Cop fined for arresting firefighter on a call. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Cop fined for arresting firefighter on a call.


Borg
02-15-2008, 21:04
Old EMT/firefighter buddy sent this to me... Being a former EMT, it got my blood boiling to think this cop had the nerve to disrupt a rescue to "move your truck".


http://www.kmov.com/topstories/stories/kmov_localnews_080213_firefighterarrested.bd01f42f.html

MissAmericanPie
02-15-2008, 22:38
There is an interesting thread in CopTalk on this.

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=826548

Check it out. :)

ok47s
02-16-2008, 02:30
Old EMT/firefighter buddy sent this to me... Being a former EMT, it got my blood boiling to think this cop had the nerve to disrupt a rescue to "move your truck".


http://www.kmov.com/topstories/stories/kmov_localnews_080213_firefighterarrested.bd01f42f.html

What?,more brain dead flat feet?,say it's not so.

Miguel
02-16-2008, 09:25
Old EMT/firefighter buddy sent this to me... Being a former EMT, it got my blood boiling to think this cop had the nerve to disrupt a rescue to "move your truck".


http://www.kmov.com/topstories/stories/kmov_localnews_080213_firefighterarrested.bd01f42f.html

Power hungry idiot!

Donut Slayer
02-16-2008, 10:33
Ummm, I thought a MVA was the fire depts scene. I just help them direct traffic. They can close the road all they want. But I'm just a lowly deputy. :upeyes:

D25
02-16-2008, 11:31
There is an interesting thread in CopTalk on this.

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=826548

Check it out. :)

I can't believe that many of the LEOs here are sympathetic to the cop in this video. :upeyes: Fortunately in my neck of the woods, LEOs know that I'm in charge when there are patients, and they are very much aware that traffic WILL be blocked on an MVA- at least initially. Not as a pissing contest, but that is how things run.

SurfOnH20
02-16-2008, 21:18
I am a LEO and I must say this officer is an IDIOT !! Yeah, coppers and firefighters bump heads on occasions, but at the end of the day we hang our hats and go home safe to our families. Sesh, what the hell was he thinking..:wow:

cahilj
02-17-2008, 06:32
Wow. This reminds me of the time I was responding to a call and the FD chief (who was also the PD chief at the time, yes, I know, its a small town) told me that if he ever saw me going that fast (about 5mph over) again, he would give me a ticket. I told him I was going home, and his mood changed instantly. I guess not having anyone to drive the pumper would have been a bad thing, since I'm one of only 4 on my department that can, and no one else was there.

Jester249
02-17-2008, 07:06
Old EMT/firefighter buddy sent this to me... Being a former EMT, it got my blood boiling to think this cop had the nerve to disrupt a rescue to "move your truck".


http://www.kmov.com/topstories/stories/kmov_localnews_080213_firefighterarrested.bd01f42f.html

Didn't watch the video, did you....

If you had, you would, or should have noticed the patient was already being cared for, prior to FD arrival.

hotpig
02-17-2008, 09:27
I could not see if it was LE or a Ambulance crew with the patient. Either way it does not matter. There were rescue workers bringing a patient out of a vehicle into traffic lanes. A safety zone should be set up.

Here is what I posted in the other forum.

Traffic on 270 is horrible and dangerous for emergency workers. Every department around here uses trucks to set up a safety zone.

This was a isolated incident and the officer got his hand slapped for letting his pride override good sense.

In my district it is sweet. We block as much of the Interstate as we feel is needed. We open up traffic in as many lanes as possible asap.

We work with the local and State Police and control traffic until the tow leaves the scene or we have to respond to another 911 call. This works great for LE since only one officer/Trooper is need to show up and take a report and call for a tow. We handle everything else.

MissAmericanPie
02-17-2008, 22:41
Didn't watch the video, did you....

If you had, you would, or should have noticed the patient was already being cared for, prior to FD arrival.

It is irrelevant. It is a reduction of the care given to the patient. Patient care takes priority over the officer's preference to have the lane open for travel. His dispute could have been dealt with after the patient was transported. Who is the officer to determine that the patient had enough care?

MissAmericanPie
02-17-2008, 22:46
I can't believe that many of the LEOs here are sympathetic to the cop in this video. :upeyes: Fortunately in my neck of the woods, LEOs know that I'm in charge when there are patients, and they are very much aware that traffic WILL be blocked on an MVA- at least initially. Not as a pissing contest, but that is how things run.

I didn't think that was the case. There are really only two that are strongly sympathetic to the officer's case and they haven't really defended their positions. Many CT regulars have objectively chimed in and said that it was improper to arrest the fire captain.

BlitzAttack
02-18-2008, 01:15
As long as my feet are on that highway pavement, that truck is not moving!
I dont care how backed up the traffic is getting,,people just dont care or pay attention when there driving. Hell i've seen people drive around a blocking apparatus and weave right through the scene!!:wow:

Jester249
02-18-2008, 05:47
It is irrelevant. It is a reduction of the care given to the patient. Patient care takes priority over the officer's preference to have the lane open for travel. His dispute could have been dealt with after the patient was transported. Who is the officer to determine that the patient had enough care?

Really? How? How many people were in the car? How many people were on the scene, prior to the captian? How many patients were there? How many paramedice were on scene? How many LOE's? What were the injuries? How many were injured? How do you know the officer was the one deterning if the patient had enough care?

Jester249
02-18-2008, 05:49
I didn't think that was the case. There are really only two that are strongly sympathetic to the officer's case and they haven't really defended their positions. Many CT regulars have objectively chimed in and said that it was improper to arrest the fire captain.

I guess I'm one of the one's who is "strongly sympathetic", because I have maintained from the beginning that I don't know what happened, beyond a brief in-car video.

So please tell us all: what happened? Bet you still can't........

MissAmericanPie
02-18-2008, 06:59
I guess I'm one of the one's who is "strongly sympathetic", because I have maintained from the beginning that I don't know what happened, beyond a brief in-car video.

So please tell us all: what happened? Bet you still can't........

How about you tell us, smartass, since you are badgering everyone else. I think everyone has laid out quite nicely a defense of their positions. At least they are engaging in adult dialogue. If you would like to refute what has been said, feel free.

And I find it comical that you snidely post in this forum that others should watch the video when you were making comments in the other thread before viewing it. You should thank Drew for pointing it out to you.

BTW, reread my posts on it and note how reasonable they are. You could learn a thing or two. ;) :wavey:

Your turn.............

MissAmericanPie
02-18-2008, 07:00
Really? How? How many people were in the car? How many people were on the scene, prior to the captian? How many patients were there? How many paramedice were on scene? How many LOE's? What were the injuries? How many were injured? How do you know the officer was the one deterning if the patient had enough care?

It isn't up to the officer on the scene to determine if there are enough resources to care for a patient. That is not his job. Get it?

Jester249
02-18-2008, 07:28
It isn't up to the officer on the scene to determine if there are enough resources to care for a patient. That is not his job. Get it?

So you don't know what happened either. Get it?

Jester249
02-18-2008, 07:31
How about you tell us, smartass, since you are badgering everyone else. I think everyone has laid out quite nicely a defense of their positions. At least they are engaging in adult dialogue. If you would like to refute what has been said, feel free.

And I find it comical that you snidely post in this forum that others should watch the video when you were making comments in the other thread before viewing it. You should thank Drew for pointing it out to you.

BTW, reread my posts on it and note how reasonable they are. You could learn a thing or two. ;) :wavey:

Your turn.............


Well , I have maintained from the beginning, that WE do not know what happened. Since I have taken no postion, there is nothing to defend. (But I guess that is badgering :upeyes:)

You really show how adult you are by calling me a smartass.

I noted you have no answers for my questions. Which is very telling of you.....smartass.

Jester249
02-18-2008, 07:35
"This is one of the most interesting threads, I've ever read.

The cop on the video is 100% wrong. Inexcusable and absolutely wrong.

Not only is he wrong, but the guy is a moron. This is right up there with the "hmm, I think this guy in the wheelchair is faking...lets dump him on his face and find out..."

The cops trying to defend this guy sound like petty drug dealers that are caught and are trying to quibble "well, it was just a little pot..."

Anyone ever appreciate the concept of personal responsibility? Being accountable for your actions rather than dishing it off on the policeman's union or the city or BS excuse about what you didn't see on the tape?

He was crying because he was put in handcuffs and the back seat of a cruiser for half an hour, so what. I don't condone the conduct of the officer, I don't even know the facts of that particular case, he might have been wrong or right, that's not the point. I don't think the fireman was beaten with a stick and raped by the officer.

No, if the guy was beaten with a stick and raped by the cop, the cop probably would have gone to jail for a few decades and the city would have been paying out a 7 figure amount. 18k is a slap on the wrist and a gentle reminder to maybe review the US constitution before returning to work with particular emphasis on the 4th amendment.

He didn't have to sue the agency or the officer for a personal economic benefit.

No, but the cop didn't have to take his personal initiative and place his personal handcuffs on the guy, and place him in the back of his personal G-ride.

This is how it works in the real world. If you do something stupid, you have to be accountable personally for your actions. Nothing like the exclamation point on a dispute like forcing the other party to write out a check to you.

Next time you feel like being a moron, think about how much it might cost you. I don't see how personal economic benefit is a bad thing.


A formal complaint that made the officer get a reprimand, suspension or other punishment is the example needed, not money for his new car. I stand by what I said, that guy is a loser.

Formal complaints are a joke. Cops are never wrong in their eyes as this thread indicates. Why not get an impartial 3rd party (ie. judge) to determine if the behavior was unreasonable (which it apparently was) and to assess any damages. When was the last time a cop was forced to pay someone they abused?

BTW, as I stated before I have great respect for firefighters, but this is bullcrap.

It is called law enforcement in action. Don't cops always say tell it to the judge? This guy did, and the cop got smacked down. Wearing a badge isn't a license to be stupid.

Getting monetary compensation, PERSONAL compensation, instead of punishment for the officer's actions is for pusssies.

I can't think of anything more punishing than forcing an adverse party to fork over their cash after publicly humiliating them in court.

Be an adult and be accountable for your actions."

This about sums it up missamericanpie. This was posted over on Cop Talk. It was his first post. He immediately saw right and wrong on BOTH sides. Something I chose NOT to do and you are unable to do......get it? Never mind, I already answered that.

oldstyle
02-18-2008, 08:11
According to the article, this was an extrication assignment. Most rigs carry heavy tools in the right side compartments. The driver left one lane open for a work area. I might park my truck in the same strategic location!

My fire station covers both I-95 and I-295 and we respond to accidents regularly. I HATE working on the interstate! Fortunately, we work with the same officers at most of them and don't have any problems.

Apparatus placement is covered in most emergency response manuals and EVOC courses.

MissAmericanPie
02-18-2008, 18:09
"This is one of the most interesting threads, I've ever read.

The cop on the video is 100% wrong. Inexcusable and absolutely wrong.

Not only is he wrong, but the guy is a moron. This is right up there with the "hmm, I think this guy in the wheelchair is faking...lets dump him on his face and find out..."

The cops trying to defend this guy sound like petty drug dealers that are caught and are trying to quibble "well, it was just a little pot..."

Anyone ever appreciate the concept of personal responsibility? Being accountable for your actions rather than dishing it off on the policeman's union or the city or BS excuse about what you didn't see on the tape?

He was crying because he was put in handcuffs and the back seat of a cruiser for half an hour, so what. I don't condone the conduct of the officer, I don't even know the facts of that particular case, he might have been wrong or right, that's not the point. I don't think the fireman was beaten with a stick and raped by the officer.

No, if the guy was beaten with a stick and raped by the cop, the cop probably would have gone to jail for a few decades and the city would have been paying out a 7 figure amount. 18k is a slap on the wrist and a gentle reminder to maybe review the US constitution before returning to work with particular emphasis on the 4th amendment.

He didn't have to sue the agency or the officer for a personal economic benefit.

No, but the cop didn't have to take his personal initiative and place his personal handcuffs on the guy, and place him in the back of his personal G-ride.

This is how it works in the real world. If you do something stupid, you have to be accountable personally for your actions. Nothing like the exclamation point on a dispute like forcing the other party to write out a check to you.

Next time you feel like being a moron, think about how much it might cost you. I don't see how personal economic benefit is a bad thing.


A formal complaint that made the officer get a reprimand, suspension or other punishment is the example needed, not money for his new car. I stand by what I said, that guy is a loser.

Formal complaints are a joke. Cops are never wrong in their eyes as this thread indicates. Why not get an impartial 3rd party (ie. judge) to determine if the behavior was unreasonable (which it apparently was) and to assess any damages. When was the last time a cop was forced to pay someone they abused?

BTW, as I stated before I have great respect for firefighters, but this is bullcrap.

It is called law enforcement in action. Don't cops always say tell it to the judge? This guy did, and the cop got smacked down. Wearing a badge isn't a license to be stupid.

Getting monetary compensation, PERSONAL compensation, instead of punishment for the officer's actions is for pusssies.

I can't think of anything more punishing than forcing an adverse party to fork over their cash after publicly humiliating them in court.

Be an adult and be accountable for your actions."

This about sums it up missamericanpie. This was posted over on Cop Talk. It was his first post. He immediately saw right and wrong on BOTH sides. Something I chose NOT to do and you are unable to do......get it? Never mind, I already answered that.

So you pick the newbie poster's response who never indicated that he had any knowledge in either area - law enforcement or fire/ems/rescue. Good representation, there. It is disingenuous to suggest that his response was what the thread was about. There were multiple responses from LEOs and FF/EMTs that offered input of value and their opinions were in the majority. Your remarks added nothing - no more than that silly new guy's 2 cents.

There are people with knowledge beyond what was printed in the article in these threads. Some are in LE and some are in fire/rescue. And some of the fire/ems guys have A LOT of experience with apparatus and the EMTs with patient care. They have worked such scenes for a long time and have thus formed an educated opinion in this situation. They know what is involved in extrication/patient care issues and that it is a paramount concern - well above traffic issues, unless such traffic will create more patients. The intricacies of this case are not relevant to the crux of the issue unless the FF created a problem well beyond what was reported.

Have an open mind and be willing to learn from another perspective. That is what I do when I visit CT - I am there primarily to learn and secondarily to add my personal opinions with the hope I can teach. You are welcome to do either - so far you have done neither.

Got it yet?

Jester249
02-18-2008, 18:50
So you pick the newbie poster's response who never indicated that he had any knowledge in either area - law enforcement or fire/ems/rescue. Good representation, there. It is disingenuous to suggest that his response was what the thread was about. There were multiple responses from LEOs and FF/EMTs that offered input of value and their opinions were in the majority. Your remarks added nothing - no more than that silly new guy's 2 cents.

There are people with knowledge beyond what was printed in the article in these threads. Some are in LE and some are in fire/rescue. And some of the fire/ems guys have A LOT of experience with apparatus and the EMTs with patient care. They have worked such scenes for a long time and have thus formed an educated opinion in this situation. They know what is involved in extrication/patient care issues and that it is a paramount concern - well above traffic issues, unless such traffic will create more patients. The intricacies of this case are not relevant to the crux of the issue unless the FF created a problem well beyond what was reported.

Have an open mind and be willing to learn from another perspective. That is what I do when I visit CT - I am there primarily to learn and secondarily to add my personal opinions with the hope I can teach. You are welcome to do either - so far you have done neither.

Got it yet?

No, I am still waiting for YOU to tell me what happened on the scene. All you can do is speculate and call names. Talk about doing neither......

MissAmericanPie
02-18-2008, 20:29
No, I am still waiting for YOU to tell me what happened on the scene. All you can do is speculate and call names. Talk about doing neither......

I'm just calling a spade a spade. Check your behavior at the door and I won't call you on it. ;)

I will not add anything beyond what is in the video and in the report (unless you need me to do it for you because you haven't done it yourself) and my personal experience.

I have commented on my knowledge of such scenes and the knowledge of others with more experience than myself. It would do you some good to follow suit. It sounds like you could use a refresher before you take part in another such scene, so the FFs/EMTs won't have you dictating to them how many hands they need. :rofl:

You still have said nothing of value. Please, school us.

MissAmericanPie
02-18-2008, 20:42
:wavey:

More information:

http://firefightingnews.com/article-US.cfm?articleID=45206

"U.S. Magistrate Judge Mary Ann Medler has already ruled that Greeves did not have probable cause to arrest Wilson, and that under state law, "Captain Wilson and his crew were entitled to park their fire engine irrespective of the traffic laws and/or city ordinances."

codename_47
02-18-2008, 20:59
So you pick the newbie poster's response who never indicated that he had any knowledge in either area - law enforcement or fire/ems/rescue. Good representation, there. It is disingenuous to suggest that his response was what the thread was about. There were multiple responses from LEOs and FF/EMTs that offered input of value and their opinions were in the majority. Your remarks added nothing - no more than that silly new guy's 2 cents.

Sorry, I haven't posted as much as you like, I prefer to read more than write. FYI, I went to a tier-I university where I was taught constitutional law by a current sitting US congressman. (he obviously wasn't sitting at the time he taught me).

While I don't have experience pulling people out of burning buildings or placing handcuffs on them, I do have lots of experience suing people that need to get sued, usually in Federal court. Additionally, I have also argued the majority of my cases WITHOUT a lawyer, as in I write and file them on my own, and if you have a PACER account, I'd be happy to direct you to the appropriate district and case numbers. I have a bit more than a casual understanding of the law, and I don't mind applying to people who do stupid stuff.

Anyone else here ever sue somebody?

Anyone else ever represent them self in court?

Needless to say, I have more than a casual understanding of the law, and I don't mind applying it when necessary.

Further, I don't need to be a cop or EMT to know that this guy's constitutional rights were violated. That is the point of the lawsuit, and I'd really like to hear how this wasn't a 4th amendment violation.

It is pretty obvious, and most importantly I have a judge on my side. You can't just go around arresting people because you feel like it, and if this cop wasn't slammed, as he should have been, you'll have a terrible legal precedent which will allow cops to just arrest anyone they feel like whenever they feel like without any reason.

This case is unfortunately a rarity to the extent that the cop had to personally pay for his misbehavior. I just have a problem when I see people misbehave and the city winds up paying the bill while the police union foots the legal bills and there are no criminal charges or personal punishment for bad behavior.

Does anyone see a bit of irony where the people who spend their lives holding people accountable for their actions scream bloody murder when someone else holds them accountable for theirs?

MissAmericanPie
02-18-2008, 21:07
So you pick the newbie poster's response who never indicated that he had any knowledge in either area - law enforcement or fire/ems/rescue. Good representation, there. It is disingenuous to suggest that his response was what the thread was about. There were multiple responses from LEOs and FF/EMTs that offered input of value and their opinions were in the majority. Your remarks added nothing - no more than that silly new guy's 2 cents.

Sorry, I haven't posted as much as you like, I prefer to read more than write. FYI, I went to a tier-I university where I was taught constitutional law by a current sitting US congressman. (he obviously wasn't sitting at the time he taught me).

While I don't have experience pulling people out of burning buildings or placing handcuffs on them, I do have lots of experience suing people that need to get sued, usually in Federal court. Additionally, I have also argued the majority of my cases WITHOUT a lawyer, as in I write and file them on my own, and if you have a PACER account, I'd be happy to direct you to the appropriate district and case numbers. I have a bit more than a casual understanding of the law, and I don't mind applying to people who do stupid stuff.

Anyone else here ever sue somebody?

Anyone else ever represent them self in court?

Needless to say, I have more than a casual understanding of the law, and I don't mind applying it when necessary.

Further, I don't need to be a cop or EMT to know that this guy's constitutional rights were violated. That is the point of the lawsuit, and I'd really like to hear how this wasn't a 4th amendment violation.

It is pretty obvious, and most importantly I have a judge on my side. You can't just go around arresting people because you feel like it, and if this cop wasn't slammed, as he should have been, you'll have a terrible legal precedent which will allow cops to just arrest anyone they feel like whenever they feel like without any reason.

This case is unfortunately a rarity to the extent that the cop had to personally pay for his misbehavior. I just have a problem when I see people misbehave and the city winds up paying the bill while the police union foots the legal bills and there are no criminal charges or personal punishment for bad behavior.

Does anyone see a bit of irony where the people who spend their lives holding people accountable for their actions scream bloody murder when someone else holds them accountable for theirs?

I agree with the judge, that the cop was wrong. State law says so. However, our discussion was about scene operations. That's all. And Jester was using your post to represent the thread over here when it wasn't the crux of the discussion.

Now, I know enough about Constitutional Law (trained paralegal) as well and I am hard pressed to see a 4th Amend violation. You do not need a warrant to arrest someone.

However, you do need a law that was violated.:supergrin:

Jester249
02-19-2008, 04:58
I'm just calling a spade a spade. Check your behavior at the door and I won't call you on it. ;)

I will not add anything beyond what is in the video because you don't really know what happened either and in the report (unless you need me to do it for you because you haven't done it yourself) and my personal experience.

I have commented on my knowledge of such scenesso what? That is not the issue here and the knowledge of others with more experience than myself. It would do you some good to follow suit.I have been asking YOU what happened on THIS scene, not other scenes. It sounds like you could use a refresher before you take part in another such scene, so the FFs/EMTs won't have you dictating to them how many hands they need. :rofl:

You still have said nothing of value. Please, school us.

You are obtuse.

Jester249
02-19-2008, 05:00
:wavey:

More information:

http://firefightingnews.com/article-US.cfm?articleID=45206

"U.S. Magistrate Judge Mary Ann Medler has already ruled that Greeves did not have probable cause to arrest Wilson, and that under state law, "Captain Wilson and his crew were entitled to park their fire engine irrespective of the traffic laws and/or city ordinances."


Well this is old information, already posted on CT. Now answer the many questions I have posted for you.

Jester249
02-19-2008, 05:08
I agree with the judge, that the cop was wrong. State law says so. However, our discussion was about scene operations. That's all. And Jester was using your post to represent the thread over here when it wasn't the crux of the discussion.No, I used it because it pointed out where BOTH sides were lacking. Get it yey?...never mind..........

Now, I know enough about Constitutional Law (trained paralegal) as well and I am hard pressed to see a 4th Amend violation. You do not need a warrant to arrest someone.

However, you do need a law that was violated.:supergrin:

I won't bother waiting for you to answer the questions, I have asked of you. (We all know you don't really know what happened on the scene. This has been my point from the beginning.

D25
02-19-2008, 19:45
I didn't think that was the case. There are really only two that are strongly sympathetic to the officer's case and they haven't really defended their positions. Many CT regulars have objectively chimed in and said that it was improper to arrest the fire captain.

Huh. Maybe we are looking at two different threads. "Hose jockeys", "hose heads", "meatwagon company", etc., etc, etc. in the thread that I read seems to indicate a slight bias on the part of the posters.:dunno:

hotpig
02-19-2008, 19:59
I won't bother waiting for you to answer the questions, I have asked of you. (We all know you don't really know what happened on the scene. This has been my point from the beginning.


Everybody around my area knows what happened at the scene. The outcome was predictable. Justice was served and the incident is on its way to be forgotten by area public servants.

Anybody that has a problem should just save it for the next guns and hoses.

MissAmericanPie
02-19-2008, 20:03
I won't bother waiting for you to answer the questions, I have asked of you. (We all know you don't really know what happened on the scene. This has been my point from the beginning.

I see - you fool, er..jester - you ask and we answer? Not quite.

So, why do you think we don't know? What is left out in your estimation that could change the points that have been made by others? We (I'll say it AGAIN) discussed our experiences with such scenes and who runs the show until the patient is transported. It ain't the police. Got it? Almost every other cop on that thread understood that - even those who are often quick to state that they "don't know all of the facts". There was enough information given to develop a reasonably informed opinion. You clearly have one, it is simply different than that of the majority of posters on this topic.

You ignored my points and those of the other posters, yet added nothing coherent to these threads of your own, and in your frustration to getting no answer (that you recognize) to your nonsensical ramblings, you call ME obtuse?! :animlol: :rofl:

Note that the cop had NO LEGAL AUTHORITY to arrest. If that was old info. you should have been aware of it and your own question would be answered ("What happened on that scene?") So where could the cop have been even slightly in the right? Nowhere - I'll answer it for you. His job is to enforce the law, yet he chose to enforce his WILL.

THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED, since you still demand an answer that was already given. Any more questions since you seem too dense to figure this one out on your own?

MissAmericanPie
02-19-2008, 20:15
And Jester, I really do not care what questions YOU have been asking me. You did not dictate the topic of the other thread. Note that most of the posts had some experiential offerings. THAT is what dictated the direction of the thread. NOT YOU.

CW Mock
02-19-2008, 22:48
Jeeze ...

What the heck can I add to this mess?

He got exactly what he asked for when he made his move. The End.

shibby575
02-20-2008, 06:55
HEHE All i Know if a guy like that pulled some **** with the crew I work with, that cop would have had his hands full. That bieng said we almost always get along with police and work hand in hand with them. I have tons of cop buddies, they know as well as everyone else when they're wrong and that was dead ****ing wrong. I'm not sure I like the lawsuit thing, it should have been handled, like men over a beer or behind the engine house after work then have a beer afterwards. Sometimes people get their pantys in a bind, and have anxiety issues, that leads to the loaded court system wasting time when they could be prosecuting real criminals.

kimberguy2004
02-20-2008, 07:57
It's just another cop with an ego problem. What else can you say. He should have lost his badge. We have too many idiots walking around flashing badges and weapons, and looking for that next head to crack..

CW Mock
02-20-2008, 14:37
It's just another cop with an ego problem. What else can you say. He should have lost his badge. We have too many idiots walking around flashing badges and weapons, and looking for that next head to crack..

:upeyes:

DTLarson
02-20-2008, 17:49
Jester249, since when has not having all the facts and inferring some things been a problem for you, or are you just a hypocrite?

These are posts from you:
____________________________________________
Something tells me the good sergeant won't have to work, or worry about money ever again. It also sounds like the town will be getting a new name: "Necolettosville", because he's going to own it!
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=819483

You had come up with that comment just form the article. What if there was something important he didn't mention and the town won't mention, what if? Do you have all the information? Were you there for everything, or did you use an educated guess and infer some things?
_____________________________________________
Well, there are a few of us, who can shoot.

Seems to me, the cops were out gunned, by the vehicle and still got the job done! Well done guys, well done!
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=816346

Another assumption. Just from an article this time. No video.

gruntmedik
02-20-2008, 18:09
Can't we all just get along??? :rofl:

MissAmericanPie
02-20-2008, 19:24
It's just another cop with an ego problem. What else can you say. He should have lost his badge. We have too many idiots walking around flashing badges and weapons, and looking for that next head to crack..

Actually we have very few. A few, but very few.

There are plenty of egos to go around in all professions, however, this guy's was quite easily bruised.

And to the other poster about the beer....yes, I agree.

Ankeny
02-20-2008, 19:26
Can't we all just get along??? There's the problem, be it in the field or on-line.

FastJuice
02-20-2008, 20:32
I don't have a dog in this fight, but it appears that both parties overacted in different ways.
Just to act as devils advocate here, the dash cam clearly shows that the officers car was positioned to block the outside lane. The number of people on scene would indicate other emergency vehicles were also on scene blocking traffic behind and alongside the officers car. The dash cam doesn't show the traffic situation of oncoming traffic behind those vehicles. The truck pulled alongside of the police car and blocks off yet another lane of traffic on the freeway.

It would occur to most, as it did the officer, that blocking another lane of freeway traffic would only increase the likelihood of cars rear-ending an emergency vehicle, or splitting traffic, causing a car to hit responders on scene.

The officer was most likely trying to avoid unnecessary catastrophe. It appears as if he tells the driver to relocate the truck but the chief orders the driver to stay. A battle of wills ensue and eventually the officer controls the scene by putting the chief on the sidelines. The chief loses to officer force, so he sues.

We'll probably never know why the judge sides with the chief, but then again, we never heard the testimony.

DTLarson
02-20-2008, 20:46
Check out this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slAfw1KZft4

Would you rather have a 3000-4000 pound car or a 44,000 pound firetruck blocking the traffic?

hotpig
02-20-2008, 21:30
FastJuice


The best thing would have been the pumper sitting some what side ways in the patrol cars lane and the lane that it was parked in. The other lane needed to be blocked because rescue workers were dangerously close to it during extraction.

The Police car is not the best thing for blocking traffic on 270. It is a little better than traffic cones but thats about it.

I will admit that I drive fast on 270 but you have to to keep up with the flow.

MissAmericanPie
02-21-2008, 22:52
I don't have a dog in this fight, but it appears that both parties overacted in different ways.
Just to act as devils advocate here, the dash cam clearly shows that the officers car was positioned to block the outside lane. The number of people on scene would indicate other emergency vehicles were also on scene blocking traffic behind and alongside the officers car. The dash cam doesn't show the traffic situation of oncoming traffic behind those vehicles. The truck pulled alongside of the police car and blocks off yet another lane of traffic on the freeway.

It would occur to most, as it did the officer, that blocking another lane of freeway traffic would only increase the likelihood of cars rear-ending an emergency vehicle, or splitting traffic, causing a car to hit responders on scene.

The officer was most likely trying to avoid unnecessary catastrophe. It appears as if he tells the driver to relocate the truck but the chief orders the driver to stay. A battle of wills ensue and eventually the officer controls the scene by putting the chief on the sidelines. The chief loses to officer force, so he sues.

We'll probably never know why the judge sides with the chief, but then again, we never heard the testimony.


He didn't lose to "officer force". The law does not give the officer the authority to arrest him for the alleged offense. It wasn't in violation of any law. That is likely why the judge "sides with the" captain.

And it is not generally an officer's scene to control until the patient is transported.

Jester249
02-23-2008, 14:29
Jester249, since when has not having all the facts and inferring some things been a problem for you, or are you just a hypocrite?

These are posts from you:
____________________________________________
Something tells me the good sergeant won't have to work, or worry about money ever again. It also sounds like the town will be getting a new name: "Necolettosville", because he's going to own it!
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=819483

You had come up with that comment just form the article. What if there was something important he didn't mention and the town won't mention, what if? Do you have all the information? Were you there for everything, or did you use an educated guess and infer some things?
_____________________________________________
Well, there are a few of us, who can shoot.

Seems to me, the cops were out gunned, by the vehicle and still got the job done! Well done guys, well done!
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=816346

Another assumption. Just from an article this time. No video.



Yeah, how dare I!!!:upeyes:

paul1973
02-23-2008, 20:46
Wrong forum

emtp2rn
02-25-2008, 00:52
I've watched this stew on CT and EMS Talk for a couple days so I'm going to put my 2cents in on how this would go in Michigan.

I see it as two issues:

(1) Did the Fire Department have the right to park the truck where they did:

(2) Who is in control of the scene.

First and foremost Michigan PA-300 gives the following authority to any emergency vehicle including volunteer public safety POV's. By this statute if in Michigan the Fire Department can park where ever they want.


Michigan Vehicle Code, Sec. 603, supra, which, in pertinent, part provides:

'(b) The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle when responding to an emergency call, but not while returning from an emergency call, may exercise the privileges set forth in this section, subject to the conditions of this section.

'(c) The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle may:

'(1) Park or stand, irrespective of the provisions of this act.

'(2) Proceed past a red or stop signal or stop sign, but only after slowing down as may be necessary for safe operation.

'(3) Exceed the prima facie speed limits so long as he does not endanger life or property.

'(4) Disregard regulations governing direction or movement or turning in specified direction.

'(d) The exemptions granted in this section to an authorized emergency vehicle shall apply only when the driver of the vehicle while in motion sounds an audible signal by bell, siren, air horn, or exhaust whistle as may be reasonably necessary except as provided in subsection (e), and when the vehicle is equipped with at least 1 lighted lamp displaying a flashing, oscillating, or rotating red or blue light . . .' [Emphasis added.]


Onto question (2) of who is in charge:

I'm trying to find the laws to support what I'm about to say but here is how it has always worked in my county.

In michigan we have police, fire, and private ambulance. Police often are MFR's, and fire is often fire/ems.

If it is a medical scene as indicated by having a patient to treat the Senior most person (Rank or years licensed) with the highest medical licensure is in charge of the scene until the last patient is removed.

Once the patient is removed then it is either a fire or LEO scene depending on the situation.

In this instance we don't know if the Capt was a paramedic or not, but if he was in Michigan unless there was a battalion chief present the captain was the guy in charge of patient care regardless if he ever touched the patient.

There may be some legal (criminal) / license exposure for the officer. If the Capt was indeed the guy in charge of patient care the police officer may be culpable on an obstruction charge. If he was an MFR he could be hauled before the licensing board


MCL 333.20967 If an emergency has been declared, the declaration that an emergency no longer exists shall be made only by a licensed EMS
provider or a licensed health professional having training specific to the provision of emergency medical services in accordance
with protocols established by the local medical control authority.


As to the point of using a police cruiser for blocking versus a fire truck, I'll take a fire truck any day of the week. More protection if we take a hit.

In Michigan we have an Emergency Vehicle yield law that if an emergnecy vehicle is present traffic, where possible, must move over at least one lane to ensure emergency personnel safety. Ottawa County Sheriff's department in Michigan did a sting on this law within the last year on I-196. They had a bait patrol car doing fake traffic stops and then had chase cars pulling people over for not moving over. The patrol car took a semi up the back side and the deputy was injured. I tried to find the story via google but no such luck.

People have said that they have scene multiple secondary accidents after an accident because traffic was backing up. I've not had that experience. Mine has been that rubber neckers cause the secondary accidents and if traffic had not been allowed to speed back up again some of those accidents might not have happened.

In the end, was the officer wrong. yep a judge/jury said so. Could the officer have been punished even further criminally or possibly being terminated, yep. Did he get off lucky yep. Did his prior bad acts (record) hurt him, yep. He was treated no better or worse then any other defendant in court. He was just lucky that it was on the civil side. An 18k bill sucks, but if he lost his job or went to jail he would really be sorry.

I also suspect there is more to this story that we don't know.

Unless the fire captain was a complete jerk I can't imagine the capt. using the law suit as his first line of recourse. I would have hoped that he would have went to the brass at the PD first.

I would hope that the Capt. didn't use the money he won for personal gain. To me if he wants the true "moral" victory he should donate the money (minus lawyer fees) to a good cause or benevolence fund. If he doesn't it makes me feel that he was opportunistic and greedy.

Thankfully in my area the cops, fire, and EMS have a fairly good relationship and this kind of thing would be taken care of out of school or in an office at the PD or Fire Dept.

betyourlife
02-25-2008, 01:28
:):):):):)

............

betyourlife
02-25-2008, 01:40
"This is one of the most interesting threads, I've ever read.

The cop on the video is 100% wrong. Inexcusable and absolutely wrong.

Not only is he wrong, but the guy is a moron. This is right up there with the "hmm, I think this guy in the wheelchair is faking...lets dump him on his face and find out..."

The cops trying to defend this guy sound like petty drug dealers that are caught and are trying to quibble "well, it was just a little pot..."

Anyone ever appreciate the concept of personal responsibility? Being accountable for your actions rather than dishing it off on the policeman's union or the city or BS excuse about what you didn't see on the tape?

He was crying because he was put in handcuffs and the back seat of a cruiser for half an hour, so what. I don't condone the conduct of the officer, I don't even know the facts of that particular case, he might have been wrong or right, that's not the point. I don't think the fireman was beaten with a stick and raped by the officer.

No, if the guy was beaten with a stick and raped by the cop, the cop probably would have gone to jail for a few decades and the city would have been paying out a 7 figure amount. 18k is a slap on the wrist and a gentle reminder to maybe review the US constitution before returning to work with particular emphasis on the 4th amendment.

He didn't have to sue the agency or the officer for a personal economic benefit.

No, but the cop didn't have to take his personal initiative and place his personal handcuffs on the guy, and place him in the back of his personal G-ride.

This is how it works in the real world. If you do something stupid, you have to be accountable personally for your actions. Nothing like the exclamation point on a dispute like forcing the other party to write out a check to you.

Next time you feel like being a moron, think about how much it might cost you. I don't see how personal economic benefit is a bad thing.


A formal complaint that made the officer get a reprimand, suspension or other punishment is the example needed, not money for his new car. I stand by what I said, that guy is a loser.

Formal complaints are a joke. Cops are never wrong in their eyes as this thread indicates. Why not get an impartial 3rd party (ie. judge) to determine if the behavior was unreasonable (which it apparently was) and to assess any damages. When was the last time a cop was forced to pay someone they abused?

BTW, as I stated before I have great respect for firefighters, but this is bullcrap.

It is called law enforcement in action. Don't cops always say tell it to the judge? This guy did, and the cop got smacked down. Wearing a badge isn't a license to be stupid.

Getting monetary compensation, PERSONAL compensation, instead of punishment for the officer's actions is for pusssies.

I can't think of anything more punishing than forcing an adverse party to fork over their cash after publicly humiliating them in court.

Be an adult and be accountable for your actions."

This about sums it up missamericanpie. This was posted over on Cop Talk. It was his first post. He immediately saw right and wrong on BOTH sides. Something I chose NOT to do and you are unable to do......get it? Never mind, I already answered that.


I like this post, especially this part

Wearing a badge isn't a license to be stupid.

Da-Squad
02-25-2008, 05:27
EMTP2RN>>> Very well said!

Tvov
02-25-2008, 06:31
In Connecticut, fortunately, it is simple. If the Fire Department is called, for whatever reason, the FD is in charge. The FD stays in charge until they hand over command of the scene to someone else (PD, or whoever) or declare that the incident is over and are returning to quarters.

Jester249
02-26-2008, 18:11
"I have been staying out of this conversation, but that's a legitimate question so here goes.

In my jurisdiction, Incident Command responsibility falls to the fire service from the minute we are dispatched. Command responsibility is maintained by the fire department until the emergency is over. As IC, I have always considered LEOs to be an indispensible resource and the last thing I want is a pissing match, period. I could waste a ton on bandwidth on my soapbox, but I'll keep it short.

I have no way of knowing what happend at that incident so anything I add is pure speculation. I have almost 30 years in the fire service, half of that wearing a white helmet. My guess is one of three things happened.

1. Cop meets butthole Captain.
2. Captain meets butthole Cop.
3. Butthole meets butthole.

I can honestly say I have seen the fire service pull some stupid stuff. Likewise, I have seen some pretty ignorant stuff pulled by LEOs. But handcuffs and a law suit? What an embarrassment to all of us."


From another post on Cop Talk. Strange.....but another person, with experience that doesn't know what happened. How can this be?

paul1973
02-26-2008, 19:42
Do you have the original box for this?

Tvov
02-27-2008, 05:17
Do you have the original box for this?

??? Okay, you got me! What are you talking about?