, I don't see a reason why he would have let them in that case.

I think the officer estimated close to a zero percent chance of success. Does somebody not have liberty over their own body? Does the government get to decide whether I should be allowed to commit suicide for a noble cause (to rescue a loved one)?

Well I see both sides. But if the officer was correct, then one could argue that

P1: the government's duty is to protect life
P2: the government knew better that he would fail
P3: the man was not intentionally trying to commit suicide
C1: the government was justified in tazing the man since it ultimately saved a lifelife

Whether suicide should be legal is another debate, but that didn't seem to be the case with the man.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 5:49:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 5:47:10 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 3/20/2015 5:40:00 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/20/2015 5:35:23 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 3/20/2015 5:34:08 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/20/2015 5:31:41 PM, Varrack wrote:
Yes he should have been allowed to save his son. However, the police seemed to be acting out of their best interest, but had they let him go in the boy may have lived.

What if the officer knew for a fact that the guy would be unsuccessful? What if he knew it was a suicide mission? Would that change your stance?

Yes, I don't see a reason why he would have let them in that case.

I think the officer estimated close to a zero percent chance of success. Does somebody not have liberty over their own body? Does the government get to decide whether I should be allowed to commit suicide for a noble cause (to rescue a loved one)?

Well I see both sides. But if the officer was correct, then one could argue that

P1: the government's duty is to protect life
P2: the government knew better that he would fail
P3: the man was not intentionally trying to commit suicide
C1: the government was justified in tazing the man since it ultimately saved a lifelife

Whether suicide should be legal is another debate, but that didn't seem to be the case with the man.

I'd challenge P1. I think it is the governments duty to protect freedom. It is a famous saying in America. "Give me Liberty or Give me death".

I also think that P3 is inappropriate. Perhaps the guy just didn't care if he died. Perhaps he loved that child so much that he'd rather die than live without him.
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 6:01:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 5:49:58 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/20/2015 5:47:10 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 3/20/2015 5:40:00 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/20/2015 5:35:23 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 3/20/2015 5:34:08 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/20/2015 5:31:41 PM, Varrack wrote:
Yes he should have been allowed to save his son. However, the police seemed to be acting out of their best interest, but had they let him go in the boy may have lived.

What if the officer knew for a fact that the guy would be unsuccessful? What if he knew it was a suicide mission? Would that change your stance?

Yes, I don't see a reason why he would have let them in that case.

I think the officer estimated close to a zero percent chance of success. Does somebody not have liberty over their own body? Does the government get to decide whether I should be allowed to commit suicide for a noble cause (to rescue a loved one)?

Well I see both sides. But if the officer was correct, then one could argue that

P1: the government's duty is to protect life
P2: the government knew better that he would fail
P3: the man was not intentionally trying to commit suicide
C1: the government was justified in tazing the man since it ultimately saved a lifelife

Whether suicide should be legal is another debate, but that didn't seem to be the case with the man.

I'd challenge P1. I think it is the governments duty to protect freedom. It is a famous saying in America. "Give me Liberty or Give me death".

It's also a famous saying in the Declaration of Independence that it is the government's job to protect "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". In this case the government can't protect liberty/pursuit of happiness without allowing life to slip away, so it becomes a debate over which value the government ought to protect more. Kind of like the abortion debate.

I also think that P3 is inappropriate. Perhaps the guy just didn't care if he died. Perhaps he loved that child so much that he'd rather die than live without him.

I'd say when in doubt, choose life over personal belief. Was the man in the right position to analyze what he ought to do? I don't think he could have been in a great state of mind considering how he was probably panicking over his house burning up.

This is all under the assumption that the government knew for a fact that he would have died. Whether their judgment was correct or not is something that ought also to be weighed. Should we always trust the government on how to handle our freedoms, even if their judgment could be much worse than ours?
Bennett91
Posts: 4,193
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 6:01:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 3:51:57 PM, Wylted wrote:
A guy attempts to run into a burning house to save his 3 year old child. The cops taze him and prevent him from doing so. This article is one I found that seems to give both sides of the story best. The other articles for the most part only have one side of the story. http://m.nydailynews.com...

What do you guys think? Should you have the right to put your life on the line to save your kid?

Please read article before responding. It provides details I left out.

I think the police did the right thing. The dad was not equipped to enter the house that even those who were equipped hesitated to enter. Had the dad went in, the fire department would have to rescue two people instead of one putting not only the civilians lives in danger, but the fire fighters themselves.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 6:14:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 6:01:24 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 3/20/2015 5:49:58 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/20/2015 5:47:10 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 3/20/2015 5:40:00 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/20/2015 5:35:23 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 3/20/2015 5:34:08 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/20/2015 5:31:41 PM, Varrack wrote:
Yes he should have been allowed to save his son. However, the police seemed to be acting out of their best interest, but had they let him go in the boy may have lived.

What if the officer knew for a fact that the guy would be unsuccessful? What if he knew it was a suicide mission? Would that change your stance?

Yes, I don't see a reason why he would have let them in that case.

I think the officer estimated close to a zero percent chance of success. Does somebody not have liberty over their own body? Does the government get to decide whether I should be allowed to commit suicide for a noble cause (to rescue a loved one)?

Well I see both sides. But if the officer was correct, then one could argue that

P1: the government's duty is to protect life
P2: the government knew better that he would fail
P3: the man was not intentionally trying to commit suicide
C1: the government was justified in tazing the man since it ultimately saved a lifelife

Whether suicide should be legal is another debate, but that didn't seem to be the case with the man.

I'd challenge P1. I think it is the governments duty to protect freedom. It is a famous saying in America. "Give me Liberty or Give me death".

It's also a famous saying in the Declaration of Independence that it is the government's job to protect "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". In this case the government can't protect liberty/pursuit of happiness without allowing life to slip away, so it becomes a debate over which value the government ought to protect more. Kind of like the abortion debate.

I also think that P3 is inappropriate. Perhaps the guy just didn't care if he died. Perhaps he loved that child so much that he'd rather die than live without him.

I'd say when in doubt, choose life over personal belief. Was the man in the right position to analyze what he ought to do? I don't think he could have been in a great state of mind considering how he was probably panicking over his house burning up.

This is all under the assumption that the government knew for a fact that he would have died. Whether their judgment was correct or not is something that ought also to be weighed. Should we always trust the government on how to handle our freedoms, even if their judgment could be much worse than ours?

Some good points except for the life liberty and pursuit of happiness one that would imply non interference from the state not a mandation of those things.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 6:15:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 6:01:32 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/20/2015 3:51:57 PM, Wylted wrote:
A guy attempts to run into a burning house to save his 3 year old child. The cops taze him and prevent him from doing so. This article is one I found that seems to give both sides of the story best. The other articles for the most part only have one side of the story. http://m.nydailynews.com...

What do you guys think? Should you have the right to put your life on the line to save your kid?

Please read article before responding. It provides details I left out.

I think the police did the right thing. The dad was not equipped to enter the house that even those who were equipped hesitated to enter. Had the dad went in, the fire department would have to rescue two people instead of one putting not only the civilians lives in danger, but the fire fighters themselves.

If they abandoned a 3 year old to die, what makes you think they'd risk their lives for a grown man?
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 6:16:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 6:14:14 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/20/2015 6:01:24 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 3/20/2015 5:49:58 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/20/2015 5:47:10 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 3/20/2015 5:40:00 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/20/2015 5:35:23 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 3/20/2015 5:34:08 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/20/2015 5:31:41 PM, Varrack wrote:
Yes he should have been allowed to save his son. However, the police seemed to be acting out of their best interest, but had they let him go in the boy may have lived.

What if the officer knew for a fact that the guy would be unsuccessful? What if he knew it was a suicide mission? Would that change your stance?

Yes, I don't see a reason why he would have let them in that case.

I think the officer estimated close to a zero percent chance of success. Does somebody not have liberty over their own body? Does the government get to decide whether I should be allowed to commit suicide for a noble cause (to rescue a loved one)?

Well I see both sides. But if the officer was correct, then one could argue that

P1: the government's duty is to protect life
P2: the government knew better that he would fail
P3: the man was not intentionally trying to commit suicide
C1: the government was justified in tazing the man since it ultimately saved a lifelife

Whether suicide should be legal is another debate, but that didn't seem to be the case with the man.

I'd challenge P1. I think it is the governments duty to protect freedom. It is a famous saying in America. "Give me Liberty or Give me death".

It's also a famous saying in the Declaration of Independence that it is the government's job to protect "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". In this case the government can't protect liberty/pursuit of happiness without allowing life to slip away, so it becomes a debate over which value the government ought to protect more. Kind of like the abortion debate.

I also think that P3 is inappropriate. Perhaps the guy just didn't care if he died. Perhaps he loved that child so much that he'd rather die than live without him.

I'd say when in doubt, choose life over personal belief. Was the man in the right position to analyze what he ought to do? I don't think he could have been in a great state of mind considering how he was probably panicking over his house burning up.

This is all under the assumption that the government knew for a fact that he would have died. Whether their judgment was correct or not is something that ought also to be weighed. Should we always trust the government on how to handle our freedoms, even if their judgment could be much worse than ours?

Some good points except for the life liberty and pursuit of happiness one that would imply non interference from the state not a mandation of those things.

Does the government not have an obligation to protect life?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 6:17:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Barrack, In my opinion they are only obligated to direct life from other citizens, but one should be allowed complete ownership over their own life.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 6:24:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 5:40:00 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/20/2015 5:35:23 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 3/20/2015 5:34:08 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/20/2015 5:31:41 PM, Varrack wrote:
Yes he should have been allowed to save his son. However, the police seemed to be acting out of their best interest, but had they let him go in the boy may have lived.

What if the officer knew for a fact that the guy would be unsuccessful? What if he knew it was a suicide mission? Would that change your stance?

Yes, I don't see a reason why he would have let them in that case.

I think the officer estimated close to a zero percent chance of success. Does somebody not have liberty over their own body? Does the government get to decide whether I should be allowed to commit suicide for a noble cause (to rescue a loved one)?

I go with the view that the governments main role is to prevent harm when it is unchosen, eg protect people from invasion, robbed, disease, poverty (yes that means a welfare safety net (gasp) etc.

But if as an individual some one chooses harm, a highly probably suicide mission eg running into a burning house then no the government doesn't get to use force to stop chosen harm.

I am also distrustful of any state of affairs where the government gets more and more power to say when it is ok for you to die and when it is not cause it's in their best interests and not necessarily your own. Eg sending you to war is ok, suicide is forbidden.

This just creates a master/slave relationship, you can only die when we say it is ok for you to do so cause you are not your owner...............we are.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Bennett91
Posts: 4,193
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 6:39:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 6:15:20 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/20/2015 6:01:32 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/20/2015 3:51:57 PM, Wylted wrote:
A guy attempts to run into a burning house to save his 3 year old child. The cops taze him and prevent him from doing so. This article is one I found that seems to give both sides of the story best. The other articles for the most part only have one side of the story. http://m.nydailynews.com...

What do you guys think? Should you have the right to put your life on the line to save your kid?

Please read article before responding. It provides details I left out.

I think the police did the right thing. The dad was not equipped to enter the house that even those who were equipped hesitated to enter. Had the dad went in, the fire department would have to rescue two people instead of one putting not only the civilians lives in danger, but the fire fighters themselves.

If they abandoned a 3 year old to die, what makes you think they'd risk their lives for a grown man?

I guess you didn't read your own article? They got the boy out of the house alive. He died later.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 6:41:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 6:24:35 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/20/2015 5:40:00 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/20/2015 5:35:23 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 3/20/2015 5:34:08 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/20/2015 5:31:41 PM, Varrack wrote:
Yes he should have been allowed to save his son. However, the police seemed to be acting out of their best interest, but had they let him go in the boy may have lived.

What if the officer knew for a fact that the guy would be unsuccessful? What if he knew it was a suicide mission? Would that change your stance?

Yes, I don't see a reason why he would have let them in that case.

I think the officer estimated close to a zero percent chance of success. Does somebody not have liberty over their own body? Does the government get to decide whether I should be allowed to commit suicide for a noble cause (to rescue a loved one)?

I go with the view that the governments main role is to prevent harm when it is unchosen, eg protect people from invasion, robbed, disease, poverty (yes that means a welfare safety net (gasp) etc.

But if as an individual some one chooses harm, a highly probably suicide mission eg running into a burning house then no the government doesn't get to use force to stop chosen harm.

I am also distrustful of any state of affairs where the government gets more and more power to say when it is ok for you to die and when it is not cause it's in their best interests and not necessarily your own. Eg sending you to war is ok, suicide is forbidden.

This just creates a master/slave relationship, you can only die when we say it is ok for you to do so cause you are not your owner...............we are.

Do you have any sympathy for the fact that the guy might not be of sound mind?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 6:46:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 6:39:48 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/20/2015 6:15:20 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/20/2015 6:01:32 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/20/2015 3:51:57 PM, Wylted wrote:
A guy attempts to run into a burning house to save his 3 year old child. The cops taze him and prevent him from doing so. This article is one I found that seems to give both sides of the story best. The other articles for the most part only have one side of the story. http://m.nydailynews.com...

What do you guys think? Should you have the right to put your life on the line to save your kid?

Please read article before responding. It provides details I left out.

I think the police did the right thing. The dad was not equipped to enter the house that even those who were equipped hesitated to enter. Had the dad went in, the fire department would have to rescue two people instead of one putting not only the civilians lives in danger, but the fire fighters themselves.

If they abandoned a 3 year old to die, what makes you think they'd risk their lives for a grown man?

I guess you didn't read your own article? They got the boy out of the house alive. He died later.

Hindsight is that the boy was alive when the father tried to enter the building, but it doesn't change the fact that he was as good as dead or that the step dad had no chance of getting to him. He actually died in the house. The fire department could not get inside, but either way I am not sure how the guy would be putting the firefighters at risk, when they had no intention of entering the building anyway.

I've read about 20 articles on this ranging from local to national news sources. The story is not 100% consistent among all sources, but I have a pretty good ideal of the general theme.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,193
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 6:50:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 6:46:07 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/20/2015 6:39:48 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/20/2015 6:15:20 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/20/2015 6:01:32 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/20/2015 3:51:57 PM, Wylted wrote:
A guy attempts to run into a burning house to save his 3 year old child. The cops taze him and prevent him from doing so. This article is one I found that seems to give both sides of the story best. The other articles for the most part only have one side of the story. http://m.nydailynews.com...

What do you guys think? Should you have the right to put your life on the line to save your kid?

Please read article before responding. It provides details I left out.

I think the police did the right thing. The dad was not equipped to enter the house that even those who were equipped hesitated to enter. Had the dad went in, the fire department would have to rescue two people instead of one putting not only the civilians lives in danger, but the fire fighters themselves.

If they abandoned a 3 year old to die, what makes you think they'd risk their lives for a grown man?

I guess you didn't read your own article? They got the boy out of the house alive. He died later.

Hindsight is that the boy was alive when the father tried to enter the building, but it doesn't change the fact that he was as good as dead or that the step dad had no chance of getting to him. He actually died in the house. The fire department could not get inside, but either way I am not sure how the guy would be putting the firefighters at risk, when they had no intention of entering the building anyway.

Regardless, my original point, the cops were right, still stands has the only thing worse than one corpse is two.

I've read about 20 articles on this ranging from local to national news sources. The story is not 100% consistent among all sources, but I have a pretty good ideal of the general theme.

Well the article you posted in the OP says "Ryan said his son was still breathing when officials carried him out of the house, which means that for the last few moments of Riely's life, his dad was sitting in a jail cell."
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 6:55:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 6:50:31 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/20/2015 6:46:07 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/20/2015 6:39:48 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/20/2015 6:15:20 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/20/2015 6:01:32 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/20/2015 3:51:57 PM, Wylted wrote:
A guy attempts to run into a burning house to save his 3 year old child. The cops taze him and prevent him from doing so. This article is one I found that seems to give both sides of the story best. The other articles for the most part only have one side of the story. http://m.nydailynews.com...

What do you guys think? Should you have the right to put your life on the line to save your kid?

Please read article before responding. It provides details I left out.

I think the police did the right thing. The dad was not equipped to enter the house that even those who were equipped hesitated to enter. Had the dad went in, the fire department would have to rescue two people instead of one putting not only the civilians lives in danger, but the fire fighters themselves.

If they abandoned a 3 year old to die, what makes you think they'd risk their lives for a grown man?

I guess you didn't read your own article? They got the boy out of the house alive. He died later.

Hindsight is that the boy was alive when the father tried to enter the building, but it doesn't change the fact that he was as good as dead or that the step dad had no chance of getting to him. He actually died in the house. The fire department could not get inside, but either way I am not sure how the guy would be putting the firefighters at risk, when they had no intention of entering the building anyway.

Regardless, my original point, the cops were right, still stands has the only thing worse than one corpse is two.

I've read about 20 articles on this ranging from local to national news sources. The story is not 100% consistent among all sources, but I have a pretty good ideal of the general theme.

Well the article you posted in the OP says "Ryan said his son was still breathing when officials carried him out of the house, which means that for the last few moments of Riely's life, his dad was sitting in a jail cell."

I see what you are saying. I think they brought the fire down and a coroner later determined the child's time of death was sometime after the father was detained.

I am still not sure what they mean by arrest. No news source has made that clear. I can't imagine why he'd be in a jail cell. Maybe they are referring to him being in cuffs and detained temporarily as an arrest.

I thought I was responding to Varrack in that post and it is why it may have seemed like I was confused by what you were attempting to say.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 7:37:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 6:41:58 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/20/2015 6:24:35 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/20/2015 5:40:00 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/20/2015 5:35:23 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 3/20/2015 5:34:08 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/20/2015 5:31:41 PM, Varrack wrote:
Yes he should have been allowed to save his son. However, the police seemed to be acting out of their best interest, but had they let him go in the boy may have lived.

What if the officer knew for a fact that the guy would be unsuccessful? What if he knew it was a suicide mission? Would that change your stance?

Yes, I don't see a reason why he would have let them in that case.

I think the officer estimated close to a zero percent chance of success. Does somebody not have liberty over their own body? Does the government get to decide whether I should be allowed to commit suicide for a noble cause (to rescue a loved one)?

I go with the view that the governments main role is to prevent harm when it is unchosen, eg protect people from invasion, robbed, disease, poverty (yes that means a welfare safety net (gasp) etc.

But if as an individual some one chooses harm, a highly probably suicide mission eg running into a burning house then no the government doesn't get to use force to stop chosen harm.

I am also distrustful of any state of affairs where the government gets more and more power to say when it is ok for you to die and when it is not cause it's in their best interests and not necessarily your own. Eg sending you to war is ok, suicide is forbidden.

This just creates a master/slave relationship, you can only die when we say it is ok for you to do so cause you are not your owner...............we are.

Do you have any sympathy for the fact that the guy might not be of sound mind?

I think your question really is, even if we grant the above, does unsoundness of mind grant a justification for an exemption of the rule and thus use of force by government.

I can live with that, as long as unsound mind is narrowly and specifically defined so government can't just use that excuse when ever they want a rationale to use force in such matters.

I remember once reading about in the USSR anyone who advocated against communism was obviously mentally sick, cause only such a person could be of the view that communism (at least in the USSR) was not super super awesome.

As such their "unsound mind" status allowed the government to lock them up............for the persons own good of course. Just trying to help, how nice of them.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2015 3:44:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I haven't read other stories than this one, but this story does not confirm that the boy was alive when he was pulled out. It states, "Ryan [the father] said his son was still breathing when officials carried him out of the house..."

However, his father had been removed from the scene and sent to the police station. So he is not a witness to when the boy came out. So his testimony is meaningless. The Firefighters are the best, most objective measurers for the danger of the fire. They (along with the police) have a responsibility to save as many lives as possible in any disaster and part of that is to not people throw themselves into the fire.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2015 4:01:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/21/2015 3:44:27 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I haven't read other stories than this one, but this story does not confirm that the boy was alive when he was pulled out. It states, "Ryan [the father] said his son was still breathing when officials carried him out of the house..."


The boy was still alive when they carried the father out of the house. I think their are 2 ways to interpret that passage, but mine is the correct way as confirmed by the other articles.

However, his father had been removed from the scene and sent to the police station. So he is not a witness to when the boy came out. So his testimony is meaningless. The Firefighters are the best, most objective measurers for the danger of the fire. They (along with the police) have a responsibility to save as many lives as possible in any disaster and part of that is to not people throw themselves into the fire.

I can see that point of view is dominant of the rationally minded people. I wouldn't be happy if they stop me, though. Right mind or not, I have the right to kill myself.

Anybody that believes the police have a moral obligation to prevent a guy from jumping off a bridge, should agree with your point of view in this matter.

With that being said, if I were the officers on the scene, I would've probably did the same thing. No need to lose my job, because some guy is on a suicide mission.
mrsatan
Posts: 417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2015 4:41:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 3:51:57 PM, Wylted wrote:
A guy attempts to run into a burning house to save his 3 year old child. The cops taze him and prevent him from doing so. This article is one I found that seems to give both sides of the story best. The other articles for the most part only have one side of the story. http://m.nydailynews.com...

What do you guys think? Should you have the right to put your life on the line to save your kid?

Please read article before responding. It provides details I left out.

I think everyone should have the right to risk their life for anything they feel is deserving of that risk. In this instance, however, I would say preventing the father from doing so was the right call.

Risk implies a chance for success. The article says the parents had tried to get to the child before they fled the building. If they couldn't get to him then, I see no reason to think they would have a chance after the fire has had more time to spread. At that point, it's not risking his life to save his child... It's just suicide.

Unless there was another path to reach the child by going around the house and in the front. Really, without knowing the layout of the house, and the extent of the fire, I can't give a definitive answer. The firefighters would know more here, and while emotion could have clouded their judgement, it was likely clouding the fathers' judgement to a greater degree.

So again, from the information available, I think the result would have been two people dead instead of one had the firefighters not done what they did. Although, I do see fault in sending the father to the police station, rather than just putting him in the back of a squad car.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2015 4:42:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/21/2015 4:01:14 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/21/2015 3:44:27 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I haven't read other stories than this one, but this story does not confirm that the boy was alive when he was pulled out. It states, "Ryan [the father] said his son was still breathing when officials carried him out of the house..."


The boy was still alive when they carried the father out of the house. I think their are 2 ways to interpret that passage, but mine is the correct way as confirmed by the other articles.

However, his father had been removed from the scene and sent to the police station. So he is not a witness to when the boy came out. So his testimony is meaningless. The Firefighters are the best, most objective measurers for the danger of the fire. They (along with the police) have a responsibility to save as many lives as possible in any disaster and part of that is to not people throw themselves into the fire.

I can see that point of view is dominant of the rationally minded people. I wouldn't be happy if they stop me, though. Right mind or not, I have the right to kill myself.

Yes, you can kill yourself, but not to where you are endangering others, and that includes those that are tasked with protecting life in an emergency.


Anybody that believes the police have a moral obligation to prevent a guy from jumping off a bridge, should agree with your point of view in this matter.

With that being said, if I were the officers on the scene, I would've probably did the same thing. No need to lose my job, because some guy is on a suicide mission.

I would agree. If I was the father, I would do everything the get back in, and if I was the police, I would do everything to keep as many people out of the fire as possible.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2015 4:53:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/21/2015 4:42:07 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 3/21/2015 4:01:14 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/21/2015 3:44:27 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I haven't read other stories than this one, but this story does not confirm that the boy was alive when he was pulled out. It states, "Ryan [the father] said his son was still breathing when officials carried him out of the house..."


The boy was still alive when they carried the father out of the house. I think their are 2 ways to interpret that passage, but mine is the correct way as confirmed by the other articles.

However, his father had been removed from the scene and sent to the police station. So he is not a witness to when the boy came out. So his testimony is meaningless. The Firefighters are the best, most objective measurers for the danger of the fire. They (along with the police) have a responsibility to save as many lives as possible in any disaster and part of that is to not people throw themselves into the fire.

I can see that point of view is dominant of the rationally minded people. I wouldn't be happy if they stop me, though. Right mind or not, I have the right to kill myself.

Yes, you can kill yourself, but not to where you are endangering others, and that includes those that are tasked with protecting life in an emergency.

I don't get that argument at all, and I've seen it brought up a few times. If the firemen weren't willing to endanger their lives to save the kid, why would anyone expect them to endanger their lives for a grown man?

It seems like, he only endangered himself.


Anybody that believes the police have a moral obligation to prevent a guy from jumping off a bridge, should agree with your point of view in this matter.

With that being said, if I were the officers on the scene, I would've probably did the same thing. No need to lose my job, because some guy is on a suicide mission.

I would agree. If I was the father, I would do everything the get back in, and if I was the police, I would do everything to keep as many people out of the fire as possible.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2015 8:39:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I absolutely disagree with the actions of the police in this case, and I agree with the likely filing of a suit against the department on behalf of the father. The father has the right to enter his own home, let alone to try to rescue his own son. When a house is filled with carbon monoxide, for example, the authorities cannot forcefully evict you, despite the danger your staying poses to yourself; they can only advise you to leave. Their actions wrongfully superseded his freedom and property rights.

The father's decision also would not further endanger any of the firefighters as 1) they were not in the home at that time (according to the source in the OP) and 2) the father's refusal to follow their orders could be viewed as a conscious forfeiture of their services. I would be outraged, and the family is rightfully so.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 12:08:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 3:51:57 PM, Wylted wrote:
A guy attempts to run into a burning house to save his 3 year old child. The cops taze him and prevent him from doing so. This article is one I found that seems to give both sides of the story best. The other articles for the most part only have one side of the story. http://m.nydailynews.com...

What do you guys think? Should you have the right to put your life on the line to save your kid?

Usually I don't get emotional over this kind of thing, but honestly, I'd have done the same thing if I was the father. They said he was "compromising the scene", screw that - his paternal instincts kicked in and he was willing to risk his own life to save his son.

Sometimes I really do share the sentiments of N.W.A and just say to myself, "Fvck the police."
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 12:12:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 12:08:31 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 3/20/2015 3:51:57 PM, Wylted wrote:
A guy attempts to run into a burning house to save his 3 year old child. The cops taze him and prevent him from doing so. This article is one I found that seems to give both sides of the story best. The other articles for the most part only have one side of the story. http://m.nydailynews.com...

What do you guys think? Should you have the right to put your life on the line to save your kid?

Usually I don't get emotional over this kind of thing, but honestly, I'd have done the same thing if I was the father. They said he was "compromising the scene", screw that - his paternal instincts kicked in and he was willing to risk his own life to save his son.

Sometimes I really do share the sentiments of N.W.A and just say to myself, "Fvck the police."

I've had bad interactions with cops and kinda hate them myself. Though I understand they were in a difficult decision.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 12:19:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/21/2015 8:39:14 PM, Maikuru wrote:
I absolutely disagree with the actions of the police in this case, and I agree with the likely filing of a suit against the department on behalf of the father. The father has the right to enter his own home, let alone to try to rescue his own son. When a house is filled with carbon monoxide, for example, the authorities cannot forcefully evict you, despite the danger your staying poses to yourself; they can only advise you to leave. Their actions wrongfully superseded his freedom and property rights.

The father's decision also would not further endanger any of the firefighters as 1) they were not in the home at that time (according to the source in the OP) and 2) the father's refusal to follow their orders could be viewed as a conscious forfeiture of their services. I would be outraged, and the family is rightfully so.

Several good points. I know there is a bunch of legitimacy to the family's lawsuit, I'm not sure if the article states they are filing one, but they are. The police were in a tough position, and they aren't exactly philosophers, they pretty much just attempt to follow policies.

Sometimes I like finding the court documents to these things when they go to trial and getting the full story. I'm not exactly sure why the media sucks at getting the whole story out, but it is partially the fault of police departments, because they are not forthright enough with information.