SONOFAB!TCH! Man arrested after running into burning house to save his dog!! **UPDATE** NOW WITH VIDEO

[CPA]

Originally posted by: kami

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Question for you guys:

Had he been injured while inside, would you have slammed the cops for not going in after him?

Viper GTS

Probably.

This law is in place for a reason..

Just because a law is in place, doesn't mean that is a just law.

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: Ameesh

Originally posted by: pulse8
If the guy wants to risk his life for his pet, why does the police have a problem with that?

because if he died, then the family would have sued the fire fighters for not controling the situation properly.

I wouldn't have agreed with that either. The guy made his own choice to go into the building. The result would've been on his shoulders and his shoulders only.

 

[Jmmsbnd007]

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: PipBoy
yet another reason for me to loathe police.

Ok, next time somebody is breaking into your house, call a plumber.

I'd prefer to call Mr. Remington.

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: MacBaine
If he had run in there and died, you can be damn well sure that his family would sue the police for not holding him back.

EXACTLY

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: xirtam
1. It was his own apartment. Fire or no fire, I don't see how you can make it a crime for him to enter.

2. He went through proper channels. Waited 30 minutes for firefighters, made request to police, etc.

3. The only life he "recklessly endangered" was his own. Trying to get him on "reckless endangerment" in my mind is like trying to find the fire department guilty of animal neglect.

4. And as far as disorderly conduct goes, it was a disorderly situation. Most acts of bravery are disorderly. And many of them are risky. Why should one go to jail for that?

and because your an expert of FIRE you know exactly how the fire would have responded when he entered the building. you know the condition of the ceilings, the walls, the roof.

because your such an expert on fire you can say conclusively that he posed NO danger and that there was NO possibility that his entering the building could have had long term effects.

the answer that none of those things happened is NOT sufficient, it COULD have happened.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: xirtam
1. It was his own apartment. Fire or no fire, I don't see how you can make it a crime for him to enter.

2. He went through proper channels. Waited 30 minutes for firefighters, made request to police, etc.

3. The only life he "recklessly endangered" was his own. Trying to get him on "reckless endangerment" in my mind is like trying to find the fire department guilty of animal neglect.

4. And as far as disorderly conduct goes, it was a disorderly situation. Most acts of bravery are disorderly. And many of them are risky. Why should one go to jail for that?

and because your an expert of FIRE you know exactly how the fire would have responded when he entered the building. you know the condition of the ceilings, the walls, the roof.

because your such an expert on fire you can say conclusively that he posed NO danger and that there was NO possibility that his entering the building could have had long term effects.

the answer that none of those things happened is NOT sufficient, it COULD have happened.

And it DIDN'T. Case closed.

I could understand if he busted up a fire truck, stabbed a fireman with a piece of glass, or threw the dog on top of a police officer's head on the way down but he DIDN'T.

The fireman wouldn't do anything, the policeman wouldn't do anything...he went BACK IN to save a family member and came out unscathed. Heck, the Fireman didn't even have to get their gloves dirty.

If I were the mayor, I'd have given him a Medal of Honor for bravery

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: Ameesh

Originally posted by: pulse8
If the guy wants to risk his life for his pet, why does the police have a problem with that?

because if he died, then the family would have sued the fire fighters for not controling the situation properly.

I wouldn't have agreed with that either. The guy made his own choice to go into the building. The result would've been on his shoulders and his shoulders only.

you mean like the McDonalds customer that got fat?? you mean like the McDonalds customer that got burned on Coffee?? . . .

frivolous lawsuits happen ALL the time and if the City had been sued EVEN if they won, their legal costs would have been substantial.

guess who woulda paid that??

 

[Ciber]

Screw the dog, i'm grabbing my tower and lcd .

 

[bonk102]

they better not arrest him for this, it'd be stupid if they did

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: xirtam
1. It was his own apartment. Fire or no fire, I don't see how you can make it a crime for him to enter.

2. He went through proper channels. Waited 30 minutes for firefighters, made request to police, etc.

3. The only life he "recklessly endangered" was his own. Trying to get him on "reckless endangerment" in my mind is like trying to find the fire department guilty of animal neglect.

4. And as far as disorderly conduct goes, it was a disorderly situation. Most acts of bravery are disorderly. And many of them are risky. Why should one go to jail for that?

and because your an expert of FIRE you know exactly how the fire would have responded when he entered the building. you know the condition of the ceilings, the walls, the roof.

because your such an expert on fire you can say conclusively that he posed NO danger and that there was NO possibility that his entering the building could have had long term effects.

the answer that none of those things happened is NOT sufficient, it COULD have happened.

And it DIDN'T. Case closed.

I could understand if he busted up a fire truck, stabbed a fireman with a piece of glass, or threw the dog on top of a police officer's head on the way down but he DIDN'T.

The fireman wouldn't do anything, the policeman wouldn't do anything...he went BACK IN to save a family member and came out unscathed. Heck, the Fireman didn't even have to get their gloves dirty.

If I were the mayor, I'd have given him a Medal of Honor for bravery

He probably deserves a medal, but that doesn't mean what he did was RIGHT. you cannot base public policy on IF it turns out bad it was wrong and IF it turns out good it was right.

sheesh, when did we as a society decide that the ends justifies the means??

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BatmanNate
He should not incur legal reprecussions for what he did, despite the stupidity of his actions. Nobody will force the firemen to save him if the danger is too perilous, the choice was his.

You said the key word, was his choice.

The training of the Firefighters and Policeman on the scene to do their jobs does not change simply because this guy felt he had to rescue his own dog. His biggest offense was that he made the Firefighters and Cops there look bad.

I was a Fireman in NY for 8 years so don't say I'm bad mouthing the Pros there.

It was his own apartment, his own dog and he stood there waiting for 30 minutes watching his dog suffer. He saves the dog and then is separated from his dog again as they haul his a$$ off to jail. It's getting so insane, it's beyond words.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Question for you guys:

Had he been injured while inside, would you have slammed the cops for not going in after him?

Viper GTS

NO, at least they made the attempt at telling him what is the Official Rules, but saving a life (whether human or animal) goes beyond "Rules".

We have too many "Rules" (aka Laws) now. Can I go take a pi$$ now or is it not an Official time?

 

[xirtam]

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: xirtam
1. It was his own apartment. Fire or no fire, I don't see how you can make it a crime for him to enter.

2. He went through proper channels. Waited 30 minutes for firefighters, made request to police, etc.

3. The only life he "recklessly endangered" was his own. Trying to get him on "reckless endangerment" in my mind is like trying to find the fire department guilty of animal neglect.

4. And as far as disorderly conduct goes, it was a disorderly situation. Most acts of bravery are disorderly. And many of them are risky. Why should one go to jail for that?

and because your an expert of FIRE you know exactly how the fire would have responded when he entered the building. you know the condition of the ceilings, the walls, the roof.

because your such an expert on fire you can say conclusively that he posed NO danger and that there was NO possibility that his entering the building could have had long term effects.

the answer that none of those things happened is NOT sufficient, it COULD have happened.

I could get hit by a fire truck the next time I cross the street, but I sure as hell ain't going to sue the fire department for what COULD happen.

Because I'm such an expert on FIRE I can say that if you leave a dog in the middle of a burning apartment for thirty freaking minutes, there's a problem.

Because I'm such an expert on FIRE I can say that yes, there was a danger, yes, his behavior was risky, and yes, he accepted the risk and the danger when he entered the building. Next time you commit an act of bravery, let me know whether or not you signed a freaking waiver first. I didn't knock the fire department or the police department on deciding that it was too risky to do their business. But if they're too scared to save my family member or pet, then they better stay the hell out of my way.

If he would have died trying to save the dog, he would have died bravely. If he would have lived (which he did) saving the dog, he would have done so bravely. In both instances, his acts were equally brave and equally stupid. No ends-justifies-the-means about it.

 

[Bleep]

Also, by putting his life at risk he could have committed suicide, which is against the law

Funny, have they arrested anyone for the crime of suicide in your city? Or even attempted suicide? I think you are full of it.

Bleep

 

[ElFenix]

i think easy mutha-fvckin' e said it best:
"fvck the police"

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: xirtam

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: xirtam
1. It was his own apartment. Fire or no fire, I don't see how you can make it a crime for him to enter.

2. He went through proper channels. Waited 30 minutes for firefighters, made request to police, etc.

3. The only life he "recklessly endangered" was his own. Trying to get him on "reckless endangerment" in my mind is like trying to find the fire department guilty of animal neglect.

4. And as far as disorderly conduct goes, it was a disorderly situation. Most acts of bravery are disorderly. And many of them are risky. Why should one go to jail for that?

and because your an expert of FIRE you know exactly how the fire would have responded when he entered the building. you know the condition of the ceilings, the walls, the roof.

because your such an expert on fire you can say conclusively that he posed NO danger and that there was NO possibility that his entering the building could have had long term effects.

the answer that none of those things happened is NOT sufficient, it COULD have happened.

I could get hit by a fire truck the next time I cross the street, but I sure as hell ain't going to sue the fire department for what COULD happen.

Because I'm such an expert on FIRE I can say that if you leave a dog in the middle of a burning apartment for thirty freaking minutes, there's a problem.

Because I'm such an expert on FIRE I can say that yes, there was a danger, yes, his behavior was risky, and yes, he accepted the risk and the danger when he entered the building. Next time you commit an act of bravery, let me know whether or not you signed a freaking waiver first. I didn't knock the fire department or the police department on deciding that it was too risky to do their business. But if they're too scared to save my family member or pet, then they better stay the hell out of my way.

If he would have died trying to save the dog, he would have died bravely. If he would have lived (which he did) saving the dog, he would have done so bravely. In both instances, his acts were equally brave and equally stupid. No ends-justifies-the-means about it.

And IF you were trying to cross the street while the police had tape up and firetrucks were zooming back and forth and you did cross the street and barely get missed by a truck you should be arrested too.

ENDANGERMENT doesn't mean that there has to actually be a bad result, it is a JUDGEMENT CALL by the cops involved.

 

[conjur]

Reminds me of this song

 

[LeeTJ]

i say, he shoulda let his dog die, then had dog barbecue for dinner. shoot he could have invited all his neighbors and had a party.

 

[xirtam]

Well if the firetrucks aren't watching where they're going and almost hit my kid, I'm going to throw my kid out of the way, get barely missed by the firetruck, and then go to jail for it.

My kid > their tape. Nuff said.

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: xirtam
Well if the firetrucks aren't watching where they're going and almost hit my kid, I'm going to throw my kid out of the way, get barely missed by the firetruck, and then go to jail for it.

My kid > their tape. Nuff said.

again, if that had happened, i would have said you were incredibly brave and that you should go to jail.

that's all i'm saying.

 

[T2T III]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Firefighters had not entered the building when Martin rushed in, officials said. Lawson said the situation was too dangerous for anyone to enter the burning building at that time. ''The floors were collapsing, the fire was escalating and there was a lot of smoke coming from the building. I'm really sorry that this happened. We cannot have citizens or other people creating additional problems, which probably took a little bit of time. No, we do not wait to go in. We will go in and search and do the best we can with any life ? human, animal, any life.''

They wouldn't have gone in there after him b/c it was "too dangerous" for them. So they would have been in the clear. He decided to take it upon himself to save his dog after waiting for 30 mins watching his dog suffer.

I think the guy did the right thing. Sure, he might have some legal issues to sort through -- however, he did save the life of his dog.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: Tiles2Tech

Originally posted by: NFS4

Firefighters had not entered the building when Martin rushed in, officials said. Lawson said the situation was too dangerous for anyone to enter the burning building at that time. ''The floors were collapsing, the fire was escalating and there was a lot of smoke coming from the building. I'm really sorry that this happened. We cannot have citizens or other people creating additional problems, which probably took a little bit of time. No, we do not wait to go in. We will go in and search and do the best we can with any life ? human, animal, any life.''

They wouldn't have gone in there after him b/c it was "too dangerous" for them. So they would have been in the clear. He decided to take it upon himself to save his dog after waiting for 30 mins watching his dog suffer.

I think the guy did the right thing. Sure, he might have some legal issues to sort through -- however, he did save the life of his dog.

There are many situations in which my response would differ from the "correct" one. In every such case, there is a decision to be made:

Are the consequences of following the law greater than not following it?

In this case, the consequences of following (losing the dog) were obviously greater than the consequences of not following (being arrested, charged, etc.).

Don't slam the cops for doing their jobs, he chose to ignore them. He made his choice based on his priorities.

That does not preclude consequences, though, and he is now responsible for his actions.

Viper GTS

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Tiles2Tech

Originally posted by: NFS4

Firefighters had not entered the building when Martin rushed in, officials said. Lawson said the situation was too dangerous for anyone to enter the burning building at that time. ''The floors were collapsing, the fire was escalating and there was a lot of smoke coming from the building. I'm really sorry that this happened. We cannot have citizens or other people creating additional problems, which probably took a little bit of time. No, we do not wait to go in. We will go in and search and do the best we can with any life ? human, animal, any life.''

They wouldn't have gone in there after him b/c it was "too dangerous" for them. So they would have been in the clear. He decided to take it upon himself to save his dog after waiting for 30 mins watching his dog suffer.

I think the guy did the right thing. Sure, he might have some legal issues to sort through -- however, he did save the life of his dog.

There are many situations in which my response would differ from the "correct" one. In every such case, there is a decision to be made:

Are the consequences of following the law greater than not following it?

In this case, the consequences of following (losing the dog) were obviously greater than the consequences of not following (being arrested, charged, etc.).

Don't slam the cops for doing their jobs, he chose to ignore them. He made his choice based on his priorities.

That does not preclude consequences, though, and he is now responsible for his actions.

Viper GTS

Thank you, voice of reason.

 

[LAUST]

Is that a serious law in a "Free Country" sorry but saving a friends life is my FREE right

Hopfully these cops get it in the azz over this one.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: LAUST
Is that a serious law in a "Free Country" sorry but saving a friends life is my FREE right

Hopfully these cops get it in the azz over this one.

If you exercise that right, you now have the duty to pay the consequences.

The legal system is a well defined price list - If you're willing to pay the price, you can commit any number of things that society says is "wrong." You pay fines, spend time in jail, whatever the case may be. The most expensive item on the list will cost you your life. Where do you think a "debt to society" comes from?

If you're unable (or unwilling) to pay for the things you do, don't do them.

The cops did nothing wrong.

Viper GTS