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

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: Lithium381

Originally posted by: yobarman

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.

I agree.

why do people even HAVE that opportunity.....to sue someone just because something bad happens....can't people take responsibility for their own actions!?!?

Nope

 

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: FallenHero


look up the term "flash over" and "backdraft". One does not need to enter a building to be in danger.

No firefighters were even in the building to be endangered by a backdraft if there was one.

Firefighters had not entered the building when Martin rushed in, officials said.

Flashover-
Flahsover is the phase between the growth stage and fully developed stage of a fire. The radiant heat can become so intense that all combusitble materials in a room will ignite.

Backdraft-
Also known as a smoke explosion. When a fire burning inside an enclosed structure depletes most of the oxygen but the gases inside can remain super heated. A sudden introduction of oxygen into the environmnet, such as opening a door or window, can cause the gases to ignite with explosive force.

As I said before, one does not need to be in a building to be in danger or to endanger others lives. A flashover would have killed him and his dog, so his actions would have created a worse situation, and a backdraft could send building materials flying in various directions in addition to killing both him and the dog.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: FallenHero
A flashover would have killed him and his dog, so his actions would have created a worse situation, and a backdraft could send building materials flying in various directions in addition to killing both him and the dog.

You can't fault someone based on "woulda, shoulda, coulda" reasoning. He didn't. If he did, feel free to blame him. But he didn't, so he gets no blame.

Woulda, shoulda, coulda, but didn't.

 

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: FallenHero
A flashover would have killed him and his dog, so his actions would have created a worse situation, and a backdraft could send building materials flying in various directions in addition to killing both him and the dog.

You can't fault someone based on "woulda, shoulda, coulda" reasoning. He didn't. If he did, feel free to blame him. But he didn't, so he gets no blame.

Woulda, shoulda, coulda, but didn't.

You still dont understand do you? That is what reckless endangerment is all about...the fact that he created a situation that had the potential to do that without any just cause.

 

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: FallenHero
A flashover would have killed him and his dog, so his actions would have created a worse situation, and a backdraft could send building materials flying in various directions in addition to killing both him and the dog.

You can't fault someone based on "woulda, shoulda, coulda" reasoning. He didn't. If he did, feel free to blame him. But he didn't, so he gets no blame.

Woulda, shoulda, coulda, but didn't.

So if I careened my car through a playground and narrowly missed hitting your children, I should get off on the fact that you can't fault me because I 'coulda' hit them, but didn't?

 

[Siddhartha]

He risked his life for his dog. He did not think about the consequences to his family if he had died in the fire. I probably would have chosen my family's well being over the dog.

 

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
He risked his life for his dog. He did not think about the consequences to his family if he had died in the fire. I probably would have chosen my family's well being over the dog.

Good point, I hadn't even thought about that.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
He risked his life for his dog. He did not think about the consequences to his family if he had died in the fire. I probably would have chosen my family's well being over the dog.

You were not making his decision. He was. He chose to save his dog and he was successful at doing it.

You were also not there. You are not qualified to say that he "risked his life".

I love seeing how people won't even give this guy the benefit of the doubt, even though they weren't even there and don't know the details. You're so quick to condemn this guy.

 

[Marshallj]

I think a lot of people on here are just holding animosity towards him deep down inside because he was successful at doing something that they lack the courage to do.

Many people would stand outside, cowering in fear while their friends burned to death. That's because they're cowards.

Insecure people are jealous of other peoples' success.

 

[Marshallj]

I like knowing how people think, and how they stand on issues. That helps me make decisions, should the situation come where I need to make one.

For instance, I used to work with a guy who thought just like a lot of people on here do. He'd argue to no end about issues, he was too vocal, and he generally had a condescending attitude towards others. He was the type of guy who'd always withhold information from others because he liked being the one with the power. He wouldn't go out of his way to help others, even if it wouldn't inconvenience him too much... he just wouldn't do anything that didn't benefit him.

Knowing this enabled me to resist helping him when I saw him in the parking lot at work. It was raining and his car wouldn't start. He waved to me (for the first time ever) and I waved back, and went home. I would have helped anyone else that wasn't him.

So for all those people on here who are condemning this guy for saving his dog, and who condemn others for saying they'd save their dog, I hope you understand why someone would rather let your pets or you burn inside the building instead of risking their life to save you. Because they know that you wouldn't help them if they needed it.


I'm done with this thread.

 

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
He risked his life for his dog. He did not think about the consequences to his family if he had died in the fire. I probably would have chosen my family's well being over the dog.

You were not making his decision. He was. He chose to save his dog and he was successful at doing it.

You were also not there. You are not qualified to say that he "risked his life".

I love seeing how people won't even give this guy the benefit of the doubt, even though they weren't even there and don't know the details. You're so quick to condemn this guy.

I wasn't there, but several police and firefighters were there, and in their judgement, it was too dangerous to enter. I would trust their professional judgement more than I would trust the emotionally charged thoughts of this man. He caused a potentially deadly situation.

You weren't there. Who are you to say that the dog was in any danger? They very well could have been able to save him without this man.

 

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: Marshallj
I think a lot of people on here are just holding animosity towards him deep down inside because he was successful at doing something that they lack the courage to do.

Many people would stand outside, cowering in fear while their friends burned to death. That's because they're cowards.

Insecure people are jealous of other peoples' success.

No, we are mad at him for acting with blatant disregard for the lives of everybody there. I would much rather have his dog die, as unfortunate as it would be, than a firefighter or 10.

 

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: Marshallj
I like knowing how people think, and how they stand on issues. That helps me make decisions, should the situation come where I need to make one.

For instance, I used to work with a guy who thought just like a lot of people on here do. He'd argue to no end about issues, he was too vocal, and he generally had a condescending attitude towards others. He was the type of guy who'd always withhold information from others because he liked being the one with the power. He wouldn't go out of his way to help others, even if it wouldn't inconvenience him too much... he just wouldn't do anything that didn't benefit him.

Knowing this enabled me to resist helping him when I saw him in the parking lot at work. It was raining and his car wouldn't start. He waved to me (for the first time ever) and I waved back, and went home. I would have helped anyone else that wasn't him.

So for all those people on here who are condemning this guy for saving his dog, and who condemn others for saying they'd save their dog, I hope you understand why someone would rather let your pets or you burn inside the building instead of risking their life to save you. Because they know that you wouldn't help them if they needed it.


I'm done with this thread.

You still don't get it do you? It really isn't hard to understand, he put other people's lives at risk due to his actions. That is what he was arrested for. We aren't mad at him for wanting to save his dog.

Looks like you don't understand people as much as you'd like to think.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: Marshallj
I think a lot of people on here are just holding animosity towards him deep down inside because he was successful at doing something that they lack the courage to do.

Many people would stand outside, cowering in fear while their friends burned to death. That's because they're cowards.

Insecure people are jealous of other peoples' success.

No, we are mad at him for acting with blatant disregard for the lives of everybody there. I would much rather have his dog die, as unfortunate as it would be, than a firefighter or 10.

They didn't try to go after him when he went into the fire, so how was it disregard for their lives? They let him go, they stood by and watched him save the dog, then they arrested him for being successful at it.

 

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: Marshallj
I think a lot of people on here are just holding animosity towards him deep down inside because he was successful at doing something that they lack the courage to do.

Many people would stand outside, cowering in fear while their friends burned to death. That's because they're cowards.

Insecure people are jealous of other peoples' success.

No, we are mad at him for acting with blatant disregard for the lives of everybody there. I would much rather have his dog die, as unfortunate as it would be, than a firefighter or 10.

They didn't try to go after him when he went into the fire, so how was it disregard for their lives? They let him go, they stood by and watched him save the dog, then they arrested him for being successful at it.

While neither you or I was there, I am guessing that either they didn't see him until he was out of reach, or going after him would have put the pursuer's lives in danger.

But like I said, we weren't there.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: MacBaine


No, we are mad at him for acting with blatant disregard for the lives of everybody there. I would much rather have his dog die, as unfortunate as it would be, than a firefighter or 10.

That's because you're not considering the possibility that there are more than those two options.

In reality, there was another possibility. That was saving his dog without him or anyone else getting hurt. And that's just what he did.

You seem to have a defeatist attitude, and you expect others to assume the same attitude. Luckily there are people out there (like this guy) who can think more clearly. Let's not talk ifs, ands, or buts, let's talk about what REALLY happened. He saved his dog, and no one got hurt.

This wasn't a risky, far fetched, rescue attempt, he assessed the situation, he weighed his options, he saw that he could get his dog and he did just that.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: MacBaine
You still don't get it do you? It really isn't hard to understand, he put other people's lives at risk due to his actions. That is what he was arrested for. We aren't mad at him for wanting to save his dog.

Looks like you don't understand people as much as you'd like to think.

YOU are the one who does not get it. I live in reality, not the defeatist fantasy land that you do.

This is what happened in reality- The guy saved his dog and nobody got hurt.

I see that fear has got the best of you. There's nothing else you can say.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: MacBaine
They didn't try to go after him when he went into the fire, so how was it disregard for their lives? They let him go, they stood by and watched him save the dog, then they arrested him for being successful at it.

While neither you or I was there, I am guessing that either they didn't see him until he was out of reach, or going after him would have put the pursuer's lives in danger.

But like I said, we weren't there.[/quote]

Here's what probably happened- The cops and the firefighters had common sense, they "allowed" him to save his dog by not trying very hard to stop him, and then they followed standard procedure by arresting him afterwards.

They probably felt for the guy and would have done the same thing if they were in his shoes.

But then again, they are brave people who devote their life to helping others. They are not defeatists who give up at the slightest hint of danger.

 

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: MacBaine


No, we are mad at him for acting with blatant disregard for the lives of everybody there. I would much rather have his dog die, as unfortunate as it would be, than a firefighter or 10.

That's because you're not considering the possibility that there are more than those two options.

In reality, there was another possibility. That was saving his dog without him or anyone else getting hurt. And that's just what he did.

You seem to have a defeatist attitude, and you expect others to assume the same attitude. Luckily there are people out there (like this guy) who can think more clearly. Let's not talk ifs, ands, or buts, let's talk about what REALLY happened. He saved his dog, and no one got hurt.

This wasn't a risky, far fetched, rescue attempt, he assessed the situation, he weighed his options, he saw that he could get his dog and he did just that.

He wasn't thinking clearly! That's the point! You can't think clearly when emotions are involved like this. That's why he is being charged with reckless endangerment. That's legal terms for "You're lucky you didn't kill anybody".

You think this wasn't a risky rescue attempt? Why do you trust this man's judgement more than that of professionals who have been doing this for years? Because he got lucky?

 

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: MacBaine
They didn't try to go after him when he went into the fire, so how was it disregard for their lives? They let him go, they stood by and watched him save the dog, then they arrested him for being successful at it.

While neither you or I was there, I am guessing that either they didn't see him until he was out of reach, or going after him would have put the pursuer's lives in danger.

But like I said, we weren't there.

Here's what probably happened- The cops and the firefighters had common sense, they "allowed" him to save his dog by not trying very hard to stop him, and then they followed standard procedure by arresting him afterwards.

They probably felt for the guy and would have done the same thing if they were in his shoes.

But then again, they are brave people who devote their life to helping others. They are not defeatists who give up at the slightest hint of danger.[/quote]

So now you are making assumptions (pretty far-fetched ones at that) to support your claim? And why do you keep saying that I have a defeatist's attitude? Because I beleive he made a very stupid decision? You are the one who needs to visit us here in Reality Land, where people can actually get hurt and killed.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: MacBaine

He wasn't thinking clearly! That's the point! You can't think clearly when emotions are involved like this. That's why he is being charged with reckless endangerment. That's legal terms for "You're lucky you didn't kill anybody".

You think this wasn't a risky rescue attempt? Why do you trust this man's judgement more than that of professionals who have been doing this for years? Because he got lucky?

I find it amuzing that you are arguing against hindsight. He WAS thinking clearly. His plan worked out perfectly.

 

[Marshallj]

Everyone is different.

Some people are willing to accept more of a risk than others.

This is what seperates heroes from cowards.

Unfortunately, in modern society it is commonplace to punish heroes and praise cowards.

 

[NFS4]

VIDEO + PICS

http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/article.jsp?id=9251&sectionId=46

 

[clarkmo]

Originally posted by: yobarman

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.

I agree.

 

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: MacBaine

He wasn't thinking clearly! That's the point! You can't think clearly when emotions are involved like this. That's why he is being charged with reckless endangerment. That's legal terms for "You're lucky you didn't kill anybody".

You think this wasn't a risky rescue attempt? Why do you trust this man's judgement more than that of professionals who have been doing this for years? Because he got lucky?

I find it amuzing that you are arguing against hindsight. He WAS thinking clearly. His plan worked out perfectly.

You're really clueless, aren't you?