# FF fired for going straight to scene



## OfficerEvenEMT (Nov 21, 2012)

http://statter911.com/2012/11/21/on...-on-probation-for-violating-department-rules/



> Former Columbia Township, Michigan on-call firefighter Michael Freislinger told WOOD-TV the night of a deadly crash where a woman and two children died he “was not acting as a firefighter” when he went to the scene. He claims he was a just a good Samaritan who happened to hear of the accident on his scanner and went to help out law enforcement or medics in any way he could. Freislinger says he didn’t have any gear with him.



Thoughts? When does is it to do the right thing instead of the rules-based thing?


----------



## VFlutter (Nov 21, 2012)

It sounds like the fire department wanted to fire him and this was just an excuse to do it. He was already on probation for violating policy. And as he said, he has responded to calls personally before. So it sounds like he was an ongoing problem for the department. 

Also, I am confused. The article says he was on-call but he is trying to argue he was not acting as part of the fire department but rather as a good Samaritan? If your on-call, and respond to an accident, then that sounds like you are acting as part of the department.


----------



## Anjel (Nov 21, 2012)

He was on call. But didn't get the call. 

So he is saying because he wasn't dispatched, he was acting as a good Samaritan. 

Maybe this can serve as a warning to all the whackers who think its cool to drive around with a scanner and a jump bag, and try and jump calls. 

Get a job, do your job, go home, enjoy life.


----------



## OfficerEvenEMT (Nov 21, 2012)

Anjel1030 said:


> He was on call. But didn't get the call.
> 
> So he is saying because he wasn't dispatched, he was acting as a good Samaritan.
> 
> ...



It's an interesting assessment. Whackers seem to be a problem in some areas but not in any I've been involved with. The article says he didn't have any equipment and no jump bag.


----------



## zmedic (Nov 21, 2012)

I think when you are monitoring a radio scanner it's much harder to argue that you are "just a good samaritan." It's basically the same as being notified by pager, or carrying a department radio. Furthermore, someone who is a firefighter should know that you can't do much on scene without medical equipment or protective gear. 

I back firing the guy. It's one thing to see a wreck in front of your house or when driving by and stopping to help. It's another to go to the scene. The only exception might be if you had to physically drive past the accident to get to the firehouse. Just from a public relations standpoint it wouldn't look very good having someone go lights and sirens past a wreck when no one is on scene yet.


----------



## DrParasite (Nov 21, 2012)

only the chief, asst chief, and captain can go to the scene.  he has no equipment. he heard the call on the scanner and jumped it.  he was not acting as a firefighter.

if he isn't an EMT or paramedic, and he has no equipment, he has no reason to be on the scene, especially if he wasn't dispatched or requested to be there

fire him.


----------



## Achilles (Nov 21, 2012)

DrParasite said:


> only the chief, asst chief, and captain can go to the scene.
> 
> .


That's not true...


----------



## ffemt8978 (Nov 21, 2012)

Achilles said:


> That's not true...



It's straight from the article...


> Freislinger told reporter Ryan Takeo he is now considering legal action against the Columbia Township Fire Department for firing him for violating department protocal that only allows the chief, assistant chief and captain to go directly to the scene of an incident instead of the firehouse.



It may not be that way where you are, but it is that way where he was.


----------



## Farmer2DO (Nov 21, 2012)

It sounds to me like the officers are whackers as big as he is, if not bigger.  To fire a guy for helping out at an emergency scene?  I think they didn't like him and were looking for an excuse.  Sounds like the bosses are on a power trip, and feel they need to show their authority.

Doesn't sound like it should be an offense worth of termination to me.


----------



## Achilles (Nov 21, 2012)

ffemt8978 said:


> It's straight from the article...
> 
> 
> It may not be that way where you are, but it is that way where he was.



Ok let me rephrase. That's not alwasy true.


----------



## DrParasite (Nov 21, 2012)

OfficerEvenEMT said:


> Thoughts? When does is it to do the right thing instead of the rules-based thing?


Lets look at this another way...

neither her nor his department was wasn't dispatched to the scene.  he was acting as a random civilian.  he heard a back wreck on the scanner, and decided to help out.  If this is to be permitted, should we let anyone with a scanner who hears a back wreck just come down to help out?  I can't speak about anyone else, but we have law enforcement remove these people from scenes.


it's one thing if he stops at the scene on the way to the firehouse.  that's the right thing to do. it's another to hear a back call on a scanner and go to "help out."

He has no EMS training, no equipment, he even said all he was going to do was do CPR or traffic control.  and the cops and the medics were already there.

the rules exist for a reason.  I don't want any untrained off duty responders hearing the call is bad on a scanner and "helping out" when I am on a call; that makes them just another liability that I have to worry about.  If I need more help, I can call for it, and the people on the other ambulances or fire trucks will show up.

I stand my original opinion.  He broke the rules, and had no reason to be at that scene.  He deserves to be fired.


----------



## VFlutter (Nov 21, 2012)

Does it mention anywhere in the article what his medical level of training is? All I heard was "CPR certified" which makes me wonder if he is even an EMT.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Nov 21, 2012)

So let me toss out another "What if" here.

Who would have paid his medical bills if he had been injured on scene?  

Who is liable if screws up?  Does any of us really believe if he did something on scene that injured or killed a patient he would be claiming sole responsibility and his department wouldn't get sued?


----------



## Cleric (Nov 22, 2012)

I think the most appropriate method of responding is to only do it if you can get there in seconds, before anybody else. That is, if you see the accident happen or happen to hear a call to a scene only a block away. Even then, the only appropriate actions would be to provide immediate life-saving care such as CPR or applying tourniquets, but once the on-duty responders arrive, it is irresponsible to be the puppy tailing along saying "Hey! I'm an off-duty FF with no gear and a basic EMT cert! What can I do!" Once the on-duty responders show, you should give them any important info, hand off the chest compressions, and leave. Exceptions of course for mass casualty events.


----------



## Medic Tim (Nov 22, 2012)

Cleric said:


> I think the most appropriate method of responding is to only do it if you can get there in seconds, before anybody else. That is, if you see the accident happen or happen to hear a call to a scene only a block away. Even then, the only appropriate actions would be to provide immediate life-saving care such as CPR or applying tourniquets, but once the on-duty responders arrive, it is irresponsible to be the puppy tailing along saying "Hey! I'm an off-duty FF with no gear and a basic EMT cert! What can I do!" Once the on-duty responders show, you should give them any important info, hand off the chest compressions, and leave. Exceptions of course for mass casualty events.



self deploying to a "dispatch" has bad news written all over it...even if it is just down the road. This is very different from coming across something and helping until the duty crews arrive.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Nov 22, 2012)

Medic Tim said:


> self deploying to a "dispatch" has bad news written all over it...even if it is just down the road. This is very different from coming across something and helping until the duty crews arrive.



It is also different that being officially dispatched and stopping because you would have to pass the scene to get to the station.


----------



## Medic Tim (Nov 22, 2012)

ffemt8978 said:


> It is also different that being officially dispatched and stopping because you would have to pass the scene to get to the station.



agreed


----------



## OfficerEvenEMT (Nov 22, 2012)

DrParasite said:


> Lets look at this another way...
> 
> neither her nor his department was wasn't dispatched to the scene.  he was acting as a random civilian.  he heard a back wreck on the scanner, and decided to help out.  If this is to be permitted, should we let anyone with a scanner who hears a back wreck just come down to help out?  I can't speak about anyone else, but we have law enforcement remove these people from scenes.
> 
> ...




If you work as a plumber and it's a weekend where you aren't working and stop to help at an accident scene should your boss be able to fire you?


----------



## VFlutter (Nov 22, 2012)

OfficerEvenEMT said:


> If you work as a plumber and it's a weekend where you aren't working and stop to help at an accident scene should your boss be able to fire you?



Are you talking about a MVA or some type of plumbing accident?


----------



## Akulahawk (Nov 22, 2012)

Generally speaking, I support the firing of this guy. He self responded to a call that he heard on the scanner, even though he was off-duty at the time, and knew that adequate resources were on the way. I can understand himself responding if he had some equipment with him to assist, but he had none. In my opinion, he should have left well enough alone, stayed away.

I have responded to incidents in the past as a Good Samaritan, however, it was always incidents that I was able to see and I had equipment available and I was typically on the phone calling it in as I was rolling to it. Generally speaking, if I know of an incident happening, I try to avoid it because it can result in traffic snarls that I would rather avoid.

About the only reason I might "jump a call" would be if it is less than a couple of blocks away, and I know that first responders are going to be delayed and I have equipment available to assist that is appropriate. In this area, such incidents never happen. Furthermore, it would never occur where I would be a member of the responding agency, therefore, I would truly be a Good Samaritan, and would not seek any compensation for the response. I would not be on the clock in any way, shape or form. If I got hurt, it would be completely on me.

This guy did effectively none of the above. He was a member of the responding agency, apparently, and decided to jump the call, because he could. He deserves to be fired, barring some supremely extenuating circumstances, that has not yet been reported that we do not know about.


----------



## DrParasite (Nov 22, 2012)

OfficerEvenEMT said:


> If you work as a plumber and it's a weekend where you aren't working and stop to help at an accident scene should your boss be able to fire you?


Fair enough.  the argument isn't that he broke the department's rules, but rather he responded as a civilian, and as such, the rules don't apply to him.  I guess the deciding factor will be did he identify himself as a firefighter on the scene, or just a helpful bystander?  an interesting defense.  

But if he is just a civilian, than 





OfficerEvenEMT said:


> When does is it to do the right thing instead of the rules-based thing?


you support his actions?  you think it's right that a civilian can jump the call on a scanner?  do you want to encourage scanner buffs with no training showing up at bad scenes, because "it's the right thing?"

That might be a technical defense.  It might even be a valid one.  I still think the department is better off without him, and for the betterment of the department, think the firing was justified.


----------



## OfficerEvenEMT (Nov 22, 2012)

DrParasite said:


> Fair enough.  the argument isn't that he broke the department's rules, but rather he responded as a civilian, and as such, the rules don't apply to him.  I guess the deciding factor will be did he identify himself as a firefighter on the scene, or just a helpful bystander?  an interesting defense.
> 
> But if he is just a civilian, than you support his actions?  you think it's right that a civilian can jump the call on a scanner?  do you want to encourage scanner buffs with no training showing up at bad scenes, because "it's the right thing?"
> 
> That might be a technical defense.  It might even be a valid one.  I still think the department is better off without him, and for the betterment of the department, think the firing was justified.




I do not support his actions. It sounds to me that he's a whacker. I don't know anyone who isn't a whacker who listens to a scanner when off-duty. I am just playing Devil's Advocate because he seems like a good guy who doesn't have a bad bone in his body.


----------



## Hunter (Nov 22, 2012)

OfficerEvenEMT said:


> If you work as a plumber and it's a weekend where you aren't working and stop to help at an accident scene should your boss be able to fire you?



If your at a coffee shop and someones complaining to someone else about a pluming problem and you go break in (without any of your equipment) and fix it, how good of a job will you be doing and should you be arrested for a BnA? That's a terrible comparison.
 First of all this guy should know better than to show up to a scene on his own, he was CPR trained and has been working for the fire department for more than just a week so he should know better. Secondly he's already on probation for breaking other department policies, which shows he has a history of disregarding the rules.

      One of the biggest problems during 9/11 was that a lot of people drove straight to the twin towers to help, on duty and off duty, ambulance and fire fighters who weren't dispatched. Clogging up traffic, going to the wrong areas, ect. if he really wanted to help he should have gone to his fire house and seen where they needed him and if he was needed at  THAT accident he would've been sent there WITH equipment. He was On Call which means if they had called him and needed him for say a fire somewhere else in town he wouldn't have been available to help. I don't know what other problems he's had in the past so i can't say on weather or not he should be fired or not, but he should be disciplined.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Nov 22, 2012)

If he was truly "on-call" then he is subject to department regulations in responding - and he violated them while on probation.  Not to mention, how many departments actually dispatch via scanner?  Everyone I've ever seen uses radios or pagers to dispatch.

If he was not on-call, then he's no different than anybody else listening to calls on the scanner and responding to the scene - he had absolutely no business being there.


----------



## OfficerEvenEMT (Nov 22, 2012)

ffemt8978 said:


> If he was truly "on-call" then he is subject to department regulations in responding - and he violated them while on probation.  Not to mention, how many departments actually dispatch via scanner?  Everyone I've ever seen uses radios or pagers to dispatch.
> 
> If he was not on-call, then he's no different than anybody else listening to calls on the scanner and responding to the scene - he had absolutely no business being there.




True on both counts.


----------



## King Wasabi (Nov 22, 2012)

DrParasite said:


> Lets look at this another way...
> 
> neither her nor his department was wasn't dispatched to the scene.  he was acting as a random civilian.  he heard a back wreck on the scanner, and decided to help out.  If this is to be permitted, should we let anyone with a scanner who hears a back wreck just come down to help out?  I can't speak about anyone else, but we have law enforcement remove these people from scenes.
> 
> ...



could not agree with you more, to add to what you said,
I read he was on duty and 9 miles away from the station if there was any grey area in were he should respond to, could have he called his supervisor/officer? the whole deal sounds real silly.
and shows he does not no much by saying he could help do CPR. . .
if he was off duty and crusin down the rd., first on scene, much different case.


----------



## Tigger (Nov 22, 2012)

Cleric said:


> I think the most appropriate method of responding is to only do it if you can get there in seconds, before anybody else. That is, if you see the accident happen or happen to hear a call to a scene only a block away. Even then, the only appropriate actions would be to provide immediate life-saving care such as CPR or applying tourniquets, but once the on-duty responders arrive, it is irresponsible to be the puppy tailing along saying "Hey! I'm an off-duty FF with no gear and a basic EMT cert! What can I do!" Once the on-duty responders show, you should give them any important info, hand off the chest compressions, and leave. *NO* Exceptions of course for mass casualty events.



Fixed that for you. MCIs do not change the game. Self-dispatching is always a no no.


----------

