Officer points gun at firefighter responding to a call

exodus said:
We can all access a channel called "Calcord". It's specifically for inter-agency cooperation.
Click to expand...

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

This is a very good point.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Farmer2DO said:
Commission of what crime?
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
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
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

Solid point right there.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Another point: What if the FF had his car decked out this snowblower? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxC-S-EMpMo
 
ffemt8978 said:
This one is better...at least it has lights in the wheel wells

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

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).
 
I agree...the term around here is "whacker"
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

From the article

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

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



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

Missed that part oops, and you are absolutely correct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top