The society is going down the drain fast

j_garcia

j_garcia

Audioholic Jedi
That's not even news. The wife and the kid were the problem there. Dad did the right thing.

So he gave his son an ultimatum: dinner anywhere other than McDonald’s or no dinner.
“The child, stubborn as a mule, chose the ‘no dinner’ option.”

Before dropping his son off at his mother’s E. 84th Street building, David says he tried to make light of the situation by horsing around with him and trying one last time to change his mind about dinner.
and

Dr. Schiller allegedly only interviewed the child and his mother then told the court David was “wholly incapable of taking care of his son” and should be denied his weekend visitation.

Here is another wonderful bork of society crumbling.

Cops, Doctors Repeatedly Probe Man's Anus In Worst Traffic Stop Ever
 
Last edited:
its phillip

its phillip

Audioholic Ninja
isn't the NY post a tabloid similar to the national enquirer? I did read the anal probe story. That's terrible.
 
j_garcia

j_garcia

Audioholic Jedi
isn't the NY post a tabloid similar to the national enquirer? I did read the anal probe story. That's terrible.
They friggin X-rayed him and didn't see anything. Why didn't it stop there?
 
BoredSysAdmin

BoredSysAdmin

Audioholic Slumlord
isn't the NY post a tabloid similar to the national enquirer? I did read the anal probe story. That's terrible.
NY Post is indeed near the bottom of the barrel, but it would be untypical for them straight out make up stories, unlike the NE
 
j_garcia

j_garcia

Audioholic Jedi
Update to the original post. Normally I would say this is a frivolous suit, but I agree with the dad

Did somebody say McDonald's? Yep, a 4-year-old New York City boy, but his dad David Schorr said nope. Now Schorr, embroiled in a child custody case, is suing a court-appointed psychiatrist for defamation for deeming him "wholly incapable of taking care of his son" after he refused to let his kid eat dinner at McDonald’s.
Yahoo Shine - Women's Lifestyle | Healthy Living and Fashion Blogs
 
Last edited:
Steve81

Steve81

Audioholics Five-0
IMHO, this one is not as clear cut. They could have ended up with the step dad trapped inside and consequently, 2 dead.
No doubt the man would have been at a significant risk, but hitting him with a taser multiple times like a common criminal as the house burns and the boy dies is about as cruel and inhuman as you get. Few if any dads wouldn't have done the exact same, and as far as I'm concerned it's their prerogative to make that gamble. Of course from what I've read, the boy was found <15 feet from the front door, so who knows...
 
ImcLoud

ImcLoud

Audioholic Ninja
No doubt the man would have been at a significant risk, but hitting him with a taser multiple times like a common criminal as the house burns and the boy dies is about as cruel and inhuman as you get. Few if any dads wouldn't have done the exact same, and as far as I'm concerned it's their prerogative to make that gamble. Of course from what I've read, the boy was found <15 feet from the front door, so who knows...
I have to agree with Steve here, unless you are positive the kid has passed let the father go in... 15ft from the door 4-5 paces in and back out if he went rite to him? depending on the fire who knows, I wouldn't think twice if it was my son... Just ask the question, would you run through fire for your family? Yup.. Would the fireman do it for someone else's family? sometimes, but not this time...
 
j_garcia

j_garcia

Audioholic Jedi
IMHO, this one is not as clear cut. They could have ended up with the step dad trapped inside and consequently, 2 dead. (Article says the firefighter tried to enter and it was too hot. That means quite likely, the step dad may not have come out alive.)
Chances are also good that if it was so bad you could not enter, the child was already deceased. Very sad situation. While the child died, they probably saved the dad's life like Steve mentioned. Does that mean I wouldn't also try to save my family? Of course I'd be trying to do the same thing.
 
Rickster71

Rickster71

Audioholic Spartan
I hate to read about people dying unnecessarily in fires.

One issue with structure fires, is in the way the laws are written.
Once emergency services arrives, they are in control of the building. (by law)

I don't want to assume... But, I'll bet 10 to 1, there were no smoke detectors.
The guy should've been tased for that alone.
 
agarwalro

agarwalro

Audioholic Ninja
I completely agree that if it were my kid, I'd do the same and further the amount of tazer use may have been excessive. That said, I cannot fault the fire rescue crew on preventing the dad from entering the structure.

What you are asking for is a morally just decision at a time when sentiment cannot be allowed to cloud judgment.

Playing the devils advocate, I can see a situation where the dad was was allowed to enter and died too and the surviving mother turns around and sues the fire rescue team for allowing him to enter.
 
Steve81

Steve81

Audioholics Five-0
I completely agree that if it were my kid, I'd do the same and further the amount of tazer use may have been excessive.
That's where my distaste for the story comes from. The man needed compassion, not violence. He was a man doing what every other reasonable man would for his family. I don't necessarily think they should have let him run in there in his pajamas (though to his credit, he'd have intimate knowledge of the layout of the house & last known position of the child), but if a taser is the best tool they have to deal with the situation, that's a sad reflection of things in my book.

Playing the devils advocate, I can see a situation where the dad was was allowed to enter and died too and the surviving mother turns around and sues the fire rescue team for allowing him to enter.
Unfortunately at this point I think a lawsuit would be the most benign conclusion of this story.
 
Last edited:
Rickster71

Rickster71

Audioholic Spartan
I reread the story. The poor little boy died because his irresponsible parents didn't have functioning smoke detectors.

If they did they would've been roused at the first sign of smoke by the smoke alarm, with ample time to get the baby.
Then they left the house and called the police and fire dept.

From the articles:
"The fire started in an electrical outlet in the rear recreation room where Riley's parents fell asleep watching television.
By the time they awoke, smoke and flames prevented Ryan and Cathy Miller from reaching their son, whose bedroom was at the front of the house. They fled through the back, with Ryan Miller trying unsuccessfully to re-enter the home before the second attempt that led to his arrest."

So, after the fact, the father wants to play hero. Instead of way before it happened, by purchasing a $10 smoke alarm.
The parents try to assuage their guilt by shifting blame to emergency services.
Now that's really is a sign of society going down the drain.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Steve81

Steve81

Audioholics Five-0
I reread the story. The poor little boy died because his irresponsible parents didn't have functioning smoke detectors.

If they did they would've been roused at the first sign of smoke by the smoke alarm, with ample time to get the baby.
Then they left the house and called the police and fire dept.
A sad situation all the way around unfortunately.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Adam

Adam

Audioholic Jedi
All I can think to say it...what the $*&^?! It seems like grade schools are a perfect place for "nanny" cams.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top