# Cop arrests firefighter while on-scene!!!!!



## piranah (Dec 18, 2008)

http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=khBMoZdwEmc&feature=related


wow....I cant believe this......firefighter won 18k settlement in frederal court after this.....and he was a captain!!!!!


----------



## Ridryder911 (Dec 19, 2008)

Good for him, we had seen this earlier in the year. Shameful, that it was not more and the funds would have to come from the Police Division. 

R/r 911


----------



## Levinoss (Dec 19, 2008)

Pulled away a man extracting a pt from a vehicle? >.< What was he thinking?


----------



## HotelCo (Dec 19, 2008)

Wow. That's all I can say.


----------



## ChargerGirl (Dec 19, 2008)

thats horrible. i wonder what office/dept. politics are like over there if there is a police vs fire attitude? or maybe just one guy being a jerk?


----------



## medtech681 (Dec 19, 2008)

i dont doubt it would happen where i live, our com center dispatches pd to all our fire incidents before our fd is is dispatched and we are not even called for mva's unless requested by the pd


----------



## KEVD18 (Dec 19, 2008)

medtech681 said:


> we are not even called for mva's unless requested by the pd


 

this part i completely agree with. the vast majority of traffic collisons are legal matters, not medical.

cops should be sent to all crash scenes. medical to follow if they are needed and fire only if there is a need for them. nothing makes less sense to me than an engine company going for a joy ride to a crash scene when they arent needed. the only reason they do it it to rack up call volume so they can justify there budget.


----------



## Levinoss (Dec 19, 2008)

KEVD18 said:


> this part i completely agree with. the vast majority of traffic collisons are legal matters, not medical.
> 
> cops should be sent to all crash scenes. medical to follow if they are needed and fire only if there is a need for them. nothing makes less sense to me than an engine company going for a joy ride to a crash scene when they arent needed. the only reason they do it it to rack up call volume so they can justify there budget.



Buddy I played WoW with would always say "Be right back 15-20 mins" always some really lame call that they weren't really needed on. It's slow on his base so I guess it gives them something to do other then watching TV.


----------



## KEVD18 (Dec 19, 2008)

Levinoss said:


> Buddy I played WoW with would always say "Be right back 15-20 mins" always some really lame call that they weren't really needed on. It's slow on his base so I guess it gives them something to do other then watching TV.


 
at the cost of fuel(remember when diesel was almost 5/gal), increased wear and tear on the piece, increased inconvience/danger to the general public from the rtesponding apparatus, etc.


----------



## Levinoss (Dec 19, 2008)

KEVD18 said:


> at the cost of fuel(remember when diesel was almost 5/gal), increased wear and tear on the piece, increased inconvience/danger to the general public from the rtesponding apparatus, etc.



I worked industrial construction and you wouldn't believe how much diesel was just thrown away every shift running stuff that should just be turned off. I hate when number crunchers try to cut back but when it comes to thing's like gas just think of all the resources/money we could save cutting back just a little. Off topic I know...:wacko:


----------



## RailFan77 (Dec 19, 2008)

Besides the monetary judgement, was there any actions taken against the police officer (i.e. suspension)?


----------



## rhan101277 (Dec 19, 2008)

I thought I remember seeing this in another thread.


----------



## rhan101277 (Dec 19, 2008)

RailFan77 said:


> Besides the monetary judgement, was there any actions taken against the police officer (i.e. suspension)?



Where did you read about the monetary award?


----------



## Levinoss (Dec 19, 2008)

rhan101277 said:


> Where did you read about the monetary award?



Live leak had this

"02-14-2008 Hazelwood
A police officer in Hazelwood will have to pay $18,000 dollars for getting into it with a firefighter while he was trying to help an accident victim.

His attorney says he's disappointed and that his client's conduct was not malicious in any way.

Police dash cam video shows the Hazelwood police officer arresting a fire captain while he's trying to move an injured dr More..iver.

It happened on Interstate 270 back in May of 2003.

Officer Todd Greeves wanted a fire truck moved to open up another lane of traffic.

The Robertson Fire Protection District Captain wanted the truck there to protect emergency workers.
"
Full video
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=233_1203031330


----------



## Levinoss (Dec 19, 2008)

Snagged this also

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


----------



## KEVD18 (Dec 19, 2008)

Levinoss said:


> Off topic I know...:wacko:


 
lets get back on topic please.

conversely, if "topics" arent really your thing, feel free to visit the wandering directionless thread. no on topic posts are allowed.


----------



## flhtci01 (Dec 20, 2008)

Anyone see the irony that the arresting officer is the one getting fined?


----------



## RailFan77 (Dec 20, 2008)

KEVD18 said:


> lets get back on topic please.
> 
> conversely, if "topics" arent really your thing, feel free to visit the wandering directionless thread. no on topic posts are allowed.



Let's get a life please.

Looks like it was just one post and someone wanted to make a quick point they had on their mind while discussing something similar.  Being it's said and done...why B**ch about it.  Why not move on yourself and keep the conversation going rather than complain all tie time.  

Very simple...if you don't like what people do...and always complain....why come on here.


----------



## KEVD18 (Dec 20, 2008)

RailFan77 said:


> Let's get a life please.
> 
> Looks like it was just one post and someone wanted to make a quick point they had on their mind while discussing something similar. Being it's said and done...why B**ch about it. Why not move on yourself and keep the conversation going rather than complain all tie time.
> 
> Very simple...if you don't like what people do...and always complain....why come on here.


 

it was a joke chief. calm yoursefl. have an ativan, smoke a butt, whatever. just learn how to interpret humor.


----------



## KEVD18 (Dec 20, 2008)

RailFan77 said:


> Let's get a life please.
> 
> Looks like it was just one post and someone wanted to make a quick point they had on their mind while discussing something similar. Being it's said and done...why B**ch about it. Why not move on yourself and keep the conversation going rather than complain all tie time.
> 
> Very simple...if you don't like what people do...and always complain....why come on here.


 

oh, and id like to see you give the same response to any of the mods who say the samething(but being serious) on a daily basis.


----------



## seanm028 (Dec 20, 2008)

KEVD18 said:


> it was a joke chief. calm yoursefl. have an ativan, smoke a butt, whatever. just learn how to interpret humor.



Just playing devil's advocate here, but I can say from experience (and I doubt anyone on here will disagree) it can be very difficult to interpret humor just from text.  I can see how your original post could have been read seriously.



> Anyone see the irony that the arresting officer is the one getting fined?



I don't get it.  Ironic because he was originally trying to fine/arrest someone, but then wound up getting fined himself?


----------



## medtech681 (Dec 22, 2008)

i agree with the fact that most mvc's are legal matters but at what point does the pd 
take the liability for the patient if they determine that medical is not needed and the patient is walking around with an internal injury or other not obvious injury. A patient signoff keeps every one safe


----------



## EMT007 (Dec 22, 2008)

medtech681 said:


> i agree with the fact that most mvc's are legal matters but at what point does the pd
> take the liability for the patient if they determine that medical is not needed and the patient is walking around with an internal injury or other not obvious injury. A patient signoff keeps every one safe



They don't take on the liability at all. Out where I worked (Los Angeles), the cops would call us immediately if it was a bad TA or if there were external injuries. Otherwise, they would ask the occupants if they desired medical attention and requested us based on that answer. And they always stated something to the effect of "victims declined medical attention" etc on the radio. 

And that video is ridiculous. I don't know if there was bad blood between that cop and fire captain or something, but that sort of thing just doesn't happen around here. If it did, the cop would be having a nice long sit-down with his supervisors. But I just can't imagine such a poor working relationship that would lead to such a thing.

I agree with someone else though - if I were the patient, that officer would also be hearing from me if I felt my medical care was in any way compromised by his actions.


----------



## firecoins (Dec 23, 2008)

Officers who arrest firefighters or medics/emts doing their own job should in fact be arrested and charged.


----------



## Shishkabob (Dec 23, 2008)

Honestly, BOTH were in the right.

Technically, the firefighter DID break the law, and there is no 2 ways about that.  

But, the cop could have gone about it in a totally different manner.


What would have been better is for the cop to have moved the cruiser, and the truck to have parked where the police cruiser originally was, as it being a bigger and heavier vehicle would have been MUCH better in the closer proximity to the rescue then off to a side.


----------



## FF894 (Dec 23, 2008)

Linuss said:


> Honestly, BOTH were in the right.
> 
> Technically, the firefighter DID break the law, and there is no 2 ways about that.



How you figure?


----------



## Shishkabob (Dec 23, 2008)

Hopefully I can get my view out before being bashed, so we'll try.



Keep in mind, I don't know the local laws for them, don't purport to, and honestly am too tired to do a Google search, but in every place that I have lived, it is against the law to disobey a lawful direct order from a Peace Officer.  While usually punished by a small thing, the law still exist.  


It is the police officers responsibility to maintain traffic on that highway, and maintain it safely, and blocking half the highway inhibits that.




Like I said in my original post, the truck would have been MUCH better at/behind the cruiser, as it leaves 3 lanes open, AND provides MUCH better protection then a tiny Crown Vic.  


We've all been on extrication scenes.  Honestly, how many of you have ever seen a car go JUST beyond where that cruiser is, do a 90 degree turn, and hit something a foot later?  Doesn't happen in my experience.  WHat DOES happen is a car plow right into the back of a cruiser and pushes the cruiser in to the rescue personnel.



Anyone who argues that it wouldn't be safer to have the fire truck where the police cruiser is, please explain to me why, as I simply cannot see how.



EDIT; Granted, the officer did tell him to move it forward and not back, but both my points still stand.


And here comes the flamage


----------



## enjoynz (Dec 23, 2008)

Here in New Zealand, the Fire and Ambulance services take control of the MVA scene.
 Apart from asking questions, the police wait for patients to be removed before doing their job.
The ambulances and fire trucks always block the scene!!!!!
The only thing that I saw wrong with that video, was the guy got out of a moving truck...which to me, is a safety issue!!!

Cheers Enjoynz


----------



## SCClayton (Dec 23, 2008)

The whole thing sort of makes me wonder if there is a feud that we don't all know about. Either between the PD and the FD, the officer and the FD, or the officer and the FF.
But either way, that cop must of been having a bad day.


----------



## Shishkabob (Dec 23, 2008)

SCClayton said:


> The whole thing sort of makes me wonder if there is a feud that we don't all know about. Either between the PD and the FD, the officer and the FD, or the officer and the FF.
> But either way, that cop must of been having a bad day.



Agreed, as even though LEO's and FF's feud, it's just friendly banter and never gets to something like this, so there is something we're missing.


----------



## firecoins (Dec 23, 2008)

Linuss said:


> Keep in mind, I don't know the local laws for them, don't purport to, and honestly am too tired to do a Google search, but in every place that I have lived, it is against the law to disobey a lawful direct order from a Peace Officer.



I am not here to "bash" ....but if you don't know the law, your not in a position to say anyone broke it.

It is illegal to interfere with emergency workers who are extricating mva victims. There is a duty to act, to treat the victim and the officer interfered with this to keep an extra lane of traffic open?  Officer can wait a few minutes until the patient is extricated before opening the lane.


----------



## Shishkabob (Dec 23, 2008)

firecoins said:


> I am not here to "bash" ....but if you don't know the law, your not in a position to say anyone broke it.
> 
> It is illegal to interfere with emergency workers who are extricating mva victims. There is a duty to act, to treat the victim and the officer interfered with this to keep an extra lane of traffic open?  Officer can wait a few minutes until the patient is extricated before opening the lane.



2 things back at you;

I stated in my original post "But, the cop could have gone about it in a totally different manner."  So please keep that in mind next time.


BUT on the same token... I guarantee the cop arrested him for SOME type of illegal action, because if he didn't, the he wouldn't have a job right now.  Again, keep that in mind.  Even though I don't know the specific law used, I know for a fact one was.


Not all cops are jerks, and a vast majority don't make up laws to arrest someone.  They don't want to lose their job because of a feud between FF and LEOs, so a law WAS being enforced.  They won the settlement for a different reason, not because the cop did a false arrest.


----------



## FF894 (Dec 23, 2008)

Everywhere I have worked 1. has clear protocols that state the the fire deparment/ems agency have command of the scene at all times and 2. proper vehicle staging is exactly what the capt. did-one lane blocked beyond crash to keep everyone safe.  Being stuck in traffic sucks, no doubt about that.  Letting the providers do their job safely will actualy speed up the process in most cases and get traffic moving again soon.


----------



## Shishkabob (Dec 23, 2008)

This is why I don't like posting in these topics, I play devils advocate and use facts, yet I'm wrong.  h34r:


----------



## FF894 (Dec 23, 2008)

Do you mean about him being arrested?  What was the charge?


----------



## firecoins (Dec 23, 2008)

Linuss said:


> 2 BUT on the same token... I guarantee the cop arrested him for SOME type of illegal action, because if he didn't, the he wouldn't have a job right now.  .



Disorderly conduct could mean anything.  Parking a fire truck at the scene of an mva in a manner the cop doesn't like is I am sure the exact action lawmakers must have been trying to stop.

And i do the believe the cop shouldn't have a job for this.

Playing devil's advocate does mean you take the opposite side.  The "cop would not arrest someone unless they did something illegal" argument is not a strong argument.


----------



## daedalus (Dec 24, 2008)

firecoins said:


> I am not here to "bash" ....but if you don't know the law, your not in a position to say anyone broke it.
> 
> It is illegal to interfere with emergency workers who are extricating mva victims. There is a duty to act, to treat the victim and the officer interfered with this to keep an extra lane of traffic open?  Officer can wait a few minutes until the patient is extricated before opening the lane.



and there is the golden ticket. While in most cases it is illegal to ignore a order from a "peace" (please...) officer, it is also illegal to interfere with emergency workers. 

The "peace" officer here should have been arrested for interfering with patient care at the scene of an emergency, and I agree with firecoins. Police officers should be charged if they interfere with our lawful duties. I also believe it should have the consequence of mandatory jail time.


----------



## Shishkabob (Dec 24, 2008)

And that's why I usually stay out of these types of topics... EVERY person is set in their ways and won't look at any other facts then those that support their own, myself included.



I guess you guys missed the part where I said "Officer should have gone about it in a totally different way".


----------



## firefighter89 (Dec 24, 2008)

Around here if the FD is on scene of any MVA, injuries or no injuries, they are in command.


----------



## reaper (Dec 25, 2008)

Some states have FD in command of MVA scenes and some have EMS in charge, if there is injuries. I personally do not know many that have PD in charge of the rescue scene.

In the last two states that I have lived in, that officer would have lost his job and a lot more!


----------



## firecoins (Dec 25, 2008)

Linuss said:


> I guess you guys missed the part where I said "Officer should have gone about it in a totally different way".



I didn't miss that part.  You put an argument out there. If people disagree with it, they will counter the points we disagree with.  Yes the officer should have done something different.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Dec 25, 2008)

reaper said:


> Some states have FD in command of MVA scenes and some have EMS in charge, if there is injuries. I personally do not know many that have PD in charge of the rescue scene.
> 
> In the last two states that I have lived in, that officer would have lost his job and a lot more!



And in some states it is law that is in charge.

Does anybody know which one of the three types the state in question was?


----------



## bstone (Dec 25, 2008)

Says here that the captain was never charged and that the officer was in the wrong.

http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/midwest/2008/02/15/87400.htm


----------



## bstone (Dec 25, 2008)

Oh this is good...



> He said he had arrested Wilson for impeding traffic flow and failing to obey his lawful order.
> http://firefightingnews.com/article-US.cfm?articleID=45206



Translation: "You didn't listen to me and you made me feel less manly. I have a badge and gun so now you're gonna be arrested! Waaaa waaaa."

This is why police have way too much power. I am SO glad the captain won.



> 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."



The FD can park where they want. It's not an arrestable offense. This is according to a federal judge.


----------



## bstone (Dec 25, 2008)

Linuss said:


> Honestly, BOTH were in the right.
> 
> Technically, the firefighter DID break the law, and there is no 2 ways about that.




No he didn't. No 2 ways about it. Read this:



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


----------



## karaya (Dec 26, 2008)

I'm very familiar with this incident since I live only a 15 minutes from where this took place. The police department ( Hazelwood ) is a small community located in the north county of St. Louis County. Typical small city community cops with some that are very over zealous in their line of work. I lived in Hazelwood a long time ago for a spell and Hazelwood has always had somewhat of a reputation for some of their police officers.

Hazelwood is a dying community with a shifting population from good citizens to an ever encroaching population of sh*t bags and criminals. Now the city of Hazelwood also has a fire department, but the city is bordered on one side by Robertson Fire Protection District which was one of the responding agencies on this particular call and the captain for Robertson was the individual subjected to arrest.

Clearly the arresting officer has some sort of "authority complex". I've seen this before in the past, particularly where law officers seem insanely focused on keeping traffic moving in light of safety concerns. As we all know this concept has drifted into the past in favor of securing a safe scene even if it requires a complete shut down of the highway. However, as the video can attest, this law officer didn't "get the memo."

I now live in St. Charles County, Missouri and the municipal police and county sheriff's deputies have a very good and close working relationship with fire and EMS. In my travels riding with various EMS providers throughout the country, the excellent working relationship with law officers is equally observed.

Mark this incident as one bolstered by the ignorance of a police officer and his over zealous behavior of jointly working an accident scene.


----------



## BLSBoy (Dec 27, 2008)

http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/article.jsp?id=62091&sectionId=46

http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/article.jsp?sectionId=39&id=62065

http://firefighterclosecalls.com/fullstory.php?77421

and the crowning jewel...

http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/article.jsp?sectionId=46&id=62029

We park Fire Apparatus for a reason. If you don't like it, go pound sand. You truly are an undereducated buffoon.


----------



## FF894 (Dec 28, 2008)

Good posts by bstone, karaya, and blsboy.  Except one of those links referred to the EMT as an ambulance drive.  :sad:


----------



## Shishkabob (Dec 28, 2008)

BLSBoy said:


> If you don't like it, go pound sand. You truly are an undereducated buffoon.





This is the exact kind of close mindedness that I hate in these discussions.

It's utterly impossible to have an adult conversation on topics such as this, for that very reason.


----------



## BLSBoy (Dec 28, 2008)

Linuss said:


> This is the exact kind of close mindedness that I hate in these discussions.



:blink::nosoupfortroll:

Brothers and Sisters are getting KILLED and MAIMED because of improper, or lack of apparatus placing. I would prefer one of those shock absorbing dump trucks respond instead, but the fire apparatus will do nicely. 

I dont care if I make you 20 seconds or 2 hours late. I am going home at the end of my tour, safe and sound.


----------



## Shishkabob (Dec 28, 2008)

And I agree perfectly, but, and PLEASE someone disagree, would it not have been 100 times better for the truck to have been where the cruiser was instead?


Or am I the only one that wants a giant truck closer, and not further, from where I'm working?






And for your sake since you missed it the first couple of times in this thread, and third time is a charm;  The cop should have gone about it in a totally different manner.


----------



## FF894 (Dec 28, 2008)

I like the truck in the lane it was in, possibly next to the cruiser, but also can't tell if there is more apparatus coming in behind that truck which would be blocking lane further down and thats why they pulled right next to car.  Either way is beside the point that the cop is a complete di**o for doing what he did.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Dec 28, 2008)

Guess what time it is?


----------

