# Officer points gun at firefighter responding to a call



## MagicTyler (Nov 9, 2012)

http://www.ems1.com/safety/articles/1365208-Video-Cop-draws-gun-on-responding-firefighter/

Don't mean for this to turn into a POV lights/siren argument. Based on the article, its hard to see things from the cop's point of view. Seems like he just didn't want to stop the "pursuit".


----------



## TransportJockey (Nov 9, 2012)

Actually I can very easily see it from the cops view. Running hot in a POV (which is a dumb idea anyway) to an alpha level call? If the LEO heard an alpha level call he can assume that if it's required to run cold to the station for apparatus, and that there might be someone impersonating a police officer. I say he was in the right. the FF was in the wrong


----------



## STXmedic (Nov 9, 2012)

Exactly what TJ said.


----------



## medic417 (Nov 9, 2012)

Never thought I would agree with the transport jockey but I do this time.  The whacker needs to drop his lawsuit and be thankful he's not in jail.


----------



## Medic Tim (Nov 9, 2012)

TransportJockey said:


> Actually I can very easily see it from the cops view. Running hot in a POV (which is a dumb idea anyway) to an alpha level call? If the LEO heard an alpha level call he can assume that if it's required to run cold to the station for apparatus, and that there might be someone impersonating a police officer. I say he was in the right. the FF was in the wrong



On top of that the pov was a charger with a push bumper and spotlight. I can see how the cop thought this guy might be the person they were looking for. I bet the cop would hve pulled him over regardless seeing as his car looks like a cop car.


----------



## patput (Nov 9, 2012)

TransportJockey said:


> Actually I can very easily see it from the cops view. Running hot in a POV (which is a dumb idea anyway) to an alpha level call? If the LEO heard an alpha level call he can assume that if it's required to run cold to the station for apparatus, and that there might be someone impersonating a police officer. I say he was in the right. the FF was in the wrong



I'm not by any means saying that is something they should have been running L/S in a POV for, but in reading the article I can see how the FF thought he was in the clear. 



> Dean said he didn't pull over because it is common for multiple vehicles to be responding to the same crisis. "I thought, 'We're heading to the same call.'"



I can understand that point, been there myself, granted in marked apparatus. Watching the video (I did have the sound muted so I could've missed something) the officer just appears to be following the POV. I could see how the FF could just assume that the officer was heading to the call as well. 



> Brooklyn firefighters are urged to use their own discretion in determining how quickly to respond to information given out on a call, Mortensen said. The refrigerator fire was minor only because firefighters extinguished it before it spread, he said.
> 
> Dean responded to the call in a manner consistent with others, said Sarah Grapentine, Brooklyn's EMS training officer. Six of the eight other firefighters who responded that night also used lights and sirens, she said.



If that many others responded to the same call hot I can assume it's more or less the norm to do so there. Granted that doesn't make it right, but if thats what you're exposed to how would you know better.


----------



## OfficerEvenEMT (Nov 9, 2012)

As both an LEO and an EMT I place blame on both parties. The LEO had reasonable suspicion due to the impersonation issue, but it became very clear that the guy was part of the FD as he acknowledged to dispatch in the audio when they turned into the FD. The volunteer FF was very calm, very polite, and very reserved which I applaud him for. He had every expectation that the LEO was also headed to the same call which is reasonable. What isn't reasonable is the FF using lights and siren while headed to an alpha call. In the future the PD should monitor the FF radio to know when a call is coming in. This is what we call "cooperation".


----------



## mycrofft (Nov 9, 2012)

This whole thing smells like amateur time to me. Everyone is wrong, at least as the reporter describes it. But the press always gets it wrong.

ANd I for one am hereby declaring the use of the phrase "running hot" a dead giveaway you are a (whispered) WHACKER


----------



## TransportJockey (Nov 9, 2012)

mycrofft said:


> This whole thing smells like amateur time to me. Everyone is wrong, at least as the reporter describes it. But the press always gets it wrong.
> 
> ANd I for one am hereby declaring the use of the phrase "running hot" a dead giveaway you are a (whispered) WHACKER



Lol running hot is a regional term i think. Here it is common use for running code three


----------



## TransportJockey (Nov 9, 2012)

medic417 said:


> Never thought I would agree with the transport jockey but I do this time.  The whacker needs to drop his lawsuit and be thankful he's not in jail.



Hey you agreed with me before i changed my forum name way back when lol


----------



## Rialaigh (Nov 9, 2012)

patput said:


> I'm not by any means saying that is something they should have been running L/S in a POV for, but in reading the article I can see how the FF thought he was in the clear.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Not sure how common it is in other areas for LEO's to respond to Alpha level fire department calls...Around here if you thought  a cop was going to an "odor" call for the fire department...well..you hit your head

Here it would never happen, we can have half the world burning and we still need to call for traffic support.


----------



## lightsandsirens5 (Nov 9, 2012)

Rialaigh said:


> Not sure how common it is in other areas for LEO's to respond to Alpha level fire department calls...Around here if you thought  a cop was going to an "odor" call for the fire department...well..you hit your head
> 
> Here it would never happen, we can have half the world burning and we still need to call for traffic support.



Oh so true. I've asked for cops before on major, major fires and had dispatch say that SO dispatch wants to know why we want them. Lol! 

Also, we use running hot up here also as a substitute for Code 3 or P1.


----------



## socalmedic (Nov 9, 2012)

TransportJockey said:


> Hey you agreed with me before i changed my forum name way back when lol



JT is dead to us, DEAD!


----------



## patput (Nov 9, 2012)

Rialaigh said:


> Not sure how common it is in other areas for LEO's to respond to Alpha level fire department calls...Around here if you thought  a cop was going to an "odor" call for the fire department...well..you hit your head
> 
> Here it would never happen, we can have half the world burning and we still need to call for traffic support.



Responding for an odor call would be a little out of place, but we end up with law on scene for a good majority of our calls around here. I would say upwards of 75 to 80 percent. 

Running hot is used here just like running code is in other areas, pretty common.


----------



## TransportJockey (Nov 9, 2012)

socalmedic said:


> JT is dead to us, DEAD!



Lol not if you're dislexic


----------



## Farmer2DO (Nov 10, 2012)

No.  The cop was way out of line here.

What in the hell justifies him going 100 mph?  He had no evidence of a crime.  No one was being assaulted, murdered, or kidnapped.  That right there makes him unsafe to be on the streets.  He had NO business going that fast.

Second, if the red lights were authorized by his organization, that makes him an emergency vehicle in Wisconsin.  The law actually says that if he's responding to an emergency call, the use is appropriate.  If the police department has an issue with how the fire department is interpreting the law, that's an issue for administration of the two agencies to deal with; not on the side of the road.

http://statutes.laws.com/wisconsin/347/347.25

Third, this guy had every right to believe they were going to the same emergency.  And as the law states, he was an emergency vehicle, responding to an emergency.

Fourth, this hero with a badge knew when he pulled in to THE FIREHOUSE that the guy had legitimate volunteer plates, and that there were other members firing up the equipment.  Pulling his gun was purely out of anger that someone disobeyed him.  Common sense should say that this is a volunteer going to a call.  A cop better have a really, really good reason to pull their gun and aim it at someone.  They're supposed to be more level headed than that.  This guy is a loose cannon.  What if he had shot him?  How in the world could he justify that?

The cop escalated this situation needlessly.  He endangered lives without good reason.  100 mph chase and pointing his gun at someone's head because he's angry at him?  Bet your rear end I'd be suing too, and I'd do everything in my power to see this guy stripped of his badge.


----------



## Medic Tim (Nov 10, 2012)

Farmer2DO said:


> No.  The cop was way out of line here.
> 
> What in the hell justifies him going 100 mph?  He had no evidence of a crime.  No one was being assaulted, murdered, or kidnapped.  That right there makes him unsafe to be on the streets.  He had NO business going that fast.
> 
> ...




You definitely have some valid points among all the Leo hate. I agree the cop could have handled it better/different in several aspects though it should never have come to that (for a variety of reasons) THe guy broke department or whatever policy by even responding code. On top of that exceedingthe posted speed limit by 25-30 mph ( that is dangerous and reckless no matter who you are and what you are driving) Had he responded as he should have it wouldnt have been an issue. If the department doesn't follow the policy it needs to change or be enforced. As I noted in an earlier post I can understand why the officer thought this was the person pretending to be a cop.


----------



## usalsfyre (Nov 10, 2012)

The FF is stupid. From the questionable car to responding code to an odor call there are multiple levels of stupid here. That said, being stupid is, for the most part, not illegal. Apparently against department policy, but not illegal. 

The cop however, is dangerous. If he wants to know how the wrong people end up shot, this is a text book example. I don't know if he let catecholamine dump get the better of him, if he was angry and had an agenda, if he just wasn't thinking clearly or some other excuse for this idiocy. The fact is if he can't assess situations any better than this I seriously question if he needs to be running around with a badge and gun.

The fact is both sides need to let the matter drop and thank their lucky stars. The FF that he's alive to play Ricky Rescue another day and the officer that he's not facing a murder two or manslaughter charge. Of course considering small town politics surrounding the "heros" it's unlikely to happen.


----------



## medic417 (Nov 10, 2012)

TransportJockey said:


> Hey you agreed with me before i changed my forum name way back when lol



I don't know what in the paintball you are talking about.


----------



## Farmer2DO (Nov 10, 2012)

Medic Tim said:


> among all the Leo hate.



There's no LEO hate.  In fact, I tend to be a pretty conservative guy that almost always agrees with/backs up law enforcement.  I thank God every day that I have the police that work with me that I do.  I firmly believe that the vast majority of people that have run ins with the police deserve them.  And my children will grow up with respect for police, and to know that when they are told to do something by a police officer, they will do it and answer with "Yes sir".

What I have is outrage at a police officer that needlessly escalated a situation.  He pulled a gun when there was no need to.  He topped 100 mph for no known criminal activity.  When he was crossing the center line, while cresting one of those hills, what if he hit a minivan with mom and her 4 kids?  No amount of justifying could make it OK.

While I have respect for them, NO ONE deserves to have a gun pointed at their head with no violation of the law.  That's how people get killed.

The police force I work with has an administration that is apologetic for their justified actions.  They feel the need to cater to the Occupy protesters.  Here is the opposite.  The administration is backing up a cop that made some REALLY bad decisions.  They apparently feel that whatever they decide is right, because they're the police.  I don't go for that, at all.



> On top of that exceedingthe posted speed limit by 25-30 mph



As an emergency vehicle, authorized by his organization, he broke no law.  He was legally justified in speeding.



> If the department doesn't follow the policy it needs to change or be enforced.



I can agree with that.



> As I noted in an earlier post I can understand why the officer thought this was the person pretending to be a cop.



Up until he confirmed the guy's plate, and followed him into the fire department, and saw the other people there, opening doors and preparing for a response.  Then, his hot head brain should have kicked into rational mode and not pulled his damn gun.



usalsfyre said:


> The FF is stupid. From the questionable car



So we're going to rip on him for the type of car he has?  How does that matter in any way, shape or form?



> to responding code to an odor call



Which is apparently the standard procedure for the majority of the department.  Doesn't make him the problem.  



> Apparently against department policy



The department actually states "Brooklyn firefighters are urged to use their own discretion in determining how quickly to respond to information given out on a call".  It sounds like the police department is claiming one policy (which there is no evidence shown of) while the department is following a different policy.  



> The cop however, is dangerous. If he wants to know how the wrong people end up shot, this is a text book example. I don't know if he let catecholamine dump get the better of him, if he was angry and had an agenda, if he just wasn't thinking clearly or some other excuse for this idiocy. The fact is if he can't assess situations any better than this I seriously question if he needs to be running around with a badge and gun.



I agree completely.



> The fact is both sides need to let the matter drop



I have to disagree with you here.  The fourth amendment of the Constitution guarantees us the right to be secure in our person against unreasonable search and seizure.  I don't call having a gun pointed at your head secure in your person, when no crime has been committed.  The police officer is the one who's supposed to be level headed, and dealing with stressful situations, and his department and town are brushing the complaint aside.  I think the fire fighter has every right to follow through on this, with a lawsuit, if need be.


----------



## OfficerEvenEMT (Nov 10, 2012)

I don't think the LEO did anything very horrible by approaching the vehicle with his gun drawn. He wasn't angry, he was in control of his emotions, and he put it away once it was clear that the driver was a FF on the way to a call.


----------



## medic417 (Nov 10, 2012)

OfficerEvenEMT said:


> I don't think the LEO did anything very horrible by approaching the vehicle with his gun drawn. He wasn't angry, he was in control of his emotions, and he put it away once it was clear that the driver was a FF on the way to a call.



Exactly.  In rural areas where back up is a long time coming it is not unheard of officers approaching cars with guns out especially when the idiot appeared to be running.


----------



## OfficerEvenEMT (Nov 10, 2012)

medic417 said:


> Exactly.  In rural areas where back up is a long time coming it is not unheard of officers approaching cars with guns out especially when the idiot appeared to be running.



To be fair, however, I truly believe the FF when he said he thought the LEO was joining them on the call. That sometimes does happen.


----------



## krtemt (Nov 10, 2012)

First of all I think that the law suit is simply ridiculous. Coming from a criminal justice background going into volunteer fire/ems i can understand both sides of the story.

Lets start with the cop. He was already investigating a call about a black dodge charger that was impersonating a police officer. When he pulled the u-turn and began to accelerate he should of turned on his lights and sirens then, not when he gets close to the vehicle he passed. Secondly crossing the line while cresting a hill is a no no last I knew. great way to get yourself killed. following the ff thru town I would of turned off the siren when i noticed that the vehicle I was pursuing stopped speeding, started using turn signals, and stopping at stop signs. When they got to the fire station I agree with the police officers tactics a little bit. I wouldnt have told the suspect to get back into his vehicle, where he could potentially have access to a weapon, I would of had him lay on the ground. But he was wearing a shirt with what looked like a badge on the chest. I didnt see anything on the back of it saying he was a volunteer fire fighter. Which would lend credence to the officers assumption that he was the car from the call earlier. The cop did holster his weapon once he realized it was a fire fighter, but when he approached the car he did the right thing. Suspect was fleeing apprehension, failed to yield, Officers safety is the number one priorty. As for those of you saying but he pulled into a fire station, I have seen people running from the cops who did everything the ff did, pull into a hospital then take off running on foot.

Now for the ff. Running code/hot for a non emergency code is against his department policies. He is in a POV with what looked like a dash light. I am not sure what oregons law is for volunteers and having lights but in texas the pov needs to have 360 degree visibility for emergency lights. The lights have to be visible up to 300-500 hundred feet. Plus the firefighter needs to have displayed on his vehicle fireman, firefighter, or a departmental decal(thats from my chief). I did not see any of those on the ff vehicles. Lastly the ff was in a pov. I know my chief has stated, along with the DPS captain for my area, that even though our pov's are considered emergency vehicles in Texas if we do not yeild right of way for marked police officers then we are going to be in trouble, because at the end of the day we are still in our POVs. 



So with that said the blame falls on both the cop and the ff. Both parties acted in a way that is against the best interest of the public. Do I think things could of/should of been handled differently yes, do I think the fire fighter has a valid law suit, no. This is an internal matter for both agencies. Unless the cop was monitoring fire dept. radio channels then he would not of know about the fire call. He should be disciplined for initiating a pursuit without activating his warning equipment. The ff, and the entire department, needs to be disciplined if they are violating departmental policy by using lights and sirens for non emergency calls.


For those of you wondering I have been a volunteer firefighter for about 6 months and today is the first time I used my warning lights. I had a local SO get behind me running code and I did yield the right of way.


----------



## OfficerEvenEMT (Nov 10, 2012)

krtemt said:


> Now for the ff. Running code/hot for a non emergency code is against his department policies. He is in a POV with what looked like a dash light. I am not sure what oregons law is for volunteers and having lights but in texas the pov needs to have 360 degree visibility for emergency lights. The lights have to be visible up to 300-500 hundred feet. Plus the firefighter needs to have displayed on his vehicle fireman, firefighter, or a departmental decal(thats from my chief). I did not see any of those on the ff vehicles. Lastly the ff was in a pov. I know my chief has stated, along with the DPS captain for my area, that even though our pov's are considered emergency vehicles in Texas if we do not yeild right of way for marked police officers then we are going to be in trouble, because at the end of the day we are still in our POVs.



While your chief is likely correct regarding your jurisdiction it doesn't apply across the board. Without knowing more I would assume that the FF had his vehicle appropriately marked and had his flashing light correctly placed. Using the light while on a non-emergency call, however, is a no-no. What would have fixed this entire situation is for communication between LE and FD to be established. The LEO could have radioed into his dispatch and asked if there is a call-out for the FF in progress. That would have helped a lot.


----------



## MagicTyler (Nov 10, 2012)

I think there needs to be a policy so that police can communicate with any emergency vehicle. There should be a way for dispatch to contact the vehicle based on the plates.


----------



## OfficerEvenEMT (Nov 11, 2012)

MagicTyler said:


> I think there needs to be a policy so that police can communicate with any emergency vehicle. There should be a way for dispatch to contact the vehicle based on the plates.



Agreed. He was able to see the plates during the chase and radioed that to his control. They could have easily punched it into a computer and seen it was registered to a FF and also been able to report that there was a call-up in progress. The fact that this is 2012 and isn't happening is a very bad thing.


----------



## MMiz (Nov 11, 2012)

OfficerEvenEMT said:


> Agreed. He was able to see the plates during the chase and radioed that to his control. They could have easily punched it into a computer and seen it was registered to a FF and also been able to report that there was a call-up in progress. The fact that this is 2012 and isn't happening is a very bad thing.


Maybe you have some amazing dispatchers where you work.  I thought ours were pretty stellar, and they had lots of fancy equipment, but it is my experience that working with multiple agencies simultaneously isn't as easy as flipping on a radio or punching something into a computer.

I can't find error in how the officer acted.  He was provided information about a criminal suspect driving a similar car, attempted to stop the fire fighter, the fire fighter continued to the fire house where the officer approached the car as if the driver was a typical suspect.

What I can't understand is how both of them couldn't put this behind them.  I'm not sure anyone is served by the fire fighter filing a $50,000 claim over the incident.


----------



## OfficerEvenEMT (Nov 11, 2012)

MMiz said:


> Maybe you have some amazing dispatchers where you work.  I thought ours were pretty stellar, and they had lots of fancy equipment, but it is my experience that working with multiple agencies simultaneously isn't as easy as flipping on a radio or punching something into a computer.
> 
> I can't find error in how the officer acted.  He was provided information about a criminal suspect driving a similar car, attempted to stop the fire fighter, the fire fighter continued to the fire house where the officer approached the car as if the driver was a typical suspect.
> 
> What I can't understand is how both of them couldn't put this behind them.  I'm not sure anyone is served by the fire fighter filing a $50,000 claim over the incident.



I realize that it isn't happening, which is the sad part. It's 2012. When you walk into the control/dispatch of my department you see wall to wall computers, radios, boards with flashing lights, etc. It simply shouldn't be this hard for a rural area that likely has a low EMS/FD call volume to coordinate with LE. They each build their systems as isolated silos and don't even consider that they need to work together. It's pathetic.

The LEO didn't do much in the way of error. Neither did the FF for that matter. Neither had any criminal intent, mens rea as they called it in the academy. Is there strict liability for not stopping for a LEO with lights/sirens on while you are responding to an EMS/FD call? I'm not sure- that's a question for a lawyer and judge. All I can say if that this could have been severely deescalated had the LEO made a call to dispatch and dispatch being aware of what's happening in their county. Being unaware of what's happening in your county when you are a dispatcher ought to be criminal.


----------



## medic417 (Nov 11, 2012)

OfficerEvenEMT said:


> To be fair, however, I truly believe the FF when he said he thought the LEO was joining them on the call. That sometimes does happen.



Whether you believe him or not he broke the law by failing to pull over.  He at that point is a criminal until proved otherwise.  He should be glad his tires didn't get shot out.  If he was legit he should have been able to call dispatch to patch through to the cop and let him know he was responding to a call..


----------



## lightsandsirens5 (Nov 11, 2012)

OfficerEvenEMT said:


> Being unaware of what's happening in your county when you are a dispatcher ought to be criminal.




Oh how I wish it was.....


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Nov 11, 2012)

medic417 said:


> Whether you believe him or not he broke the law by failing to pull over.  He at that point is a criminal until proved otherwise.  He should be glad his tires didn't get shot out.  If he was legit he should have been able to call dispatch to patch through to the cop and let him know he was responding to a call..



If I have PD following me (or any emergency vehicle) as I am going code, I don't pull over and I don't contact dispatch.


----------



## medic417 (Nov 11, 2012)

firefite said:


> If I have PD following me (or any emergency vehicle) as I am going code, I don't pull over and I don't contact dispatch.



Perhaps some day you will make the news so we can discuss your arrogance to. 

When in a pov all it takes is quick radio or cell call to dispatch to clear things up.    I hope the cop counter sues for the mental trauma caused by having to drive fast which put him in danger.


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Nov 11, 2012)

medic417 said:


> Perhaps some day you will make the news so we can discuss your arrogance to.
> 
> When in a pov all it takes is quick radio or cell call to dispatch to clear things up.    I hope the cop counter sues for the mental trauma caused by having to drive fast which put him in danger.



Arrogance? EVOC training for the company says if we are going code 3 and there is someone else going code behind us do not pull over. If they need to pass you then they will pass you. 

PD does this extremely often and there are no issues. Fire department does not usually pass us.


----------



## medic417 (Nov 11, 2012)

firefite said:


> Arrogance? EVOC training for the company says if we are going code 3 and there is someone else going code behind us do not pull over. If they need to pass you then they will pass you.
> 
> PD does this extremely often and there are no issues. Fire department does not usually pass us.



You in your pov?  If not doesn't apply this discussion.  If yes then your service has misapplied what evoc trains.


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Nov 11, 2012)

medic417 said:


> You in your pov?  If not doesn't apply this discussion.  If yes then your service has misapplied what evoc trains.



Not in POV. Just stating that when going code we don't pull over for PD.


----------



## medic417 (Nov 11, 2012)

firefite said:


> Not in POV. Just stating that when going code we don't pull over for PD.



You are in an official vehicle.  The guy in discussion was not.  Big difference.


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Nov 11, 2012)

medic417 said:


> You are in an official vehicle.  The guy in discussion was not.  Big difference.



If it is in the DMV as an emergency vehicle and it has insurance as an emergency vehicle then it legal to go code 3. Code 3 = not pulling over (I've never seen any vehicle going code 3 pull over for another vehicle going code).


----------



## medic417 (Nov 11, 2012)

firefite said:


> If it is in the DMV as an emergency vehicle and it has insurance as an emergency vehicle then it legal to go code 3. Code 3 = not pulling over (I've never seen any vehicle going code 3 pull over for another vehicle going code).



This guy was in pov not in emergency vehicle.  Was not registered as emergency vehicle.  And the amount of speed over the speed limit shows his service either needs to discipline him or if no policy they need to make some policy's.


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Nov 11, 2012)

medic417 said:


> This guy was in pov not in emergency vehicle.  Was not registered as emergency vehicle.  And the amount of speed over the speed limit shows his service either needs to discipline him or if no policy they need to make some policy's.



But he had state issued EMS plates....


----------



## TransportJockey (Nov 11, 2012)

firefite said:


> But he had state issued EMS plates....



NM has EMS plates that any certified EMT or medic can request for their POV. It's the same as any other specialty plate (college, sports team, etc). I think that might be what they are talking about there

EDIT: Sounds like a plate w/ no legal standing in terms of special treatment.
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/drivers/vehicles/personal/special/emt.htm


----------



## Aidey (Nov 11, 2012)

We yield to PD when running code in the amb.


----------



## medic417 (Nov 11, 2012)

firefite said:


> But he had state issued EMS plates....



That does not make it an official car.  Several states allow certified people to get plates but they are not the same as those issued for emergency vehicles.


----------



## OfficerEvenEMT (Nov 11, 2012)

medic417 said:


> Whether you believe him or not he broke the law by failing to pull over.  He at that point is a criminal until proved otherwise.  He should be glad his tires didn't get shot out.  If he was legit he should have been able to call dispatch to patch through to the cop and let him know he was responding to a call..



Like I said before, I don't know if strict liability applies in this case. It's conjecture to consider it without getting a legal consult or a judge to rule.


----------



## OfficerEvenEMT (Nov 11, 2012)

Weather or not the FF was in an official vehicle or not doesn't matter. He was legitimately and legally displaying a flashing red light and was observing traffic laws such as stopping at stop signs, using turn signals, etc. He was under the impression that the LEO was also headed to the FD, which takes away and mens rea argument. 

Is an EMT who is in a POV and headed to a call while displaying a red light supposed to stop when a LEO is trying to pull him over? First you have to prove that the EMT/FF knows that the LEO is trying to pull him over (use the radios, people!). If he knows and still doesn't stop then you have to determine who the law defers to. It likely changed from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I truly don't know.


----------



## Tigger (Nov 11, 2012)

medic417 said:


> You are in an official vehicle.  The guy in discussion was not.  Big difference.



Except for the part about the law conferring him emergency vehicle status. This is a fairly common statue, not all POV lights are courtesy lights...



Farmer2DO said:


> Second, if the red lights were authorized by his organization, that makes him an emergency vehicle in Wisconsin.  The law actually says that if he's responding to an emergency call, the use is appropriate.  If the police department has an issue with how the fire department is interpreting the law, that's an issue for administration of the two agencies to deal with; not on the side of the road.
> 
> http://statutes.laws.com/wisconsin/347/347.25


----------



## medic417 (Nov 11, 2012)

Tigger said:


> Except for the part about the law conferring him emergency vehicle status. This is a fairly common statue, not all POV lights are courtesy lights...



Technically even the lights on your ambulance are just a courtesy asking for the right away.  The ff has the right to run them but not to disregard the laws.


----------



## Tigger (Nov 11, 2012)

medic417 said:


> Technically even the lights on your ambulance are just a courtesy asking for the right away.  The ff has the right to run them but not to disregard the laws.



There is a significant difference between courtesy lights and emergency lights. Courtesy lights do not allow for the user to violate any traffic laws, emergency lights do so long as it is done with due regard.

The motoring public is not doing us a favor yielding to us, they are required to by law.


----------



## Hunter (Nov 11, 2012)

This is stupid, both of them need to stfu and get over it. Neither of them was right. The FF cooperated as soon as he realized the cop was talking to him and the cop put his gun away  as soon as he realized there was no danger. This is the perfect example of how two departments need to stop fighting with each other and learn to cooperate...


----------



## Farmer2DO (Nov 11, 2012)

> When they got to the fire station I agree with the police officers tactics a little bit. I wouldnt have told the suspect to get back into his vehicle, where he could potentially have access to a weapon, I would of had him lay on the ground. But he was wearing a shirt with what looked like a badge on the chest. I didnt see anything on the back of it saying he was a volunteer fire fighter.



Except there's that issue about him running the plate.  And dispatch confirming that it belonged to a member of the fire department.  That they pulled in to.  That was getting an emergency call.  That had other members there preparing for a response.  Yeah, pulling his gun and pointing it at his head was completely logical.



> Officers safety is the number one priorty.



Wanna know what's more important?  Making sure your officers aren't needlessly endangering the lives of the citizens they're supposed to protect.  Like when they cross the center line of a hill with no emergency lights.  Like when they're going 101 mph and there's NO documented criminal activity.



> Now for the ff. Running code/hot for a non emergency code is against his department policies.



First, it WAS an emergency job.  It came into a 911 call center, and was dispatched to the FD.  By definition, it's an emergency job.  Second, it's NOT against his department policies.  The fire chief actually says that they encourage their members to use judgement when deciding how to respond.  Oh, and there's that bit about the call actually being a refrigerator fire.  That would have been worse had it not been extinguished by the FD..... 



> I am not sure what oregons law is for volunteers



Glad to see you read the article, and all the posts, and the link I put up.  This actually happened in Wisconsin.  The village is Oregon.



> and having lights but in texas the pov needs to have 360 degree visibility for emergency lights. The lights have to be visible up to 300-500 hundred feet. Plus the firefighter needs to have displayed on his vehicle fireman, firefighter, or a departmental decal(thats from my chief). I did not see any of those on the ff vehicles.



So what?  He wasn't in Texas.



> Lastly the ff was in a pov.



Nope.  As defined by Wisconsin law, he's an emergency vehicle.



> I know my chief has stated, along with the DPS captain for my area, that even though our pov's are considered emergency vehicles in Texas if we do not yeild right of way for marked police officers then we are going to be in trouble, because at the end of the day we are still in our POVs.



Again, this guy was in Wisconsin, not Texas.  He was an official emergency vehicle, responding to an emergency (a fridge fire that could have been a structure fire if not extinguished) with his emergency lights running.  His assumption was reasonable.




> The ff, and the entire department, needs to be disciplined if they are violating departmental policy by using lights and sirens for non emergency calls.



That's the thing, though.  They're not violating department policy.  The chief is actually backing them up.  The police department is claiming some policy by Dane County claiming that they're not to respond lights and sirens for these calls (which was mis-classified, by the way).  But I doubt if they actually have any authority over individual departments.  If I was the department, I'd tell them that we take care of our own liability insurance, and we'll be the ones with our heads on the chopping block if someone's house burns down (because their fridge that's on fire gets out of control because we considered it a non-emergency), so we'll set our own policies, thanks.




OfficerEvenEMT said:


> The LEO didn't do much in the way of error.



Except drive completely recklessly.  Without due regard for the public.  Without evidence of a crime.




> All I can say if that this could have been severely deescalated had the LEO made a call to dispatch and dispatch being aware of what's happening in their county.



Yes.



medic417 said:


> You in your pov?  If not doesn't apply this discussion.





medic417 said:


> You are in an official vehicle.  The guy in discussion was not.  Big difference.





medic417 said:


> This guy was in pov not in emergency vehicle.  Was not registered as emergency vehicle.



Actually, according to Wisconsin law (if you had read my link), he is defined as an emergency vehicle.  



medic417 said:


> Technically even the lights on your ambulance are just a courtesy asking for the right away.



Absolutely untrue.  Yes, they give emergency vehicle operators the right to violate vehicle and traffic laws, but they also mean that people that don't pull over are breaking the law.  Traffic is required to yield the right of way to an emergency vehicle.




> First of all I think that the law suit is simply ridiculous.



Well, the police department is deflecting all the blame to the fire department.  They completely backed their officer in a high speed chase (when there was no evidence of a crime), not using his lights at night, cresting a hill across a center line, and driving 101 mph.  They then accuse the FF for not driving with due regard.  You know, they guy that used his turn signals and stopped at stop signs.  Way to cover your own, guys.  And they wrote him a ticket.  For assuming they were going to the same call.  Then did an "internal investigation" and decided there was no merit to the complaints.  So the only way to get them to pay attention is to file a claim.  (BTW, he hasn't filed a lawsuit yet.)  If the village of Oregon would address the issue, this would go away.  But they won't.  And they're making the FF out to be the bad guy.  So I don't blame him one bit.


----------



## medic417 (Nov 11, 2012)

Farmer2DO said:


> Except there's that issue about him running the plate.  And dispatch confirming that it belonged to a member of the fire department.  That they pulled in to.  That was getting an emergency call.  That had other members there preparing for a response.  Yeah, pulling his gun and pointing it at his head was completely logical.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You have accepted a lot of untruths in your life.  When you are the cause of that wreck because you disobey the traffic laws I want a piece of the millions the people injured or killed will be awarded.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Nov 11, 2012)

Emotions seem to be running a bit high here, so everyone take a deep breath and relax or this thread will be closed.


----------



## Farmer2DO (Nov 11, 2012)

medic417 said:


> You have accepted a lot of untruths in your life.  When you are the cause of that wreck because you disobey the traffic laws I want a piece of the millions the people injured or killed will be awarded.



You mean, like when a police car crests the hill across the center line, with no emergency lights?  Or when he's doing 101 mph for a case of no documented criminal activity?  

Actually, I'm a pretty safe emergency operator.  I don't know what untruths I've accepted.  Where I work, I frequently respond "green" to calls that are supposed to be "red".  Almost all the time, in fact.  And I probably transport "red" less than 1% of the time.  So don't accuse me of being the one that will cause wrecks.  I'm good, thanks.

Trust me, this guy is far more of a risk than I am.


----------



## medic417 (Nov 11, 2012)

ffemt8978 said:


> Emotions seem to be running a bit high here, so everyone take a deep breath and relax or this thread will be closed.



You need to find some monks chanting or some yoga mumble jumble to play during these moments.


----------



## Farmer2DO (Nov 11, 2012)

I'm very relaxed.  Zen.  I'm actually bradycardic, I'm so low keyed right now.


----------



## OfficerEvenEMT (Nov 11, 2012)

In regard to the LEO driving very fast, not using his L/S at the beginning on the call, and cross the double line- that needs to be addressed. It all depends on what and why. There was an issue of LE impersonation and it's entirely likely that the LEO thought this was the guy. For that reason I don't find much of an issue with his speed, but I do find issue with not using L/S and for crossing the double lines. Those two can be remedied by some additional training.


----------



## ExpatMedic0 (Nov 12, 2012)

I think both the FF and the LEO would do the world a favor if they refrained from breeding.


----------



## exodus (Nov 12, 2012)

medic417 said:


> Whether you believe him or not he broke the law by failing to pull over.  He at that point is a criminal until proved otherwise.  He should be glad his tires didn't get shot out.  If he was legit he should have been able to call dispatch to patch through to the cop and let him know he was responding to a call..



I don't know what country your from, but here you're innocent until you're proven guilty.


His lawsuit is perfectly valid. He said he would drop the suit if the department agreed on doing annual firearm and evoc training.  Why the officer didn't get on his PA and tell him to pull over is BEYOND me.


----------



## VFlutter (Nov 12, 2012)

exodus said:


> Why the officer didn't get on his PA and tell him to pull over is BEYOND me.



That is what I thought as well. If it is common to have multiple emergncy vehicles responding to a call in this area, including police,  I could see where the FF would not have thought the officer was pulling him over. Also, he was driving very conservative for someone trying to outrun the police.

Do police and fire share a common radio channel?


----------



## exodus (Nov 12, 2012)

ChaseZ33 said:


> That is what I thought as well. If it is common to have multiple emergncy vehicles responding to a call in this area, including police,  I could see where the FF would not have thought the officer was pulling him over. Also, he was driving very conservative for someone trying to outrun the police.
> 
> Do police and fire share a common radio channel?



We can all access a channel called "Calcord". It's specifically for inter-agency cooperation.


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Nov 12, 2012)

exodus said:


> We can all access a channel called "Calcord". It's specifically for inter-agency cooperation.



I've yet to ever hear any LE use Calcord. Very rarely do I hear FD use it.


----------



## OfficerEvenEMT (Nov 12, 2012)

exodus said:


> I don't know what country your from, but here you're innocent until you're proven guilty.
> 
> 
> His lawsuit is perfectly valid. He said he would drop the suit if the department agreed on doing annual firearm and evoc training.  Why the officer didn't get on his PA and tell him to pull over is BEYOND me.



This is a very good point.


----------



## medic417 (Nov 12, 2012)

exodus said:


> I don't know what country your from, but here you're innocent until you're proven guilty.
> 
> 
> His lawsuit is perfectly valid. He said he would drop the suit if the department agreed on doing annual firearm and evoc training.  Why the officer didn't get on his PA and tell him to pull over is BEYOND me.



During the commission of a crime which the officer believed to be occurring he is guilty at that moment and the officer is justified in being prepared to use deadly force if needed.  Once he goes to court he is innocent until proven guilty.  I really can not believe people justify the ff's reckless behavior.  But I guess I shouldn't be surprised seeing as how little respect most have for our so called profession.


----------



## OfficerEvenEMT (Nov 12, 2012)

medic417 said:


> During the commission of a crime which the officer believed to be occurring he is guilty at that moment and the officer is justified in being prepared to use deadly force if needed.  Once he goes to court he is innocent until proven guilty.


That is not how the criminal justice system works in this country. You aren't guilty when arrested/ticketed, there is only legal cause to charge you with a crime. You are still innocent and have no criminal record until such time that you plead guilty or are found guilty in court.



> I really can not believe people justify the ff's reckless behavior.  But I guess I shouldn't be surprised seeing as how little respect most have for our so called profession.



I don't see the FF's behavior as reckless at all. He stopped at stop signs, used turn signals, and drove appropriately. The LEO, on the other hand, might need some additional training to cover chase procedures and the use of lights & sirens.


----------



## Farmer2DO (Nov 12, 2012)

medic417 said:


> During the commission of a crime which the officer believed to be occurring he is guilty at that moment and the officer is justified in being prepared to use deadly force if needed.  Once he goes to court he is innocent until proven guilty.  I really can not believe people justify the ff's reckless behavior.  But I guess I shouldn't be surprised seeing as how little respect most have for our so called profession.



Commission of what crime? 

"apparently in response to an earlier call elsewhere in the county of a motorist possibly impersonating a police officer"

All they had was someone POSSIBLY impersonating a police officer somewhere else in the county, and that now this vehicle MAYBE matched the vehicle that MIGHT have done the original act.  They didn't even report any other criminal acts associated with the original REPORTED possible impersonation.

Doesn't sound like a criminal being caught red handed to me.  Sounds like a lot of supposition.  

I stand by my original arguments.  The police officer needlessly, and dangerously, escalated the situation in the face of information to the contrary, and needlessly drove recklessly.  There was no commission of a crime.  If someone was on here telling about a hot rod paramedic driving 101 mph to a cardiac arrest (or trauma, or kid drowning, take your pick), he would be absolutely crucified.  What's the difference?


----------



## DrParasite (Nov 12, 2012)

Farmer2DO said:


> Commission of what crime?


I believe the crime he committed is called "contempt of cop" because he failed to follow the cops directions.  regardless of the reasoning, he did fail to yield to the cop, and the officer responded.


Farmer2DO said:


> I stand by my original arguments.  The police officer needlessly, and dangerously, escalated the situation in the face of information to the contrary, and needlessly drove recklessly.  There was no commission of a crime.  If someone was on here telling about a hot rod paramedic driving 101 mph to a cardiac arrest (or trauma, or kid drowning, take your pick), he would be absolutely crucified.  What's the difference?


because some people believe cops can do no wrong, volunteers are always whackers, and instead of standing up for one of their own who was right, they are more than willing to throw them under the bus because "the professional cop" can never be wrong.  Sorry, as an unbiased observer, based on what is being reported, it would appear that the cop unnecessarily escalated the situation.  I'm curious what the response would be if the cop had tackled the FF as he ran into the firehouse, because _apparently_  the FF was resisting arrest and attempting to flee.





Farmer2DO said:


> Well, the police department is deflecting all the blame to the fire department.  They completely backed their officer in a high speed chase (when there was no evidence of a crime), not using his lights at night, cresting a hill across a center line, and driving 101 mph.  They then accuse the FF for not driving with due regard.  You know, they guy that used his turn signals and stopped at stop signs.  Way to cover your own, guys.  And they wrote him a ticket.  For assuming they were going to the same call.  Then did an "internal investigation" and decided there was no merit to the complaints.  So the only way to get them to pay attention is to file a claim.  (BTW, he hasn't filed a lawsuit yet.)  If the village of Oregon would address the issue, this would go away.  But they won't.  And they're making the FF out to be the bad guy.  So I don't blame him one bit.


For a profession that requires investigative skills, this officer seems to need some more training.  FF plates (which the officer ran), enroute to a firehouse, which had other vehicles and personnel running in and apparatus starting, appropriate L&S in accordance with Wisc. law, and an active alarm going on, where the driver was driving in accordance with Wisc Law..... I'm not cop, but I think I can connect the dots here.

If I was him, I would file suit.  the FD did an internal investigation, and found the FF did nothing wrong.  so did the cops.  and yet, the FF now has a ticket and has to appear in court. and the cops are blaming the FF for the entire incident.  have the cops rescind the ticket, admit their officer over reacted, and train their cops better.  otherwise, I would see them in court.  and I'm sure the media would love a court case about a cop who pulled his gun on a volunteer who was responding to am emergency.

I'm curious, if the FF had been in an unmarked dept issued take home chief's vehicle, with the appropriate L&S, and was responding to a call (to the scene not the FH), and the same situation happened, would you be so quick to blame the FF?


----------



## OfficerEvenEMT (Nov 12, 2012)

Just to be clear, DrParasite, not all the posters here are bashing the FF and standing up for the cop. I think the FF did exactly the right thing and the cop made some errors.


----------



## Bullets (Nov 13, 2012)

I read the Wisconsin statute and while i see that POVs are allowed to have red lights, i also notice this at the bottom

"A light showing only to the front would not provide the operator with emergency privileges for stopping, parking, or turning as to vehicles approaching from the rear."

So since the FF did not have any rear facing lights, he would have to yield to an overtaking vehicle displaying emergency lights, especially Blue lights

Also, NJ has EMT and FF plates as well, available to anyone who has an extra $50 to spend when you register a car


----------



## TransportJockey (Nov 13, 2012)

DrParasite said:


> I'm curious, if the FF had been in an unmarked dept issued take home chief's vehicle, with the appropriate L&S, and was responding to a call (to the scene not the FH), and the same situation happened, would you be so quick to blame the FF?



This might be a little different because it'd be the same as following a bat-chief or unmarked squad car. It'll have state/municipality govt plates, not POV plates. Honestly, I think the POV plate and the fact that the LEO was headed to a call for a police imitator had something to do with this. And like I stated above, any yahoo with an EMT ticket can get an EMS plate in WI. They mean aboslutely nothing, just like the ones here in NM. 
Yes, the LEO did act a bit aggressively, but I'm not sure I can fault him for it.


----------



## Tigger (Nov 13, 2012)

DrParasite said:


> I'm curious, if the FF had been in an unmarked dept issued take home chief's vehicle, with the appropriate L&S, and was responding to a call (to the scene not the FH), and the same situation happened, would you be so quick to blame the FF?



Solid point right there.


----------



## OfficerEvenEMT (Nov 14, 2012)

TransportJockey said:


> This might be a little different because it'd be the same as following a bat-chief or unmarked squad car. It'll have state/municipality govt plates, not POV plates. Honestly, I think the POV plate and the fact that the LEO was headed to a call for a police imitator had something to do with this. And like I stated above, any yahoo with an EMT ticket can get an EMS plate in WI. They mean aboslutely nothing, just like the ones here in NM.
> Yes, the LEO did act a bit aggressively, but I'm not sure I can fault him for it.



Another point: What if the FF had his car decked out this snowblower? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxC-S-EMpMo


----------



## ffemt8978 (Nov 14, 2012)

OfficerEvenEMT said:


> Another point: What if the FF had his car decked out this snowblower? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxC-S-EMpMo



This one is better...at least it has lights in the wheel wells

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAXopLGnOCA[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## OfficerEvenEMT (Nov 14, 2012)

ffemt8978 said:


> This one is better...at least it has lights in the wheel wells
> 
> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAXopLGnOCA[/YOUTUBE]



At a certain point you become more of a hazard than a help. This is a perfect example of a vehicle that is a hazard on the road. I would certainly ticket him if I saw such a vehicle (and was absolutely certain that the emergency was over).


----------



## ffemt8978 (Nov 14, 2012)

I agree...the term around here is "whacker"


----------



## Tigger (Nov 14, 2012)

TransportJockey said:


> This might be a little different because it'd be the same as following a bat-chief or unmarked squad car. It'll have state/municipality govt plates, not POV plates. Honestly, I think the POV plate and the fact that the LEO was headed to a call for a police imitator had something to do with this. And like I stated above, any yahoo with an EMT ticket can get an EMS plate in WI. They mean aboslutely nothing, just like the ones here in NM.
> Yes, the LEO did act a bit aggressively, but I'm not sure I can fault him for it.



I was under the impression that the officer had decided that the POV in question was the "police imitator" and no one else had called anything in.

Also, many smaller towns (at least in Massachusetts, I'm sure there are others) have the fire chief using his POV as a department vehicle with some reimbursement from the town. I have not seen one of those vehicles with government plates, just a little "chief" plate frame or something like that. Dunno if that also happens in Wisconsin or not.


----------



## Aidey (Nov 14, 2012)

Tigger said:


> I was under the impression that the officer had decided that the POV in question was the "police imitator" and no one else had called anything in.



From the article



> ...in response to an earlier call elsewhere in the county of a motorist possibly impersonating a police officer.



I could totally understand how Joe Schmoe could think that someone driving that car was imitating a police officer.


----------



## Tigger (Nov 14, 2012)

Aidey said:


> From the article
> 
> 
> 
> I could totally understand how Joe Schmoe could think that someone driving that car was imitating a police officer.



Missed that part oops, and you are absolutely correct.


----------



## DrParasite (Nov 14, 2012)

in case anyone wants to watch the actual dashcam footage:
http://host.madison.com/news/local/...cle_f95d2684-251d-11e2-9ce6-0019bb2963f4.html


----------

