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

[Armitage]

Get over it ... pets are not family. Not worth your life, certainly not worth a strangers life even if they have sworn to protect & serve.

<--- Helped pull a body out of a river after some moron tried to "save" his dog. (do was fine)

 

[ElFenix]

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

and part of his recourse to get the possible consequences changed is to challege the legality of the law.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: 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

Like I said Viper, no one got hurt. The only thing hurt were Fireman's egos for a mere "citizen" saving the day and the Cop's ego for letting the man do what he SHOULD have been able to do 30 mins earlier.

There comes a time when a cop should be a cop, and when a cop should be civil and HUMAN. Does a cop give out tickets EVERY TIME someone speeds and he pulls someone over? No. Do Cops takes certain liberties when it comes to booking people? Yes.

Think about it. The man got his daughter and himself out of the burning house, waited 30 mins while no one did anything to save his dog, then he went back in and saved the day and came back unscathed. That's where one of those "HUMAN" moments comes into play where it's more important to do what's RIGHT than to do what's in the matter of law.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: ergeorge
Get over it ... pets are not family. Not worth your life, certainly not worth a strangers life even if they have sworn to protect & serve.

<--- Helped pull a body out of a river after some moron tried to "save" his dog. (do was fine)

Pets ARE family to a lot of people. If you can't understand that, then I'm sorry for you. They may not be human, but they ARE family. My first dog was with me for 14 years. 14 years of my life I was with that dog. I never cried that much in my life the day that dog died. My eyes STILL swell up when I think about that day

 

[vash]

Like it or not, the cops did the right thing by arresting him for what he did.

Lets look at the facts:

1. The man was barred by both the firefighters and policemen to enter the premisis.
2. He stole firefighter property in order to get into the area he wanted.
3. He broke the window to the apartment, which "could have" caused a huge backdraft to happen, causing plenty more damage to property and potentially to other people.

Sure, its his dog and he considers his dog a part of the family. When you weight in options of saving a human's life over saving a pet's life, our paid civil servants will choose to save the human's life any day of the week. By that guy risking his own life and saving his dog, he risked the lives of other firefighters and policemen for his actions.

The outcome of him and his pet were ok, but in a fire, there could have been MANY other things that could have gone wrong. Its right for the cops to arrest him for doing the things he did, but the DA shouldn't presecute the man since ho harm was done.

And I'm wondering why the family didn't take the pet out in the first place?

vash

 

[calpha]

Originally posted by: 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

I got two dogs and two cats. YOu can bet your ass if my house caught on fire, after my wife, i'd get my dogs and tell my cats I'll see em in hell. I don't care if the damn governor was outside telling me it was unsafe to go back inside, I'd do everything I humanly could to save my dogs.

That being said....its' nice to hear someone with some common sense (Viper). I got an uncle that's a cop, and has been one for a 13yrs. They get frivolous lawsuits all the time---and something like this would be less then frivolous. Hell, I wouldn't be suprised if some lawyer gets that guy to file a command-decision failure type of lawsuit where he was forced to endanger his own life because of hte erroneous decisions of others. But, on the same hand just think what would happen if the next time there's a big fire in an apt. that 5 people decide to go in and help some elderly people get out, against the fireman's orders. YOu think the paper would say "5 people die trying to save others lives".....or "Fire Tragedy: Firemen unable to keep rescued people from attempting to retrun to inferno"

I really think this situation was a no win for either side.....Simpe fact is when fires come around, we can't have joe citizen putting on his imaginary fire suit and helmet and decide to save all his friends. And, I wouldn't have waited damn 30 minutes to save my dogs. I'd save em, get their leashes, and then call

 

[Mill]

You know people in this thread are missing the point. There wouldn't be a goddamn law like this if it weren't for sue fvcking happy America. I hate you suing bastards! The law is there to protect the Police and Fire from liability. This guy had to break it to get his pet. I see no problem except for the SUE HAPPY people that caused the law to exist.

 

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: NFS4

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, b/c it was his own damn fault. Why should the cop be held responsible for his actions?

He was NOT breaking the law by asking the police/fire dept. to let him go in. The only thing they could have done is handcuff him BEFORE he went into the burning APT, but that would have been an illegal arrest.

Firefighters told the officer it was too hot to go in the building, but they would make a rescue attempt as soon as they could knock down the flames.

He was told not to go in the building because it was too dangerous. If it was safe enough to go in, the firefighters would have. There is no "They were too scared too", it was too dangerous, and could have been deadly.

The firefighters and police were in control of the scene. By him entering, he introduced an uncontrollable, dangerous element to the scene. If he had gotten trapped and died, the firefighters and police would have been held responsible.

Why don't you people understand that however brave he may have been for doing what he did, he could have, at very worst, gotten other people killed, and cost the firefighters/police their jobs? Everyone is glad the dog lived, but the ends don't justify the means.

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: 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

Like I said Viper, no one got hurt. The only thing hurt were Fireman's egos for a mere "citizen" saving the day and the Cop's ego for letting the man do what he SHOULD have been able to do 30 mins earlier.

There comes a time when a cop should be a cop, and when a cop should be civil and HUMAN. Does a cop give out tickets EVERY TIME someone speeds and he pulls someone over? No. Do Cops takes certain liberties when it comes to booking people? Yes.

Think about it. The man got his daughter and himself out of the burning house, waited 30 mins while no one did anything to save his dog, then he went back in and saved the day and came back unscathed. That's where one of those "HUMAN" moments comes into play where it's more important to do what's RIGHT than to do what's in the matter of law.

You keep saying "no one got hurt" but that's NOT relevant.

Reckless endangerment DOES not require that someone get hurt before the cops can enforce it. so the town drunk is driving around drunk crashed into a telephone pole and NO ONE is hurt, so you want to argue that he should be let off because "NO ONE GOT HURT".

Ends does NOT justifiy the means.

 

[xirtam]

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: 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

Like I said Viper, no one got hurt. The only thing hurt were Fireman's egos for a mere "citizen" saving the day and the Cop's ego for letting the man do what he SHOULD have been able to do 30 mins earlier.

There comes a time when a cop should be a cop, and when a cop should be civil and HUMAN. Does a cop give out tickets EVERY TIME someone speeds and he pulls someone over? No. Do Cops takes certain liberties when it comes to booking people? Yes.

Think about it. The man got his daughter and himself out of the burning house, waited 30 mins while no one did anything to save his dog, then he went back in and saved the day and came back unscathed. That's where one of those "HUMAN" moments comes into play where it's more important to do what's RIGHT than to do what's in the matter of law.

You keep saying "no one got hurt" but that's NOT relevant.

Reckless endangerment DOES not require that someone get hurt before the cops can enforce it. so the town drunk is driving around drunk crashed into a telephone pole and NO ONE is hurt, so you want to argue that he should be let off because "NO ONE GOT HURT".

Ends does NOT justifiy the means.

If this man is guilty of reckless endangerment, so is every skydiver I know. It's these people... these "mommas of society" concerned about my personal safety that just rub me the wrong way. If you're trying to compare an attempt to save a dog with drunk driving, you're comparing apples with oranges. And I know the end you're trying to get to, but you're definitely using the wrong means.

I'm sorry, but you're owned. You really are. I'm not saying that the firefighters did anything wrong, just so that record's straight.

 

[Marshallj]

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 I wouldn't.

The only time I'd blame the police is if they picked him up against his will and threw him in the house.

 

[Marshallj]

I think him getting charged with a crime is only one messed up law of many.

The police had to do it due to other screwed up laws, such as laws that allow frivolous lawsuits to suck money out of police departments.

I think there's a few laws related to this incident that should be changed... the police should not be held liable for allowing a mentally competent guy to use his own free will and run into a burning house, and the police should not charge him with a crime for correctly using his judgement and saving his dog. It was a RISK, but we cannot legislate away all risks.

I think modern American society has a tendency to place the blame on everybody but ourselves. I think the only reason the police did this is for CYA (cover your ass) reasons. I doubt they mean to punish the guy.

 

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: xirtam

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: 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

Like I said Viper, no one got hurt. The only thing hurt were Fireman's egos for a mere "citizen" saving the day and the Cop's ego for letting the man do what he SHOULD have been able to do 30 mins earlier.

There comes a time when a cop should be a cop, and when a cop should be civil and HUMAN. Does a cop give out tickets EVERY TIME someone speeds and he pulls someone over? No. Do Cops takes certain liberties when it comes to booking people? Yes.

Think about it. The man got his daughter and himself out of the burning house, waited 30 mins while no one did anything to save his dog, then he went back in and saved the day and came back unscathed. That's where one of those "HUMAN" moments comes into play where it's more important to do what's RIGHT than to do what's in the matter of law.

You keep saying "no one got hurt" but that's NOT relevant.

Reckless endangerment DOES not require that someone get hurt before the cops can enforce it. so the town drunk is driving around drunk crashed into a telephone pole and NO ONE is hurt, so you want to argue that he should be let off because "NO ONE GOT HURT".

Ends does NOT justifiy the means.

If this man is guilty of reckless endangerment, so is every skydiver I know. It's these people... these "mommas of society" concerned about my personal safety that just rub me the wrong way. If you're trying to compare an attempt to save a dog with drunk driving, you're comparing apples with oranges. And I know the end you're trying to get to, but you're definitely using the wrong means.

I'm sorry, but you're owned. You really are. I'm not saying that the firefighters did anything wrong, just so that record's straight.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND? He endangered everyone else there by doing what he did. He also set the police and fire up for a massive lawsuit. It wasn't just 'his personal safety'. Some people don't stop to think that their actions may affect other people besides themselves.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: NFS4

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, b/c it was his own damn fault. Why should the cop be held responsible for his actions?

He was NOT breaking the law by asking the police/fire dept. to let him go in. The only thing they could have done is handcuff him BEFORE he went into the burning APT, but that would have been an illegal arrest.

Firefighters told the officer it was too hot to go in the building, but they would make a rescue attempt as soon as they could knock down the flames.

He was told not to go in the building because it was too dangerous. If it was safe enough to go in, the firefighters would have. There is no "They were too scared too", it was too dangerous, and could have been deadly.

The firefighters and police were in control of the scene. By him entering, he introduced an uncontrollable, dangerous element to the scene. If he had gotten trapped and died, the firefighters and police would have been held responsible.

Why don't you people understand that however brave he may have been for doing what he did, he could have, at very worst, gotten other people killed, and cost the firefighters/police their jobs? Everyone is glad the dog lived, but the ends don't justify the means.

I see your point, but obviously the firefighters were wrong in their assessment.

If the firefighters would indeed go after the man attempting to save his dog, then I can see the element of human peril in his actions; however, I don't know firefighter code, so I can't say whether or not they would have indeed gone after him.

It's really beside the point, as when it comes down to it, no reasonable person could sit idly by whilst SOMEONE in their family (I don't need to hear how animals aren't family) dies. Perhaps if the dog wasn't visible in the window it would have been a different story as well.

 

[xirtam]

I don't see how he endangered anybody but himself.

And the police/fire departments can't be held responsible if he doesn't listen to their advice. Now if they tell him "Go get the dog" and he dies in-process, I'd call that a massive lawsuit situation.

Every situation is a potentially "massive lawsuit situation," so I really don't see what the issue is. Yeah, we have frivolous lawsuits. But the solution is not to just stand there and do nothing.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: xirtam

Originally posted by: LeeTJ
[
If this man is guilty of reckless endangerment, so is every skydiver I know. It's these people... these "mommas of society" concerned about my personal safety that just rub me the wrong way. If you're trying to compare an attempt to save a dog with drunk driving, you're comparing apples with oranges. And I know the end you're trying to get to, but you're definitely using the wrong means.

I'm sorry, but you're owned. You really are. I'm not saying that the firefighters did anything wrong, just so that record's straight.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND? He endangered everyone else there by doing what he did. He also set the police and fire up for a massive lawsuit. It wasn't just 'his personal safety'. Some people don't stop to think that their actions may affect other people besides themselves.

Apparently I was "owned". well at least he didn't say "pwned". god i hate that expression.

anyway, Your analogy of SkyDiver was soo much worse than my analogy of the drunk driver.

A skydiver endangers only himself and the person or two he could land ON. this particular individual endangered EVERYONE there. Not even the best of firefighters cannot predict exactly how fire responds. opening a door or window could have been disasterous. THE FACT THAT IT WASN'T IS NOT RELEVANT. THE ENDS DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS. Once you can explain to me what that means THEN respond back. don't come at me with ridiculous statements that i was "owned" and that what he did was the same as what a skydiver does.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: xirtam

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: 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

Like I said Viper, no one got hurt. The only thing hurt were Fireman's egos for a mere "citizen" saving the day and the Cop's ego for letting the man do what he SHOULD have been able to do 30 mins earlier.

There comes a time when a cop should be a cop, and when a cop should be civil and HUMAN. Does a cop give out tickets EVERY TIME someone speeds and he pulls someone over? No. Do Cops takes certain liberties when it comes to booking people? Yes.

Think about it. The man got his daughter and himself out of the burning house, waited 30 mins while no one did anything to save his dog, then he went back in and saved the day and came back unscathed. That's where one of those "HUMAN" moments comes into play where it's more important to do what's RIGHT than to do what's in the matter of law.

You keep saying "no one got hurt" but that's NOT relevant.

Reckless endangerment DOES not require that someone get hurt before the cops can enforce it. so the town drunk is driving around drunk crashed into a telephone pole and NO ONE is hurt, so you want to argue that he should be let off because "NO ONE GOT HURT".

Ends does NOT justifiy the means.

If this man is guilty of reckless endangerment, so is every skydiver I know. It's these people... these "mommas of society" concerned about my personal safety that just rub me the wrong way. If you're trying to compare an attempt to save a dog with drunk driving, you're comparing apples with oranges. And I know the end you're trying to get to, but you're definitely using the wrong means.

I'm sorry, but you're owned. You really are. I'm not saying that the firefighters did anything wrong, just so that record's straight.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND? He endangered everyone else there by doing what he did. He also set the police and fire up for a massive lawsuit. It wasn't just 'his personal safety'. Some people don't stop to think that their actions may affect other people besides themselves.

How the hell did he endanger everyone else? Are you telling me that firefighters aren't capable of realizing when they should discontinue their rescue attempt? If the man did indeed become trapped, are you saying that the firefighters would each follow suit and do the same? Please.

Lets put this another way: would you go after a close friend if they were trapped; your brother/sister? As others have said, I would definitely go for my friend/brother first, but I'd go after my two cats as well. You're not drawing a parallel between pets as constituents of your family, and that is blatantly obvious. Keep in mind that not everyone is like you, and that many people value their pets as family...

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: MacBaine

DO YOU UNDERSTAND? He endangered everyone else there by doing what he did. He also set the police and fire up for a massive lawsuit. It wasn't just 'his personal safety'. Some people don't stop to think that their actions may affect other people besides themselves.

Like I said in my above post, I think that Americans need to accept more responsibility for themselves, and that means not suing the police departments and fire departments that are trying to help you.

If he ran into that house, the police should not be required to stop him. They should also be immune from getting sued if he died in the house. Unfortunately, as the law stands today, the police have to stop him because people will sue the police for their own or relatives stupid mistakes.

I think personal responsibility is a big issue here. Laws should be revised to state that the police are doing you a FAVOR, a public service, by trying to save you... not a required responsibility that you can sue them for if they fail.

With the way things are going now, people are now suing the doctors who tried and failed to save someone's life.

 

[gopunk]

can someone explain exactly who he "recklessly" endangered? there were no firefighters in the building...

and no, the cops are not RIGHT.

at most, they are not legally unjustified, but RIGHT has moral implications, and i strongly disagree that this was morally correct. arresting an elderly woman for jaywalking because she isn't fast enough to get across the street in time before the light changes is not right, yet is not legally unjustified. same thing.

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: xirtam

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: 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

Like I said Viper, no one got hurt. The only thing hurt were Fireman's egos for a mere "citizen" saving the day and the Cop's ego for letting the man do what he SHOULD have been able to do 30 mins earlier.

There comes a time when a cop should be a cop, and when a cop should be civil and HUMAN. Does a cop give out tickets EVERY TIME someone speeds and he pulls someone over? No. Do Cops takes certain liberties when it comes to booking people? Yes.

Think about it. The man got his daughter and himself out of the burning house, waited 30 mins while no one did anything to save his dog, then he went back in and saved the day and came back unscathed. That's where one of those "HUMAN" moments comes into play where it's more important to do what's RIGHT than to do what's in the matter of law.

You keep saying "no one got hurt" but that's NOT relevant.

Reckless endangerment DOES not require that someone get hurt before the cops can enforce it. so the town drunk is driving around drunk crashed into a telephone pole and NO ONE is hurt, so you want to argue that he should be let off because "NO ONE GOT HURT".

Ends does NOT justifiy the means.

If this man is guilty of reckless endangerment, so is every skydiver I know. It's these people... these "mommas of society" concerned about my personal safety that just rub me the wrong way. If you're trying to compare an attempt to save a dog with drunk driving, you're comparing apples with oranges. And I know the end you're trying to get to, but you're definitely using the wrong means.

I'm sorry, but you're owned. You really are. I'm not saying that the firefighters did anything wrong, just so that record's straight.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND? He endangered everyone else there by doing what he did. He also set the police and fire up for a massive lawsuit. It wasn't just 'his personal safety'. Some people don't stop to think that their actions may affect other people besides themselves.

How the hell did he endanger everyone else? Are you telling me that firefighters aren't capable of realizing when they should discontinue their rescue attempt? If the man did indeed become trapped, are you saying that the firefighters would each follow suit and do the same? Please.

Lets put this another way: would you go after a close friend if they were trapped; your brother/sister? As others have said, I would definitely go for my friend/brother first, but I'd go after my two cats as well. You're not drawing a parallel between pets as constituents of your family, and that is blatantly obvious. Keep in mind that not everyone is like you, and that many people value their pets as family...

YES, I'd go after my kids KNOWING that i'd be arrested for it and would do it gladly. OTOH when you get on a plane they always tell you IN CASE OF EMERGENCY always PUT the air mask on YOURSELF FIRST AND NOT your children. that my not be my first paternal instinct BUT IT IS THE RIGHT ONE. IF my child died because i secured mine first and then his, WOULD i feel bad?? YES, but would i have done the right thing?? YES.

 

[xirtam]

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: xirtam

Originally posted by: LeeTJ
[
If this man is guilty of reckless endangerment, so is every skydiver I know. It's these people... these "mommas of society" concerned about my personal safety that just rub me the wrong way. If you're trying to compare an attempt to save a dog with drunk driving, you're comparing apples with oranges. And I know the end you're trying to get to, but you're definitely using the wrong means.

I'm sorry, but you're owned. You really are. I'm not saying that the firefighters did anything wrong, just so that record's straight.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND? He endangered everyone else there by doing what he did. He also set the police and fire up for a massive lawsuit. It wasn't just 'his personal safety'. Some people don't stop to think that their actions may affect other people besides themselves.

Apparently I was "owned". well at least he didn't say "pwned". god i hate that expression.

anyway, Your analogy of SkyDiver was soo much worse than my analogy of the drunk driver.

A skydiver endangers only himself and the person or two he could land ON. this particular individual endangered EVERYONE there. Not even the best of firefighters cannot predict exactly how fire responds. opening a door or window could have been disasterous. THE FACT THAT IT WASN'T IS NOT RELEVANT. THE ENDS DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS. Once you can explain to me what that means THEN respond back. don't come at me with ridiculous statements that i was "owned" and that what he did was the same as what a skydiver does.

Well, gosh, so much could go wrong with the aircraft. When you open the door, you put the whole aircraft at risk. Who knows how the slight depressurization will affect the engine? It could blow up, spontaneously releasing a ton of CFC's that were created from the influx of freeon in the coolant system. The fact that it usually doesn't is not relevant. The ends do not justify the means.

Please. It was the same thing. The only difference is that a skydiver puts himself at risk for entertainment usually, and this guy did it to save a life.

By the way, I'm curious to find out whether he really used the firemen's equipment or whether he used a barbell, as he states.

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: xirtam

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: xirtam

Originally posted by: LeeTJ
[
If this man is guilty of reckless endangerment, so is every skydiver I know. It's these people... these "mommas of society" concerned about my personal safety that just rub me the wrong way. If you're trying to compare an attempt to save a dog with drunk driving, you're comparing apples with oranges. And I know the end you're trying to get to, but you're definitely using the wrong means.

I'm sorry, but you're owned. You really are. I'm not saying that the firefighters did anything wrong, just so that record's straight.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND? He endangered everyone else there by doing what he did. He also set the police and fire up for a massive lawsuit. It wasn't just 'his personal safety'. Some people don't stop to think that their actions may affect other people besides themselves.

Apparently I was "owned". well at least he didn't say "pwned". god i hate that expression.

anyway, Your analogy of SkyDiver was soo much worse than my analogy of the drunk driver.

A skydiver endangers only himself and the person or two he could land ON. this particular individual endangered EVERYONE there. Not even the best of firefighters cannot predict exactly how fire responds. opening a door or window could have been disasterous. THE FACT THAT IT WASN'T IS NOT RELEVANT. THE ENDS DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS. Once you can explain to me what that means THEN respond back. don't come at me with ridiculous statements that i was "owned" and that what he did was the same as what a skydiver does.

Well, gosh, so much could go wrong with the aircraft. When you open the door, you put the whole aircraft at risk. Who knows how the slight depressurization will affect the engine? It could blow up, spontaneously releasing a ton of CFC's that were created from the influx of freeon in the coolant system. The fact that it usually doesn't is not relevant. The ends do not justify the means.

Please. It was the same thing. The only difference is that a skydiver puts himself at risk for entertainment usually, and this guy did it to save a life.

By the way, I'm curious to find out whether he really used the firemen's equipment or whether he used a barbell, as he states.

WRONG AGAIN MORON, the plane is DESIGNED FOR IT. the building IS NOT.

Eveyone on the plane is there for the purpose of seeing the skydiver get off the plane.

a more accurate analogy would be a skydiver who forced open the door of a commercial jet with 200 passengers and made the jump against regulations.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: xirtam

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: 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

Like I said Viper, no one got hurt. The only thing hurt were Fireman's egos for a mere "citizen" saving the day and the Cop's ego for letting the man do what he SHOULD have been able to do 30 mins earlier.

There comes a time when a cop should be a cop, and when a cop should be civil and HUMAN. Does a cop give out tickets EVERY TIME someone speeds and he pulls someone over? No. Do Cops takes certain liberties when it comes to booking people? Yes.

Think about it. The man got his daughter and himself out of the burning house, waited 30 mins while no one did anything to save his dog, then he went back in and saved the day and came back unscathed. That's where one of those "HUMAN" moments comes into play where it's more important to do what's RIGHT than to do what's in the matter of law.

You keep saying "no one got hurt" but that's NOT relevant.

Reckless endangerment DOES not require that someone get hurt before the cops can enforce it. so the town drunk is driving around drunk crashed into a telephone pole and NO ONE is hurt, so you want to argue that he should be let off because "NO ONE GOT HURT".

Ends does NOT justifiy the means.

If this man is guilty of reckless endangerment, so is every skydiver I know. It's these people... these "mommas of society" concerned about my personal safety that just rub me the wrong way. If you're trying to compare an attempt to save a dog with drunk driving, you're comparing apples with oranges. And I know the end you're trying to get to, but you're definitely using the wrong means.

I'm sorry, but you're owned. You really are. I'm not saying that the firefighters did anything wrong, just so that record's straight.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND? He endangered everyone else there by doing what he did. He also set the police and fire up for a massive lawsuit. It wasn't just 'his personal safety'. Some people don't stop to think that their actions may affect other people besides themselves.

How the hell did he endanger everyone else? Are you telling me that firefighters aren't capable of realizing when they should discontinue their rescue attempt? If the man did indeed become trapped, are you saying that the firefighters would each follow suit and do the same? Please.

Lets put this another way: would you go after a close friend if they were trapped; your brother/sister? As others have said, I would definitely go for my friend/brother first, but I'd go after my two cats as well. You're not drawing a parallel between pets as constituents of your family, and that is blatantly obvious. Keep in mind that not everyone is like you, and that many people value their pets as family...

YES, I'd go after my kids KNOWING that i'd be arrested for it and would do it gladly. OTOH when you get on a plane they always tell you IN CASE OF EMERGENCY always PUT the air mask on YOURSELF FIRST AND NOT your children. that my not be my first paternal instinct BUT IT IS THE RIGHT ONE. IF my child died because i secured mine first and then his, WOULD i feel bad?? YES, but would i have done the right thing?? YES.

That's fvcked up, sorry. My paternal instinct would be to ensure the safety of my child at any cost. It's nice that you define what's right/wrong by a set of instructions/laws...

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: LeeTJ
YES, I'd go after my kids KNOWING that i'd be arrested for it and would do it gladly. OTOH when you get on a plane they always tell you IN CASE OF EMERGENCY always PUT the air mask on YOURSELF FIRST AND NOT your children. that my not be my first paternal instinct BUT IT IS THE RIGHT ONE. IF my child died because i secured mine first and then his, WOULD i feel bad?? YES, but would i have done the right thing?? YES.

On a plane, they tell you to put your own mask on first because you cannot help anyone else if you are unconscious. So you put your mask on, breathe, then help other people get their masks on.

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: LeeTJ
YES, I'd go after my kids KNOWING that i'd be arrested for it and would do it gladly. OTOH when you get on a plane they always tell you IN CASE OF EMERGENCY always PUT the air mask on YOURSELF FIRST AND NOT your children. that my not be my first paternal instinct BUT IT IS THE RIGHT ONE. IF my child died because i secured mine first and then his, WOULD i feel bad?? YES, but would i have done the right thing?? YES.

That's fvcked up, sorry. My paternal instinct would be to ensure the safety of my child at any cost. It's nice that you define what's right/wrong by a set of instructions/laws...

Your a bright one aren't you. I have 3 children. If i go to secure the safety of my 1 child first and I die then the other 2 die, what would that have served me?

i don't do it because it's a law or regulation, i do it because it's the SMART thing to do.