Local guy arrested for trying to rescue his cats from part of burning building.

[karlrschneider]

Apparently he was grabbed by firemen when he tried to go back inside a part of a large building (an area that was not on fire), pushed them away and found one of the kitties (the other one is missing) The link doesn't have as much information as the local 6 PM evening news did just now but has the basic story. They just said he's still in jail.
:grr:
http://www.kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=130278

[Brigid]

1. Just wait . . .

He'll end up in front of some cat-loving judge and beat the rap. :D

[Warpy]

2. I hope so

Unless he started throwing punches at the firemen, the arrest was over the top.

Shame on them. People do dumb things in panic situations when their families or critters are in danger. That's normal. Throwing somebody in jail for being normal is a terrible thing to do.

[karlrschneider]

3. Hopefully. But really the bigger question is why does a fireman have the authority

to prevent a citizen from entering his own premises? For whatever reason...
:grr:

[cynatnite]

5. Well, it goes like this...

If a guy goes into his own property while it's on fire and the firemen do nothing to stop him the guy could die. For one thing, the firemen doesn't want anyone to die. Part of their job is to save lives. They'll attempt to save pets if possible. If the fire department has to go in after the guy that rushed into the building they are putting their lives at risk. Not letting the guy go into the building actually saves lives. Another thing, the fire department can be held liable if a guy rushes into a burning building and they do nothing. Doesn't matter if the guy owns it or not.

[cynatnite]

4. article said he had an altercation with firefighters...

that'll get you arrested. If they think you're impeding the fire department from doing their job they'll arrest you. If this guy didn't do anything wrong, he'll get let off. If he did physically fight the firemen while they were attempting to stop a fire, he should go to jail.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. Fire fighters know

what to do in a fire situation, and have full authority over a fire area--even over police. My husband once lived in Ft. Worth, TX, and was a mechanic assigned to the fire department. He was called to a fuel truck fire on The Mix master, a place where several interstates join near downtown. His job was to make sure that the pumpers didn't overheat and keep check on them. He arrived and started to go to the scene when he was stopped by a policeman. The cop got belligerent, and my husband said, "See the Fire Chief over there? He's my boss, and I take my orders from HIM." The cop started to object until his sergeant came up and said, "What are you doing delaying this guy? The Chief wants him-and HE'S THE BOSS HERE."

The firefighters have to keep civilians out of burning buildings because the firefighters know that smoke inhalation or breathing in toxic fumes can do someone in. I understand why the man was distraught, but the firefighters were trying to keep him safe.

[Stinky The Clown]

7. Zero tolerance?

I'm generally a law and order guy. Sometimes, when I read or see shit like this, it makes me question my beliefs.

Would he have been arrested if he were going into the building to get another human out?

[cynatnite]

8. If the firefighters are there he shouldn't go in...

it's their job to do that. They are more likely to know what they are doing and will keep their heads than a distraught person.

[RB TexLa]

21. I didn't read but if it's his property there should be no reason for them to stop him

are you saying they should also physically prevent someone from committing suicide, as well?

[cynatnite]

32. Yes...

that's their job.

If they let that guy go in and he got trapped, they would be risking their lives in the process. It's a hell of a lot easier to save lives by not letting the guy go into the building in the first place. They're all alive and unharmed thanks to that one act.

[RB TexLa]

34. you were saying yes to they should physically prevent someone from committing suicide?

Are you serious?

[mondo joe]

40. Don't hospitals regularly prevent people from committing suicide?

[RB TexLa]

If they want to do it they should leave the hospital. I just can't see firefighters

thinking "we can not allow that free human being to make that kind of decision, we have to make it for them."

[cynatnite]

44. Because most of the time suicidal people aren't competent...

to make that decision.

[karlrschneider]

49. Why should there be a lot of effort expended to save insane people?

Are you assuming that anyone who attempts (or succeeds) suicide is insane?

[cynatnite]

50. Are you saying that insane people aren't worth the effort?

I've seen more than my fair share of insane people in the years I worked in the medical field. The suicidal ones who were brought in were no where near competent.

If a terminally ill person who didn't want his last days to be of suffering ended his life...that's another issue, IMO. But if a 19 year old guy tried to jump off a building because his girlfriend broke up with him...that's completely different. He's distraught. He's in emotional turmoil...not thinking clearly or logically. He may have an undiagnosed mental illness. He shouldn't be allowed to do it and should be helped.

[karlrschneider]

60. I know this will piss you off royally but no, I don't think it is anybody's business to

interfere with a 19 year old who's so fucked up over a non-issue he wants to jump off a building. There are too damn many people on the planet as it is...we ought to keep the not-fucked-up ones around and just let the rest have their way. Read Stranger in a Strange Land for a Martian's sensible view.

[cynatnite]

62. I guess I'm stupid for thinking that a 19 year old with emtional problems is worth saving...

silly me.

:eyes:

[mondo joe]

46. IMO, the firefighters are responsible for the scene and have the expertise.

The individual running into the scene isn't only endangering him or herself but the firefighters and any one else present as well.

Fighting a fire is a dangerous and hard enough job without having to sort out who needs to be rescued and who you're allowed to let burn or suffocate.

[cynatnite]

43. Absolutely...

I've seen cops and firefighters risk their lives for someone that's suicidal. Majority of the time people commit suicide due to emotional or mental problems.

[Stinky The Clown]

22. I see he got into some kind of altercation with the firemen

That changes things.

If **all** he did was attempt to go into the building to rescue kittens, then let it go. he has enough grief over the one that's still missing.

But if he came to blows with a fireman, that changes everything.

[karlrschneider]

10. Good question. There should be a "reverse good Samaritan" kind of law

that says firefighters (or really anyone else) cannot be held civilly or criminally liable for NOT preventing someone from taking any risk they choose to. I mean, why aren't firemen blocking the paths to mountains that somebody wants to climb? :eyes: :crazy:

[annarbor]

11. Pets are considered personal property....

The same standard does not apply to human beings. I love my pets as much as the next person, but you can't risk the life of a firefighter in a situation like this one....sad, but true.

Ann Arbor

[mondo joe]

9. And had he made it in he would have endangered the firefighter's lives too.

Not good.

[Shakespeare]

12. Exactly.

I'm with the firemen on this one.

[karlrschneider]

13. They should not be required to rescue a sentient human who deliberately puts

himself in precipitous danger. I guess I'm not a good Germ....I mean Democrat because I think people should be allowed to do risky things without the expectation that Big Brother will protect them no matter what the circumstances.

[mondo joe]

16. Since the law is what it is rather than what you'd like it to be, they are obliged to

live with it as is.

Secondly, even if not required to save the dumbass, I think it is arguable that his presence would present a distraction to the firefighters, thereby endangering them and others as well.

[karlrschneider]

19. It isn't a law, it's a policy. Any fireman or cop who tried to stop me from attempting to rescue

one of my pets would be an instant victim. Funny how many DUers hate authority figures and love their pets but cave into the 'man' when the rubber hits the road.

[mondo joe]

25. Sorry - this isn't about "the man". The firefighters have a job to do, and a deadly

situation to handle. I have zero problem with them having the authority to carry it out as necessary, without chaos or distraction.

[karlrschneider]

28. Yeah, I guess it would be way too complicated for them to ignore the guy

and concentrate on the fire. :eyes:

[mondo joe]

31. In fact, it would be. There's plenty going on in a fire without random people running

around in it. Are they supposed to have a team meeting to alert each other "Hey, the guy in the Homer t-shirt volunteered to be in the fire so we're not to rescue him".

[cynatnite]

17. And if the firefighters had stood there while the guy died...

knowing they could have saved him?

Sorry, but being a Germ...I mean Democrat has nothing to do with it.

Firefighters and police officers are required by law to save lives no matter the circumstances. They would be criminally negligent by not doing so even if the person had knowingly put their life at risk. Fact of the matter is, I prefer the firefighters and police officers saving lives because it's the right thing to do.

[karlrschneider]

24. Nonsense. There is no "law" anywhere that requires them to risk their

lives beyond normal duties. If that were the case, there would be no such things as "hostage negotiators", they would be 'legally required' to run into the situation with guns blazing.

[LisaL]

29. Even if there is no law, if the guy goes into the building,

they would go after him and risk their lives.
People have died trying to save their cats or dogs from the fire.
This guy is arrested, but at least he is alive.

[karlrschneider]

36. They should not HAVE to go after him.

Why is that concept so difficult to grasp?

[cynatnite]

37. Yes, they should have to go after him...

that's their job and I would question their competence if they didn't. I wouldn't want people like as firefighters.

[cynatnite]

30. Yes, there is...

I was an EMT and worked in an ER for years. It's in every state.

The firefighters were doing their normal duties and if they let that guy go in that building and he died they could be held criminally negligent for it. That's not counting the family that would have sued the fire department and the city, too.

And hostage negotiators are that...negotiators. NOT SWAT. :eyes:

[mudesi]

59. Yes, they should be required

Which is exactly why they stopped this person from killing himself over a cat. I understand how attached people can get to their pets, but the firefighters are in the right here.

[seriousstan]

14. He endangered the firemen's lives who would then be obligated to try to save his dumb ass.

I'm with the firemen on this one.

[karlrschneider]

15. The part of the large building he wanted to go into was NOT on fire.

It was several businesses away. It's one of those block-long things, like a strip mall but for commercial & manufacturing.

[cynatnite]

20. And a fire...even if it's away from the business on fire...

can destabilize a building. Fires can travel in walls and ceilings. There was no way of knowing if it would have been safe.

[annarbor]

23. But...

fire scenes can go to "Hell in a handbasket" pretty quickly. Fire Chief's can cordon off an area as they see fit as they are the ones trained to know how quickly fires can turn badly. The situation is South Carolina is a good example. What if several people wanted to just go in and grab their possessions? How would they know who was in the building or not? Far too risky...

Ann Arbor

[karlrschneider]

35. My point, and obviously it's too abstruse for some people to grasp, is that

they should not care or HAVE to care if someone has made the conscious decision to enter a perilous situation.
Fire departments exist for one reason: to protect PROPERTY. That's obvious...if it were not so, they wouldn't hang around and pour water on until it's completely extinguished. Cops don't stop people from driving even though it's a risky endeavor...why not? - many more people die in car wrecks than in fires. There weren't any people in peril in South Carolina and 9 guys died trying to save someones STUFF.

[mondo joe]

39. I'd like to see the practical application of your idea. Let's say there's a city block

closed off due to spreading fire. Guy in red shirt wants to run in - is the fire chief supposed to alert however many firefighters are on the scene that they should rescue anyone they see EXCEPT a guy in a red shirt?

Do they need to check with every person in the fire to ask if they want to be rescued?

Of course the firefighters have nothing better to do than to keep tabs on people that way.

[cynatnite]

41. Tell that to the firefighters who died on 9/11

They didn't go into the towers to protect the buildings. They did it to save lives. That's their job.

Firefighting is a dangerous business and even protecting property is dangerous. Those nine who died in South Carolina went in because they thought there were people inside. That's what I heard on the news when the story broke. Even if they went in to protect property...they're doing what you initially said that the fire department should be doing.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

18. No sympathy here. Shouldn't have been in a business that could catch fire.

Jail his ass.















Sounds kind of callous doesn't it Karl?

Or is it because this is Oklahoma that you can find a semblance of empathy for those in distress?

[karlrschneider]

42. I just happened to see it on the local news. But I'll ask you this:

If you lived in the Tahoe fire area, left your house and remembered your dog was left behind, locked in the garage that wasn't burning, perhaps, and a fireman said you couldn't try to rescue it, would you just say "Oh, well, it's just a fucking dog, thank you mister firefighter"?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

45. Absolutely not. And that illustrates my point. In a fire, or any other tragedy

that befalls another person, I will always have in reserve feelings of empathy and compassion for their situation. In an initial post replying to someone that has been a victim of circumstances beyond their control, my first inclination is not to berate them for their stupidity/lack of foresight when their actions are not outside the realm of what a reasonable person would also do. i.e, building a home in a woodland setting

You exhibited complete disregard for many other persons in your unwarranted diatribe on the other thread. I take great issue with meanness.

[karlrschneider]

48. I'm not really mean, I just hold most people in lower regard than most other animals.

I know elephants wreck a lot of trees, eating their branches and all but I'm not aware of any non-human critters that have poisoned the oceans, clear-cut the mountains, and dammed the biggest rivers. Not that I'm all that fond of cockroaches and komodo dragons, but they haven't wrought any wholesale destruction that I'm aware of...

[seriousstan]

51. You do have the ability, without hurting others, to eliminate one person of low regard.

Do the right thing.

[karlrschneider]

52. I don't think trying to assassinate the president is a good idea.

...

[seriousstan]

53. "without hurting others", or was that too abstruse for you?

[karlrschneider]

54. No, I "got" it, I just figured an asinine comment deserved an asinine reply.

Nothing personal, of course.

[seriousstan]

55. No if it was personal I would catch you in your foolishness and make you buy me another star.

:rofl:

[karlrschneider]

56. Actually, I just did.

:D

[seriousstan]

58. And for that I thank you.

[karlrschneider]

61. It's all good. I fight with my mom too but still love her.

:D

[tammywammy]

26. I'm with the firefighters on this one

He shouldn't be allowed to go in, even if it's his property.

[LisaL]

27. I don't have a problem with this.

The guy did what he had to do, and firefighters did what they had to do.
Hopefully the judge goes easy on him, since he did it to save the cat.

[pitohui]

38. yeah i agree with lizzy

the firefighters had an obligation to stop the guy from potentially hurting himself (and anyone who went in to rescue him) over a cat, but if i were the judge, it would be time to let it go and say "time served" and let the man go on his way

[tammywammy]

47. ditto

I hope he only gets time served.

[Occulus]

33. I bet the cats were copyrighted by the fire department.

Saving them was tantamount to stealing from the FD.

:eyes:

:sarcasm:

[RamboLiberal]

57. It doesn't take long for a fire to spread

Read this of someone who went back in to rescue a friend's dog. He died after a long battle with 80% burns. I'm with the firefighters on this.

He risked his life once to save a stranger from drowning in the bay. He did it again in February, rushing back into a burning townhouse on Russian Hill to save a friend's dog from the flames.

After a valiant battle that he seemed on the verge of surviving, Michael James Keenan died Monday at St. Francis Memorial Hospital in San Francisco. He was burned over 80 percent of his body in the Feb. 6 fire and suffered a stroke Sunday night that left him brain dead.

---

Keenan was house-sitting for a friend on Bonita Street, waiting for renovations to be completed on his own apartment, when the early morning blaze broke out. He made it out safely before realizing the dog was still inside.

Keenan was a lifelong dog lover. He later told a longtime friend, Frank Hsieh, that he had thought he could get the dog out quickly, but found he had to search awhile before finding the 10-year-old Jack Russell terrier, Bobby, cowering under a bed.

The dog was seriously burned, his nose scarred, eyes damaged and his ears gone. He could still hear, though, and he was able to walk out of a local animal hospital, Pets Unlimited, after $26,000 worth of donated medical care.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/20/BAGDGQIBD01.DTL