Police taze man for trying to save his house from a fire. - Page 3

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Police taze man for trying to save his house from a fire. (Page 3 of 10)

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:53:23 AM EDT

[#1]

Wouldn't it be funny if the police department opened themselves up to a lawsuit for using excessive force to protect themselves from a lawsuit - both from the guy that got tazed and the insurance company for his house (assuming there was any damage to his house after they told forced him to stop protecting it).

Hopefully irony owns page 3.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:54:09 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Should've just let him go back in and burn.

Then his family sues the police for not stopping him.

Other than that I agree.

This one would probably hit a lawyers desk either way.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:54:44 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Should've just let him go back in and burn.

Then his family sues the police for not stopping him.

Other than that I agree.

If his family tried that, i'd be on board with taseing them, totally.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:55:25 AM EDT

[#4]

Why are so many of you assuming the guy was going to be hurt because he was spraying water on his fence? I'm pretty damn sure I can figure out when it's too hot where I'm standing and stop spraying the water before I get burned.

And what comes out of a fire hydrant? I believe it's water and water can certainly keep burning embers from catching a fence on fire. The guy was not trying to put out the fire burning the house next door.

And before someone jumps in, of course I understand the tremendous difference in volume between a water hose and fire hydrant.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:56:50 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Ok, I'll say it. If you think spraying your house with a garden hose will put out or otherwise slow a structure fire, you deserve to be tased on general principle.

Every year during fire season here we have a story about some one who saved there house with a garden hose and balls.

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:02:00 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Anyone notice whats libs, and cophaters have in common?
They don't listen to the facts.

My first encounter with you. Join date is perfect. I expect nothing less. Good work.

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:02:32 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Should've just let him go back in and burn.

Then his family sues the police for not stopping him.

Other than that I agree.

To me that's still better than a suit for excessive force and violation of civil rights. Besides, you can do everything 100% by the book and still get sued over nothing.

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:10:25 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Subject was a danger to himself and others. Subject was spraying his house with a garden hose in a area that he thought his house might catch fire, thus meaning he himself was in a dangerous area. While subject was in an danger area, first responders would have been obliged to save the subject, had he have trouble. Rather than the FD pulling out of the rubble, a burnt corpse, the PD deemed it necesary to remove him, before hand. Subject refused verbal orders. If verbal orders were't given, taser would not have been an option. Taser was deployed, and no injuries were reported. Sorry he had to experience a some discomfort to spare him dibilitating injuries, but that is what happens when somebody else is incharge of your safety.

When we all secede, you aren't allowed to come.

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:10:35 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Subject was a danger to himself and others. Subject was spraying his house with a garden hose in a area that he thought his house might catch fire, thus meaning he himself was in a dangerous area. While subject was in an danger area, first responders would have been obliged to save the subject, had he have trouble. Rather than the FD pulling out of the rubble, a burnt corpse, the PD deemed it necesary to remove him, before hand. Subject refused verbal orders. If verbal orders were't given, taser would not have been an option. Taser was deployed, and no injuries were reported. Sorry he had to experience a some discomfort to spare him dibilitating injuries, but that is what happens when somebody else is incharge of your safety.

So, a cop is driving by and sees a man, up in his tree, with his chainsaw and his buddy holding the ladder. In your opinion, cop is within is duty to order the guy down from the tree and tase him if he doesn't comply? After all, he is a danger to himself and his friend.

This fucking attitude makes me want to puke.

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:11:49 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Wouldn't it be funny if the police department opened themselves up to a lawsuit for using excessive force to protect themselves from a lawsuit - both from the guy that got tazed and the insurance company for his house (assuming there was any damage to his house after they told forced him to stop protecting it).

Hopefully irony owns page 3.

Not even irony can own with an edit.

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:18:28 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Subject was a danger to himself and others. Subject was spraying his house with a garden hose in a area that he thought his house might catch fire, thus meaning he himself was in a dangerous area. While subject was in an danger area, first responders would have been obliged to save the subject, had he have trouble. Rather than the FD pulling out of the rubble, a burnt corpse, the PD deemed it necesary to remove him, before hand. Subject refused verbal orders. If verbal orders were't given, taser would not have been an option. Taser was deployed, and no injuries were reported. Sorry he had to experience a some discomfort to spare him dibilitating injuries, but that is what happens when somebody else is incharge of your safety.

So, a cop is driving by and sees a man, up in his tree, with his chainsaw and his buddy holding the ladder. In your opinion, cop is within is duty to order the guy down from the tree and tase him if he doesn't comply? After all, he is a danger to himself and his friend.

This fucking attitude makes me want to puke.

Incredible analogy.

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:20:02 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Ok, I'll say it. If you think spraying your house with a garden hose will put out or otherwise slow a structure fire, you deserve to be tased on general principle.

That's an interesting statement considering I saved my parents house from burning by doing just that several years ago.

With a blazing fire not 15 feet from their house, I was able to keep it from burning long enough for the FD to get there and take care of business.

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:20:47 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Fucked over laws and sue happy lawyers are the reason for this.

The officers them selves were put in a tough spot and had to taze him. To do otherwise would be disasterous for their career and the department as sue happy survivors will feast upon such an opportunity.

There is no duty for the police (or anyone else for that matter) to rescue him or save him. Or even warn him of the dangers to himself. That's without even getting into the fact that they're immune.

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:21:45 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Should've just let him go back in and burn.

Then his family sues the police for not stopping him.

Other than that I agree.

To me that's still better than a suit for excessive force and violation of civil rights. Besides, you can do everything 100% by the book and still get sued over nothing.

Ehhh, he's not getting any money for the tase.

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:22:06 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Subject was a danger to himself and others. Subject was spraying his house with a garden hose in a area that he thought his house might catch fire, thus meaning he himself was in a dangerous area. While subject was in an danger area, first responders would have been obliged to save the subject, had he have trouble. Rather than the FD pulling out of the rubble, a burnt corpse, the PD deemed it necesary to remove him, before hand. Subject refused verbal orders. If verbal orders were't given, taser would not have been an option. Taser was deployed, and no injuries were reported. Sorry he had to experience a some discomfort to spare him dibilitating injuries, but that is what happens when somebody else is incharge of your safety.

Well aren't you a good sheep.

Former hall monitor.

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:23:33 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:
How did he put the officers in danger, and why is he not allowed to choose to risk himself if he wants?

The guy wasn't some suicidal nutter, he knew the score and they yanked his decision from him.

The excuse goes somewhat like this:

"If the officers hadn't vigorously kept him from fighting the fire, they would have been obligated to follow him in and attempt to rescue him once he succumbed to the flames, as he obviously would have since he is not a professional. Thus, the homeowner's actions were putting officers in danger."

Yeah, I get that when the homeowners tries to run into the burning house (it happens) ,but this guy was standing in the yard spraying water on the neighbor's place and the fire department wasn't there. Sounds excessive.

until his ass gets killed fucking around with a garden hose, and the officers are sued for not making sure he was a safe distance from the fire.

That lawsuit would get tossed on motion, for the reasons I state above. Idiots voluntarily assuming the risk of obvious hazards like FIRE do not a lawsuit make.

Tazing someone under this sort of circumstance, on the other hand, is going to get you sued, deposed, and the county's wallet lightened.

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:24:47 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Ok, I'll say it. If you think spraying your house with a garden hose will put out or otherwise slow a structure fire, you deserve to be tased on general principle.

That's an interesting statement considering I saved my parents house from burning by doing just that several years ago.

With a blazing fire not 15 feet from their house, I was able to keep it from burning long enough for the FD to get there and take care of business.

I was hoping we'd get some real-world examples in here before the day ended. That's 2 so far. By some accounts you should've been tazed and left wriggling on the ground while your parent's house went up in flames along with every keepsake they've built in the past because after all, insurance can replace it.

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:24:49 AM EDT

[#18]

Sometimes we deal with irrational people.

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:25:15 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Should've just let him go back in and burn.

Then his family sues the police for not stopping him.

Other than that I agree.

This one would probably hit a lawyers desk either way.

One way results in a "Thank you for letting me review your case, I can't help you" letter. The other way results in a retainer for a 1983 case.

I can't repeat this enough times - if you're a cop, there are few circumstances where refraining or failing to act is going to result in a "good" lawsuit. You're immune, you made a discretionary governmental decision, you had no duty to do something in the first place, etc. On the other hand, doing too much or doing the wrong thing is going to get you zapped.

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:25:48 AM EDT

[#20]

It's union thing.

State sanctioned monopoly of coercive violence. Nanny-state spanking one of its children, for their own good, that's all.

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:27:27 AM EDT

[#21]

Sounds like a great way to cover an arson.....

"Well you see Mr. Insurance Adjuster, I tried to put it out and save my home so much that I got Tased."

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:30:22 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Sometimes we deal with irrational people.

It sucks when they're armed.

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:31:00 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Should've just let him go back in and burn.

Then his family sues the police for not stopping him.

Other than that I agree.

This one would probably hit a lawyers desk either way.

One way results in a "Thank you for letting me review your case, I can't help you" letter. The other way results in a retainer for a 1983 case.

I can't repeat this enough times - if you're a cop, there are few circumstances where refraining or failing to act is going to result in a "good" lawsuit. You're immune, you made a discretionary governmental decision, you had no duty to do something in the first place, etc. On the other hand, doing too much or doing the wrong thing is going to get you zapped.

Agree.

When in doubt, give me a November.

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:31:07 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Sounds like a great way to cover an arson.....

"Well you see Mr. Insurance Adjuster, I tried to put it out and save my home so much that I got Tased."

Except for the fact that his house wasn't on fire.

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:32:29 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Should've just let him go back in and burn.

Hhahahahhha.

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:33:39 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Sometimes we deal with irrational people.

It sucks when they're armed.

I knew someone would try to twist my comment into something other than what I meant

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:35:48 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Sometimes we deal with irrational people.

oh, you're here. I assume you would have run up on his private property and tazed him as well?

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:36:01 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Sometimes we deal with irrational people.

It sucks when they're armed.

I knew someone would try to twist my comment into something other than what I meant

You should've been less passive-agressive about it ;)

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:36:15 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:
How did he put the officers in danger, and why is he not allowed to choose to risk himself if he wants?

The guy wasn't some suicidal nutter, he knew the score and they yanked his decision from him.

The excuse goes somewhat like this:

"If the officers hadn't vigorously kept him from fighting the fire, they would have been obligated to follow him in and attempt to rescue him once he succumbed to the flames, as he obviously would have since he is not a professional. Thus, the homeowner's actions were putting officers in danger."

It's like you've done this before!

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:37:22 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Should've just let him go back in and burn.

http://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/2012/3/9/f591975a-3e5a-4232-aca3-4acd6cabed39.jpg

HE WAS SPRAYING THE OUTSIDE OF HIS HOUSE WITH A GARDEN HOSE.

Yeah, I got that. Fucking Captain Obvious.

I'll repeat it again, for the mentally slow. They should have let him back into it and let him burn. Should I draw a picture?

I'll repeat it again, for the mentally slow:

HE WAS SPRAYING THE OUTSIDE OF HIS HOUSE WITH A GARDEN HOSE.

Should I draw a picture?

He was OUTSIDE of his house, which was NOT burning, trying to protect his house from catching fire.

It was his NEIGHBOR'S house that was on fire.

You were too fucking LAZY to read the article, weren't you???

Fucking Captain Obvious.

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:40:02 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Sometimes we deal with irrational people.

oh, you're here. I assume you would have run up on his private property and tazed him as well?

If he is interfering or doing something to place himself in harm then yes, we are pretty much obligated to do something.
Once the fire dept rolls up, its their scene. It might be the homeowners house, but the FD owns the scene and if we are called there at the request of FD, we'd have to deal with this guy if he was interfering.

And before someone says I didn't read the article, I did.
The only reason we'd be at a fire scene would be if we either rolled up on it or were called there by the FD
How the officers came to be at this scene without the FD on scene, we don't know.

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:41:25 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Subject was a danger to himself and others. Subject was spraying his house with a garden hose in a area that he thought his house might catch fire, thus meaning he himself was in a dangerous area. While subject was in an danger area, first responders would have been obliged to save the subject, had he have trouble. Rather than the FD pulling out of the rubble, a burnt corpse, the PD deemed it necesary to remove him, before hand. Subject refused verbal orders. If verbal orders were't given, taser would not have been an option. Taser was deployed, and no injuries were reported. Sorry he had to experience a some discomfort to spare him dibilitating injuries, but that is what happens when somebody else is incharge of your safety.

Jesus tapdancing Christ, Pull his burnt corpse out of the ruble of his lawn?

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:43:04 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Why are so many of you assuming the guy was going to be hurt because he was spraying water on his fence? I'm pretty damn sure I can figure out when it's too hot where I'm standing and stop spraying the water before I get burned.

And what comes out of a fire hydrant? I believe it's water and water can certainly keep burning embers from catching a fence on fire. The guy was not trying to put out the fire burning the house next door.

And before someone jumps in, of course I understand the tremendous difference in volume between a water hose and fire hydrant.

There you go with that FAGOT READING SHIT!

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:43:19 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
How did he put the officers in danger, and why is he not allowed to choose to risk himself if he wants?

The guy wasn't some suicidal nutter, he knew the score and they yanked his decision from him.

The excuse goes somewhat like this:

"If the officers hadn't vigorously kept him from fighting the fire, they would have been obligated to follow him in and attempt to rescue him once he succumbed to the flames, as he obviously would have since he is not a professional. Thus, the homeowner's actions were putting officers in danger."

Exactly where is this obligation documented?

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:45:54 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Sometimes we deal with irrational people.

oh, you're here. I assume you would have run up on his private property and tazed him as well?

If he is interfering or doing something to place himself in harm then yes, we are pretty much obligated to do something.
Once the fire dept rolls up, its their scene. It might be the homeowners house, but the FD owns the scene and if we are called there at the request of FD, we'd have to deal with this guy if he was interfering.

And before someone says I didn't read the article, I did.
The only reason we'd be at a fire scene would be if we either rolled up on it or were called there by the FD
How the officers came to be at this scene without the FD on scene, we don't know.

Again, where is this obligation documented and how far does it extend? If I'm out mowing my lawn without eye protection can you taze me for my own good?

Cops are dispatched to all of our fires. Sometimes they beat us on scene.

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:48:50 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Sometimes we deal with irrational people.

oh, you're here. I assume you would have run up on his private property and tazed him as well?

If he is interfering or doing something to place himself in harm then yes, we are pretty much obligated to do something.
Once the fire dept rolls up, its their scene. It might be the homeowners house, but the FD owns the scene and if we are called there at the request of FD, we'd have to deal with this guy if he was interfering.

And before someone says I didn't read the article, I did.
The only reason we'd be at a fire scene would be if we either rolled up on it or were called there by the FD
How the officers came to be at this scene without the FD on scene, we don't know.

Again, where is this obligation documented and how far does it extend? If I'm out mowing my lawn without eye protection can you taze me for my own good?

Cops are dispatched to all of our fires. Sometimes they beat us on scene.

I could kill a forest printing cases that say there is no duty sounding in tort to rescue someone if you had no part in creating the peril, but all that paper might make a fire hazard.

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:49:39 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Again, where is this obligation documented and how far does it extend? If I'm out mowing my lawn without eye protection can you taze me for my own good?

Cops are dispatched to all of our fires. Sometimes they beat us on scene.

We have a general requirement to maintain public order. if soemone is going to be obviously placing themselves in harms way, we can't allow them to , for example, run back into a burning building.

Our response to fires is as I stated. Unless FD requests us, we don't go.
We respond to a lot more EMS calls than FD structure fires just because of the nature of the calls.

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:53:58 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Again, where is this obligation documented and how far does it extend? If I'm out mowing my lawn without eye protection can you taze me for my own good?

Cops are dispatched to all of our fires. Sometimes they beat us on scene.

We have a general requirement to maintain public order. if soemone is going to be obviously placing themselves in harms way, we can't allow them to , for example, run back into a burning building.

Bullshit vague "public order" excuse is bullshit. If they're not interfering with the fire department's operations or otherwise committing a crime, using force to prevent a merely unwise act is not legal.

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:54:27 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Why are so many of you assuming the guy was going to be hurt because he was spraying water on his fence? I'm pretty damn sure I can figure out when it's too hot where I'm standing and stop spraying the water before I get burned.

And what comes out of a fire hydrant? I believe it's water and water can certainly keep burning embers from catching a fence on fire. The guy was not trying to put out the fire burning the house next door.

And before someone jumps in, of course I understand the tremendous difference in volume between a water hose and fire hydrant.

There you go with that FAGOT READING SHIT!

Having been close to a structural fire on a couple of occasions, those things get pretty warm at some distance, not to mention smoke, falling debris hazards, etc. Running towards that without PPE and with a garden hose, it's a pretty good assumption that the guy may put himself at higher risk for injury. Still, it is his own ass, and he should decide on whether he wants to risk it or not.

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:55:11 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Again, where is this obligation documented and how far does it extend? If I'm out mowing my lawn without eye protection can you taze me for my own good?

Cops are dispatched to all of our fires. Sometimes they beat us on scene.

We have a general requirement to maintain public order. if soemone is going to be obviously placing themselves in harms way, we can't allow them to , for example, run back into a burning building.

Our response to fires is as I stated. Unless FD requests us, we don't go.
We respond to a lot more EMS calls than FD structure fires just because of the nature of the calls.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Some sort of legal source to back that one up?

If I am on my own property, I will do as I please and you will not decide to forcefully pursue MY safety.

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:55:28 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Again, where is this obligation documented and how far does it extend? If I'm out mowing my lawn without eye protection can you taze me for my own good?

Cops are dispatched to all of our fires. Sometimes they beat us on scene.

We have a general requirement to maintain public order. if soemone is going to be obviously placing themselves in harms way, we can't allow them to , for example, run back into a burning building.

Our response to fires is as I stated. Unless FD requests us, we don't go.
We respond to a lot more EMS calls than FD structure fires just because of the nature of the calls.

A general requirement to maintain public order is your basis for using force on a person that would dare take personal responsibility for the safety of his home.

So how far does your willingness to force people to make good decisions go?

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:55:52 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Sometimes we deal with irrational people.

oh, you're here. I assume you would have run up on his private property and tazed him as well?

If he is interfering or doing something to place himself in harm then yes, we are pretty much obligated to do something.
Once the fire dept rolls up, its their scene. It might be the homeowners house, but the FD owns the scene and if we are called there at the request of FD, we'd have to deal with this guy if he was interfering.

And before someone says I didn't read the article, I did.
The only reason we'd be at a fire scene would be if we either rolled up on it or were called there by the FD
How the officers came to be at this scene without the FD on scene, we don't know.

Again, where is this obligation documented and how far does it extend? If I'm out mowing my lawn without eye protection can you taze me for my own good?

Cops are dispatched to all of our fires. Sometimes they beat us on scene.

I could kill a forest printing cases that say there is no duty sounding in tort to rescue someone if you had no part in creating the peril, but all that paper might make a fire hazard.

And then I would have to tase you.

Of course, I don't have a taser, so you're gonna need to come down here and I'll see what I can do with an extension cord or something.

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:58:21 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Ok, I'll say it. If you think spraying your house with a garden hose will put out or otherwise slow a structure fire, you deserve to be tased on general principle.

Tell that to the firefighters who were using some in Colorado Springs this summer.

yeah his house wasn't on fire yet. he was spraying his shit down so it wouldn't spread.

he's gonna hit the jackpot now.

Didn't read or didn't comprehend.
He was spraying the fire according to the article, not his house.

I think using a taser was stupid, also we only have his side of the story.
Article says he could almost touch the fire. He might have been panicking and acting the fool.
Trying to put out a house fire with a garden house is just plain stupid and dangerous.
He doesn't sound like the brightest bulb.

But still, tasing him???

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:58:22 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Didn't CrazyRayRay start a thread with really insane personal shit? I could be wrong but I'm getting the impression that he's either mentally ill or a huge troll. I'll try to dig up the thread.

I must have been thinking of another poster with "crazy" and then his name. Different guy. This one didn't start an emo thread, and is a corrections officer in IL, so I'm sure he's not mentally ill, at least not to a degree that would preclude working at that job.

My apologies to CrazyRayRay, sorry for the mistaken identity. And I'm thinking you're maybe not even a troll, just an absolutely rabid statist to rival Dave_A. Don't tase me bro.

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:58:46 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Some sort of legal source to back that one up?

If I am on my own property, I will do as I please and you will not decide to forcefully pursue MY safety.

No, not wrong.
We wont allow you to run back into a burning building.
I'm not about to follow you into the building, but you can bet we WILL use physical force to prevent you from doing so.
You will NOT "do as you please"

Quoted:
How was this a law enforcement matter?

Traffic control is the only reason for them to be anywhere near the site.

Traffic control is generally what the fire police are there for.

We only get called to the scene for that if there are problems the fire police can't handle

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:59:13 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You're part of the problem
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ok4uND5VAYs/TAF8ZCHYuLI/AAAAAAAAAD0/4-6HwDN7NuA/s400/3+Ernie+Book.JPG

no, im not part of the problem.

i agree, if he is willing to do something stupid and risk his life so be it. that's his decision.

but im also not so naive as to think that if the police didnt act there that it wouldnt be their ass if the guy had gotten injured or killed playing dumbfuck.

If Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) established the police have no duty to protect individuals, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals, what's the beef?

That ruling is specific to criminal acts

Edit:

By a 4-3 decision the court decided that Warren was not entitled to remedy at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the police because no special relationship existed. The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists. The case was properly dismissed by the trial court for failure to state a claim and the case never went to trial.

Well, then.

GIVE HIM ANOTHER JOLT!

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:59:14 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Well, it was a good tase.

See, if he had been allowed to pick up the garden hose and spray water everywhere, given that water is a good conductor, he could have endangered the officers by getting water near them, potentially causing them to shock themselves when they tased him.

Why can't you folks see the bigger picture here?

Am I the only one that finds it funny you're concerned with the guy getting "shocked" so they Taser him instead

Without anyone of us being their at that very moment in time there's no way of knowing just how big the fire was or how possible it might have been to make a difference with a garden hose. Water can and will put out a fire, even in small amounts

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:59:55 AM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Subject was a danger to himself and others. Subject was spraying his house with a garden hose in a area that he thought his house might catch fire, thus meaning he himself was in a dangerous area. While subject was in an danger area, first responders would have been obliged to save the subject, had he have trouble. Rather than the FD pulling out of the rubble, a burnt corpse, the PD deemed it necesary to remove him, before hand. Subject refused verbal orders. If verbal orders were't given, taser would not have been an option. Taser was deployed, and no injuries were reported. Sorry he had to experience a some discomfort to spare him dibilitating injuries, but that is what happens when somebody else is incharge of your safety.

Well aren't you a good sheep.

Former hall monitor.

Lol! Current prison guard, actually!

Posted: 11/13/2012 12:00:43 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
Well, it was a good tase.

See, if he had been allowed to pick up the garden hose and spray water everywhere, given that water is a good conductor, he could have endangered the officers by getting water near them, potentially causing them to shock themselves when they tased him.

Why can't you folks see the bigger picture here?

Am I the only one that finds it funny you're concerned with the guy getting "shocked" so they Taser him instead

Without anyone of us being their at that very moment in time there's no way of knowing just how big the fire was or how possible it might have been to make a difference with a garden hose. Water can and will put out a fire, even in small amounts

And if the guy was indeed spraying down his own house so it doesn't burst into flames all the better reason to do so.

Posted: 11/13/2012 12:02:23 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
How was this a law enforcement matter?

Traffic control is the only reason for them to be anywhere near the site.

BS!
I've responded to many a fires and I've always beat the hose draggers there.

Yes cops block off the street, make sure the home is vacant and remove anyone that is in danger of getting in the way.
Heck I've woken up neighbors and had them exit their house and move their vehicles.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Police taze man for trying to save his house from a fire. (Page 3 of 10)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us