This is something that doesn't happen everyday. But it happened so lets not make this a FF/LEO thing, but we all could learn from it.Departments at odds after cop pulls gun on firefighter during traffic stop
Too far on both sides.......
- Thread starter Hoser
- Start date
So the firefighter was estimated to go as fast as 90mph and is a threat to both the public and other responding officers while the police officer was on video doing 101mph and is a hero in his departments eyes?
Nice double standard there Clark, I am sure your internal investigation went without any biases. :weird:
This overwhelmingly points to the need for better communications and regard for interorganizational incident management. Central county dispatch!!! Why didn't the police officer see if adjacent jurisdistion had an emergency situation? If cars had interoperable radios, they could have radioed car to car?
cook2890
Member
I am somewhat conflicted over this, having been on both sides, so to speak. I understand the officers view, including what was said on the video and the statement of someone possibly impersonating a police officer. However, I also understand the firefighters point in thinking they were going to the same call. I heartily agree with tnems7 on the checking with a surrounding jurisdiction, (NOT a fan of centralized dispatch centers, but thats just me), but the adrenaline rush of the 'pursuit' may have clouded the officers judgement or caused the 'tunnel vision' effect. Of course, the officer does have a lot to contend with while driving as if it was a pursuit, such as oncomming traffic, looking ahead for possible dangers like cars pulling onto the road, his own safety, location of 'stop sticks', etc. Should there have been a ticket issued? I'm not sure on this, but I personaly think it would have been better to have let it all 'drop' after it was determined to have been a FF enrt to a call. Of course, if the officer could have realized that the tags were EMS plates sooner before the final stop, and the dispatchers would have verified there was an active fire call going on, maybe this would have ended differently. I know the article says that the officer knew it before drawing his weapon, but maybe the officer was thinking the car may have been stolen? Again, a quick check by DISPATCH would have let the officer know a fire call was 'active'. And yes, some lighting to the rear might have made a difference as well.
Monday morning quarter-backing, I know, but this one is interesting to me.
Of course, down south here in TN where law enforcement is blue, and fire/ems is red (mostly) that helps to differentiate who is who when lights are used. Don't get me wrong, I love a red/blue combo, but using solid colors for law and fire does have some advantages at times... (a completely different arguement
) And different laws in different parts of the country play into this as well. Due regard, etc...
Just my thoughts, interested to hear others...
Monday morning quarter-backing, I know, but this one is interesting to me.
Of course, down south here in TN where law enforcement is blue, and fire/ems is red (mostly) that helps to differentiate who is who when lights are used. Don't get me wrong, I love a red/blue combo, but using solid colors for law and fire does have some advantages at times... (a completely different arguement
) And different laws in different parts of the country play into this as well. Due regard, etc...Just my thoughts, interested to hear others...
Last edited by a moderator:
jswwjw
Member
I understand both persons point of view; the FF was responding with "lights and siren" and thought it was a deputy responding to the same call. The officer said they had received a call earlier of a person impersonating a police officer in a black Challenger (or charger) and the FF did not pull over. I thought the officer and FF handled themselves professionally.
It appeared to me that the officer was in a very rural area with backup a distance away so I understand his having his weapon out and per his own admission had not probably dealt with this situation before. When the FF asks if he can get on the engine and respond to the call the officer is not quite sure.
Better communication would be nice but our vol FF respond on a different frequency than we do so that is often times not applicable.
Good luck to both of them.
It appeared to me that the officer was in a very rural area with backup a distance away so I understand his having his weapon out and per his own admission had not probably dealt with this situation before. When the FF asks if he can get on the engine and respond to the call the officer is not quite sure.
Better communication would be nice but our vol FF respond on a different frequency than we do so that is often times not applicable.
Good luck to both of them.
jrfive0 said:
For what responding to an Emergency? He did a good job on responding in a safe manner, especially when it came to stop sign's. I totally agree with rear lighting, for those operating with just a dash light or forward facing lights, it does make you look more like an imposter and offers no safety to the rear when you happen to be on scene.
Last edited by a moderator:
theroofable
Member
I am curious as to why this officer didnt know there was a call going out. However I can understand if its in a different town or department, but has he never seen a pov before? He turned into the EMS building + EMS plate + red light = wtf are you doing? Car is also not a challenger as he stated. As I see it he should have let him go, and the gun was unnecessary. Also, if the state says he is an emergency vehicle, he does not have to yield to the cop.
Why do people always put states that are not involve with the videos? Different state different rules. Nobody cares what would happen in your state. I dont know the laws regarding povs in this state though.jrfive0 said:
Last edited by a moderator:
I think this is going to play a major role in the investigation:
Clark's written report faults the firefighter for acting without "due regard" for public safety. The call went out as an "Alpha-level" page for an "odor investigation."
According to Dane County policy, Alpha-level calls are non-emergencies and should be answered with "no lights, no siren (and) normal driving conditions," Clark wrote.
Clark's written report faults the firefighter for acting without "due regard" for public safety. The call went out as an "Alpha-level" page for an "odor investigation."
According to Dane County policy, Alpha-level calls are non-emergencies and should be answered with "no lights, no siren (and) normal driving conditions," Clark wrote.
EVT said:
In the video he says "Delta". Also, I believe it stated the ultimate discretion is left up to the individual responders.
fireman658
Member
ISU_Cyclone said:
In which 6 of the 8 individuals responded code in their pov's. I guess he better go after the whole department. Lol. I think the cop was very unjustified. I understand the concern due to an imposter from earlier in the day, but as easy as it is for the officer to run a plateand hit the scan button as our officers do this could have easily been avoided. Now it has to be drawn out because the officer is in too deep to retract everything and apologize.
bwoodruff
Member
"Dean was cited for failing to yield to an emergency vehicle. He is contesting the ticket."
I would too. In NY emergency vehicles don't have to yield to other emergency vehicles (fact), and except in specific circumstances, shouldn't (my opinion).
If I'm responding to an MVA w/ injuries in a fire apparatus, I'm going to pull over for the paramedic unit behind me (will probably try to coordinate by radio).
If I'm responding to a GSW in an ambulance, I'm going to pull over for the trooper.
If I'm going to a fire call, in a fire apparatus, I'm not pulling over for anyone (except maybe a Chief, and I would probably coordinate with them via radio first). Certainly not for law enforcement.
Sounds like both sides have some splainin' to do though, as he probably shouldn't have been running lights and siren to a non-emergency call, in which case he wouldn't have been considered an emergency vehicle.
So I think I'm good with giving him a ticket for failure to exercise due regard (or whatever it would be called), but failure to yield doesn't seem like an appropriate ticket.
I would too. In NY emergency vehicles don't have to yield to other emergency vehicles (fact), and except in specific circumstances, shouldn't (my opinion).
If I'm responding to an MVA w/ injuries in a fire apparatus, I'm going to pull over for the paramedic unit behind me (will probably try to coordinate by radio).
If I'm responding to a GSW in an ambulance, I'm going to pull over for the trooper.
If I'm going to a fire call, in a fire apparatus, I'm not pulling over for anyone (except maybe a Chief, and I would probably coordinate with them via radio first). Certainly not for law enforcement.
Sounds like both sides have some splainin' to do though, as he probably shouldn't have been running lights and siren to a non-emergency call, in which case he wouldn't have been considered an emergency vehicle.
So I think I'm good with giving him a ticket for failure to exercise due regard (or whatever it would be called), but failure to yield doesn't seem like an appropriate ticket.
theroofable
Member
Is that for the trucks only or pov as well. It could take a large amount of time if you had to wait for 5 guys coming 10-15mns to the station when not running code. Just sayin, not familiar with any of this alpha page stuff. Care to expand further on the levels?EVT said:
In my area we really don't have volunteer firefighters that respond with lights and sirens in their vehicle but I can see the need for it in other areas of the Country.
In my opinion the officer was justified in pursuing the vehicle that he had a "reasonable suspicion" to believe may have committed, or be committing a crime (impersonating police officer). As the pursuit went on, he received plenty of information via his own observations (seeing red lights and hearing siren) and from his dispatcher to alleviate some, if not all, of his suspicion that the person(s) he was pursuing were committing a crime. Once the vehicle stopped at a Fire-Rescue station, "THAT’S A CLUE”. Prior to the officer drawing his weapon, he received the info of the EMS tag and he should have observed the obvious demeanor of the driver. It absolutely was not that of a person that just fled from the police. The driver's comments clearly made sense that he thought the officer was responding to the same call he was. The officer should have let the driver handle the emergency he was responding to and followed up with him after that. The officer had all the information he needed to contact the driver later. Again, in my opinion the driver, nor the pursuing officer, appeared to be driving recklessly given the weather, road, and traffic conditions.
Traffic stops are dangerous and we should have our weapons drawn and ready to take care of business should the need arise, however, we also get paid to use good judgment and constantly assess and reassess the situation. The officer may have slightly over reacted. Glad to see that at the end of the day, everyone went home safe.
In my opinion the officer was justified in pursuing the vehicle that he had a "reasonable suspicion" to believe may have committed, or be committing a crime (impersonating police officer). As the pursuit went on, he received plenty of information via his own observations (seeing red lights and hearing siren) and from his dispatcher to alleviate some, if not all, of his suspicion that the person(s) he was pursuing were committing a crime. Once the vehicle stopped at a Fire-Rescue station, "THAT’S A CLUE”. Prior to the officer drawing his weapon, he received the info of the EMS tag and he should have observed the obvious demeanor of the driver. It absolutely was not that of a person that just fled from the police. The driver's comments clearly made sense that he thought the officer was responding to the same call he was. The officer should have let the driver handle the emergency he was responding to and followed up with him after that. The officer had all the information he needed to contact the driver later. Again, in my opinion the driver, nor the pursuing officer, appeared to be driving recklessly given the weather, road, and traffic conditions.
Traffic stops are dangerous and we should have our weapons drawn and ready to take care of business should the need arise, however, we also get paid to use good judgment and constantly assess and reassess the situation. The officer may have slightly over reacted. Glad to see that at the end of the day, everyone went home safe.
Last edited by a moderator:
How long would it have taken for the volunteer to stop, ID himself and go about his business? I betcha it's quicker than this "claim" he filed. A LIGHT only does not give ROW.
As far as the officer driving too fast, he's trained at high speed driving, does the volunteer FD teach that? Apples and oranges.
And, "YES", you don't stop with lights and siren behind you and then get out of your car; you deserve a "gun in the face" (Which looked a LOT farther away on tape.
As far as the officer driving too fast, he's trained at high speed driving, does the volunteer FD teach that? Apples and oranges.
And, "YES", you don't stop with lights and siren behind you and then get out of your car; you deserve a "gun in the face" (Which looked a LOT farther away on tape.
EVT said:
As it should.
fireman658 said:
So because most of the guys who responded also did the same thing that makes it right?
theroofable said:
I didn't see a whole lot of traffic in the video. Looks like a mostly rural area. I doubt running normal traffic would have made much of a difference, other than it wouldn't have let him think he could run 90MPH, which he shouldn't have done either way.
fireman658
Member
cook2890
Member
theroofable
Member
His speed was never clocked. The cop never even got that close behind him, always kept distance. If you want to pull someone over, shouldnt you get just a tad closer? Yes, what do the SOP/SOGs state? :bonk:GTRider245 said:
theroofable said:
What would have had him do? Get on the dude's bumper running 70 AFTER having to run 100 for a full minute to even get close to him? Maybe tap the rear corner panel at the first stop sign?
He ran emergent to an odor investigation. What police agency goes to odor investigations? This is a serious question. Fire departments here do not run emergent to these type calls nor does law enforcement even respond. Regional difference maybe? This should have been a red flag to the whole "responding to the same call" thing.
It would literally have taken a minute at most to pull over, let the officer know who he was and what was going on, and go from there.
chief1562
Member
GTRider245 said:
So now you are saying that all the agencies in GA do non run emergencies to this type of call.
Are you the offical rep. for all the agencies?
Do you know what their Sop/Sogs are for this responce?
Highly dought that you are.
Maybe his Sop mandates in runs that you don't know.
You came here to learn some different ideas I'm quessing, but you you are not open to what experienced members are saying you are one sided in your think everything should come from a book or what the company has written down.
My guess is if you get on a scene you'll pull the book out and use it to decide what to do.
chief1565 said:
I guess your reading comprehension skills are as poor as your spelling, grammar and paragraph structuring skills.
Nowhere did I claim to be representing anyone but myself. I said departments here. That would be my local area. Do you want a mileage radius of the area I am speaking for?
The report says that this call is not considered emergent for them. Pretty cut and dry.
Are you going to keep following me around the forums spewing the same BS on every post? If so that is pretty sad. Get a hobby.
chief1562
Member
GTRider245 said:
What is in bold pretty much states that you are including all Fire/Police agencies since your info shows a broad area and not a specific town.
And I probably will follow you around the is an open forum and I read most of them.
If you say something I disagree with I will say so.
You've said things in a few other forums and I didn't say anthing. I can if you like.
I don't agree with you throwing out the BS with the SOP's all the time.
You haven't said a word on what you would do if there was a situation where the written SOP could not be followed and what you would do different then said SOP.
So hang in there more to come.
theroofable
Member
GTRider245 said:
In many places, PDs go to every fire call, but you wouldnt know that because you just assume everything is the same as where you are. Well here, well here. No, not here, there. And why would he pull over if he is an emergency vehicle? When I'm driving an emergency vehicle, I don't pull over for other emergency vehicles behind me.
I didn't think either one of them were out of line in their behavior. Both were very professional with their interaction with each other. The firefighter's driving seemed to be safe and appropriate in speed, he obeyed stop signs and generally drove with due regard for the public. The officer was following from a distance far enough back that the firefighter didn't perceive that he was being pursued or asked to let the officer past... That said, the officer was following with appropriate distance for speeds involved. If in the state involved, a POV with red light and siren is an emergency vehicle, then I would see no reason for the firefighter to be ticketed. Should the officer have completed his investigation and verified that the driver was in fact an emergency responder en-route to a call? Yep. He did. Should the firefighter have been cited? Nope. I didn't see him do anything wrong. The real question, which has already been asked, is why didn't the officer know that fire was responding to a call? I don't expect law fire or ems to operate on the same frequency, they don't where I am from, but I do expect officers and dispatchers to be aware of other agencies responding to calls in the same area. A little more situational awareness would have saved everyone a whole lot of trouble.
Weather he should or shouldn't have been responding emergency, in my opinion, is a question that his department leadership should have dealt with, not an officer from another agency.
And lastly, a dashlight is not enough visual warning for an emergency vehicle.
Weather he should or shouldn't have been responding emergency, in my opinion, is a question that his department leadership should have dealt with, not an officer from another agency.
And lastly, a dashlight is not enough visual warning for an emergency vehicle.
As someone from an POV = emergency vehicle state, the LEO was in the wrong.
PD often travels to our calls and I believe they are even advised not to pass us. The FF used due-regard, the only thing amiss is the LEO not putting 2+2 together. If a LEO for whatever reason wanted to pull me over, I would expect a horn or PA announcement of such, otherwise in this situation (LEO wasn't even that close to him) I would not pull over. I can't even count how many times I have been tailed to the same or a different call in the same direction.
I hope they apologize, offer LEOs some training and everyone can move along....
PD often travels to our calls and I believe they are even advised not to pass us. The FF used due-regard, the only thing amiss is the LEO not putting 2+2 together. If a LEO for whatever reason wanted to pull me over, I would expect a horn or PA announcement of such, otherwise in this situation (LEO wasn't even that close to him) I would not pull over. I can't even count how many times I have been tailed to the same or a different call in the same direction.
I hope they apologize, offer LEOs some training and everyone can move along....
As everyone keeps questioning why the LEOs didn't know FD was on a job.. I'll throw my hat in the ring. In Berkeley County, SC our FD is dispatched on VHF and BCSO is dispatched on UHF. Some LEOs have a VHF radio in their car, others don't. Those that do have them occasionally turn them off. PD doesn't come to a fire call unless requested or if it's a confirmed working fire. IDK how they run where this incident took place, but I could see a similar incident being plausable here.
CPDG23 said:
That is no double standard. Police Officers are given certain privelages to perform our job. When I was a cop I was allowed to exceed the speed limit to catch a violator. Where does it say a firefighter driving a POV priority needs to be doing 90mph? Why would a fire fighter even be doing that? Police are trained for high speed driving, firefighters are not.
This fire fighter was in the wrong and he knows it. Driving priority is a privelage not a right. He had an obligation to yield to the officer. I would have done the same thing as the officer in this situation.
He doesnt deserve to be a firefighter.
Mike L. said:
In Michigan we are allowed to exceed the speed limit to respond, with due regard.
Mike L. said:
Where does it show he was doing 90? The LEO was doing 90/100 to catch up to him.
Mike L. said:
How do you know?
Mike L. said:
How was he in the wrong? How do you know he was driving without due-regard?
Mike L. said:
For both LEOs and FFers
Mike L. said:
You can speak for your state, or since I don't know where this took place, there too, but you can't speak for every state. In Michigan, this is simply untrue.
Mike L. said:
OK.
Mike L. said:
Why?
Just because things are done one way here or there doesn't make them the same everywhere. A lot of your understanding doesn't take into account in some states, like Michigan, there is nothing legally different from a firetruck, POV, ambulance or LEO responding to an emergency. Do you think if you got behind a firetruck running lights they would pull over for you? Well in Michigan, neither would a POV.
bwoodruff
Member
Here is the actual law in WI for all those who feel he "should had been arrested" or "shouldn't be a firefighter" or "deserves a gun in his face" - he was actually following the law fully...
And if that isn't enough, just like MI - WI considers POVs emergency vehicles too....
Would be just like trying to pull over another LEO, good luck with that...
And if that isn't enough, just like MI - WI considers POVs emergency vehicles too....
Would be just like trying to pull over another LEO, good luck with that...
CPDG23 said:
Police are trained to drive HIGH SPEED. It is called EVOC. Every State trains their police officers to high speed driving. I have never heard of any Fire Dept. training its members to drive faster than 10 over the posted limit. Fire trucks and ambulances can't be driven like police cars. In states that allow POV response, POV's are not designed for the type of driving the police do.
Second, the law states that you yield to law enforcement. Yes, I understand there may have been a communication issue. However, that doesn't change the fact that the FF still should have yielded. The officer was investigating a bonafide criminal complaint against the FF. Pulling over, flashing his dept ID and explaining the call he was going to would have prevented all of this.
He doesn't deserve to be a fire fighter and he should have been arrested. He committed a crime by failing to yield (obstruction) and put his fellow firefighters and the public in jeopardy. This sounds like a case of an over eager ff to me.
You all can think what you want but the point stands that it was the firefighters actions and his actions alone that created this situation. Had he simply stopped none of this would have happened, and it would have taken a minute at most for the officer to confirm his identity and that he was legit. How long was the response delayed because of the felony stop.
I understand loyalty to a brother firefighter, but sometimes one has to look at the ENTIRE picture.
Flashguy
Member
patrol530
Member
I finally watched the video, so that I might comment with some accuracy. Get off the gun thing, that's uber common. I unholster my gun as I see fit, depending upon the comfort of the situation. My life, so I get to be in charge of pointing guns. On many stops, my gun might be by my side, out of the operators view, once again depending upon "my" comfort. Immediately upon seeing what he had, and determining the threat, the officer holsters his weapon. As far as the chase is concerned, does anyone honestly believe that the vollie thought it was just another emergency vehicle responding? A patrol car with a full complement of emergency equipment in law enforcement colors, does not a fellow vollie make. Another tragic victim of blinkie fever clouding common sense. The vollie's offer to drop his claim, if the Police add a training day is most amusing.
Mike L. said:
You are just not getting it.
If FFers in POVs believe, as the law is written, that they are driving an emergency vehicle (as the law states they are), why on earth would he pull over for a LEO without the LEO announcing on the PA, or honking his air-horn?
I can't count how many times a LEO has followed me into a scene, I can only imagine the confusion it would cause if I pulled over every time it has happened.
Ride along in a POV = EV state for a week, then tell us that.
In Michigan (and I imagine in WI) we can ignore speed, direction of traffic and are immune from traffic laws while responding in POVs. We can be held negligent or face civil liability for causing accidents, just like a LEO, but that is all. He broke no law.
Is this a hard concept for you to grasp?
Last edited by a moderator: