Cops Tase Father Trying To Save His 3-Year-Old Son From House Fire

[poorboy]

That has nothing, I mean absolutely nothing to do with this.
Get back to me.

I'm not going to be scouring the internet to find a specific quote under LA law, but all the States and Canada are very similar in this area. Under Canadian law, the police can use as much force as necessary to take someone into custody under the Mental Health Act. Taking someone into custody sometimes involves the use of force, and the police are supplied with a use of force continuum. Someone wanting to run into a an oxygen deprived environment filled with volatile organic compounds is not of sound mind, and easily falls into this category.

Do the research yourself or ask a police officer, but from what I've read, the police are well within their legal authority.

PEACE OFFICER'S POWER TO TAKE INTO CUSTODY

Peace officer's power to take into custody

12(1) A peace officer may take a person into custody and then promptly to a place to be examined involuntarily by a physician if

(a) the peace officer believes on reasonable grounds that the person

(i) has threatened or attempted to cause bodily harm to himself or herself,

(ii) has behaved violently towards another person or caused another person to fear bodily harm from him or her, or

(iii) has shown a lack of competence to care for himself or herself;

(b) the peace officer is of the opinion that the person is apparently suffering from a mental disorder of a nature that will likely result in serious harm to the person or to another person, or in the person's substantial mental or physical deterioration; and

(c) the urgency of the situation does not allow for an order for an examination under section 11.

Bottom line whether you like it or not, there will be no charges against these officers.

I get it. You hate the police, but I'm telling you, you do not want to go back to the old days. It was more like LA Confidential than Andy Griffith back in the day.

 

[Aardvark154]

Exactly. You can't.
Next.

There is a huge difference between can't and don't want to bother.

 

[Aardvark154]

http://www.whig.com/story/23860832/faulty-electrical-circuit-blamed-in-fatal-louisiana-fire

 

[fmahovalich]

They have a right to tase and arrest the Father....yes they do.

No issue with arresting him...as he was about to harm himself..therefore arrest under the mental health act....my nurse sister in a mental ward is up to speed on this stuff.

 

[basketcase]

...

Yes he might have died in the fire, but if it were my three year old I would have tried to, and I think it is my right to try.....

Darwin at work.

 

[basketcase]

...
Not to mention, the fire department wasn't even there yet to advise on the situation....

While firefighters started to knock down the fire, Ryan Miller kicked in the front door and tried to enter the burning residence.
http://www.whig.com/story/23860832/faulty-electrical-circuit-blamed-in-fatal-louisiana-fire

 

[rhuarc29]

Yes he might have died in the fire, but if it were my three year old I would have tried to, and I think it is my right to try.

That was my thinking. What right did the officers have to stop him? If I was the father, livid wouldn't begin to describe my feelings at those cops. There's just always going to be that sense of not knowing if something could have been done. While you could say the cops probably saved this man's life, you could just as well say they killed the child.

 

[fuji]

Darwin at work.

But not in the way you think. An organism that has already reproduced has a powerful incentive to protect its offspring, even at the best certain cost of its own life.

You can probably work out some model which determines in evolutionary advantage terms what chance of death is worth taking to save the life of your child.

I would bet it is north of 80 percent for a male parent and that seems to closely match the risks actual parents are willing to take when their own children are threatened.

Saving someone else's child has no such payoff hence the police and firefighters conservative answer. But if it was their own child, with all their training, I bet they also attempt a rescue.

 

[blackrock13]

That was my thinking. What right did the officers have to stop him? If I was the father, livid wouldn't begin to describe my feelings at those cops. There's just always going to be that sense of not knowing if something could have been done. While you could say the cops probably saved this man's life, you could just as well say they killed the child.

It's not a matter of rights. If you really want to continue along this 'silly' road, the police were thinking more about preserving life and of the the mother and other son, who would have been left without a spouse and father, family income and protector against all those nasty gun touting brigands and cut throats out in the world. How could the father be so selfish?

The fire was so bad the firefighters couldn't safely gain access, what chance did the father have, none.

 

[fuji]

The fire was so bad the firefighters couldn't safely gain access, what chance did the father have, none.

There is no reason to think it was that bad when he tried. The firefighters weren't there yet. Five minutes makes a big difference. When he made the attempt he might had reasonable odds. There is just not enough information in the article to know what the situation was, and no reason to think that police were any better judge of it than he was. They aren't trained for that.

If it was me and I had a fifty fifty chance of either dying or saving my child, there would be no question I am going to try.


Also, I still cannot see how they justified use of force. You can argue what is sensible, but the police need a legal foundation for the decision to use force otherwise it is assault.

 

[rhuarc29]

It's not a matter of rights.

No? They attacked a man who was breaking no laws. In my mind, those officers personally decided what was right. They obviously felt their opinion trumped that of the father. What right have they to decide right from wrong outside the bounds of the law?

 

[blackrock13]

No? They attacked a man who was breaking no laws. In my mind, those officers personally decided what was right. They obviously felt their opinion trumped that of the father. What right have they to decide right from wrong outside the bounds of the law?

I guess you missed the point earlier mentioned they had the legal right to stop someone from killing himself. I'll let the real lawyer site the chapter and verse.

 

[rhuarc29]

I guess you missed the point earlier mentioned they had the legal right to stop someone from killing himself. I'll let the real lawyer site the chapter and verse.

Ignoring the point that such a legal right is bullshit in and of itself, it's not like the guy had a gun to his head.

 

[blackrock13]

No? They attacked a man who was breaking no laws. In my mind, those officers personally decided what was right. They obviously felt their opinion trumped that of the father. What right have they to decide right from wrong outside the bounds of the law?

Ignoring the point that such a legal right is bullshit in and of itself, it's not like the guy had a gun to his head.

Except that your initial claims was that what they did was outside the law, which it wasn't. So now that the law doesn't fit your thoughts of right and wrong, it's bullshit. It wasn't just their opinion/assessment, it was a fact upheld by the firefighter assessment of the fire, who were there ad far more capable of assessing the reality of the fire than anyone sitting here on TERB looking back. How about the right of the mother and son to have their husband and father alive? How about the responsibility of the father to protect and provide for the living members of his family?

 

[red]

it was wrong. they should have let him go if not helped save the child

 

[blackrock13]

it was wrong. they should have let him go if not helped save the child

Do you fell he could have saved the child?

 

[red]

Do you fell he could have saved the child?

I feel a father should be allowed to try. that's the right thing.

 

[fmahovalich]

I feel a father should be allowed to try. that's the right thing.

Red. You are out of your league. Have you ever seen a raging fire? You are probably best not to comment without some first hand knowledge. They were right to let the child die and save he Father.

Tragic. But right!

 

[blackrock13]

I feel a father should be allowed to try. that's the right thing.

Yet you didn't answer the simple question of do you think he could have saved his child.

He has a right to surely leave his surviving family without a father, husband, and protector?

 

[fmahovalich]

Exactly. It's not for others to make that call, and to use potentially lethal force to enforce their opinion. Neither morally, nor almost certainly, legally. That's all there is to it.

No Arthur..it was a strong raging fire and Dad had to be held out...no question.......................I came upon a woman years ago who's house was in full burning mode. Screaming, running in circles, incoherent.....then moved to go back in and save a cat. I was forced to tackle her and pin her to the ground.

She was in no state to make a rational decision, so I did. Yes it was an assault..I tackled her. But it was right!