Quote:
Originally Posted by Can't Know
The issue here is the right of a law-abiding citizen to make a choice about potentially sacrificing their own life to save another.
Would you feel the same if the tot had been in a raging river heading for a waterfall? Stop the parent from jumping in to try and save their child?
Granted, it's a no-win situation for the cop, but only because he made it so. He could very easily have just turned his back for ten seconds to check something out and if it came out bad he could have then said the guy ran in when his back was turned. No one would have faulted him for that. Instead, he forced the situation and then used force to ensure that he was "right" and that protocol was strictly followed.
As the thread title suggests, it's bad judgment, and I'd agree with that.
|
The key phrase is to "TRY" save his son. Odds of him getting out alive with the son alive is pretty slim given he has no training, equipment or calm detachment from the situation.
Fire. drowning, what's the difference? The principle is the same. If you are going to stop him from running into a blazing building, what is the difference between that and another case?
I think you have been watching too many rogue cop movies where the cop lies for the "right reasons". If you are asking a cop to lie "THIS ONE TIME" what about the next time or is the pass handed out on a "case by case" basis? Where do you draw the line for a cop to lie on his report? Are you going to say that he can lie if you agree with the reason? Are you saying he can be derelict in performing his duty for the "right" reasons, whatever and whomever defines what "right" is?
I'm going to disagree with that and the drama the clown tried to create after the salient information was given by the news channel.