Too far on both sides.......

[mjMIff]

As far as the chase is concerned, does anyone honestly believe that the vollie thought it was just another emergency vehicle responding?

According to the law of WI, where this took place, yes, the volly is driving an emergency vehicle, no different then the LEO..

(3) "Authorized emergency vehicle" means any of the following:
(a) Police vehicles, whether publicly or privately owned, including bicycles being operated by law enforcement officers.


( B) Conservation wardens' vehicles, foresters' trucks, or vehicles used by commission wardens, whether publicly or privately owned.


© Vehicles of a fire department or fire patrol.


(d) Privately owned motor vehicles being used by deputy state fire marshals or by personnel of a full-time or part-time fire department or by members of a volunteer fire department while en route to a fire or on an emergency call pursuant to orders of their chief or other commanding officer.

Just because some states have no volly lighting laws, others have blue "asking" laws, doesn't mean what I am saying isn't true, there 50 states and each one does things a little different.

 

[jo_ball13]

This incident began in Oregon, WI and ended in Brooklyn, WI. Oregon is in Dane County which has a centralized dispatch. A large number of LEO's in Dane County don't monitor fire and EMS as the law enforcement channels are busy enough. They are generally advised by dispatch when their respective Fire/EMS is being dispatched. Brooklyn is actually in both Dane and Green County. Due to Brooklyn's location on the county line, the deputies from Dane and Green and Rock (which abutts Brooklyn) are usually not nearby. I do not know where the fire call was. Below is a link to Google maps showing Oregon to Brooklyn. The firefighter was responding from Oregon to Brooklyn. Why would Officer Clark immediately assume that this vehicle that wouldn't pull over for me and has EMS plates be responding to a fire call? Also why would he assume that the firefighter was responding to this department for a call since he had been coming from Oregon (which has their own fire and EMS)? In LE, assumptions are not good to make and given the report of a possible impersonation and the similar vehicle that appeared to have failed to yield right of way, I would say approaching as he did was warranted.


https://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF-8&gl=us&daddr=brooklyn,+wi&saddr=oregon,+wi&panel=1&f=d&fb=1&dirflg=d&geocode=KXN7ocNLSwaIMYInUgw0UUvU%3BKR9p1nNlNQaIMQikCIclsSOi&ei=KFKfUOaXEIPyyAGfp4CADw&ved=0CDEQ-A8wAA


Forgot to mention, Oregon PD and Brooklyn FD/EMS are dispatched by Dane County Communications (link to their website below). If you want to see the different response levels and information on them, click the priority dispatch tab.


Home - Public Safety Communications Center - Government of Dane County, Wisconsin

 

[ISU_Cyclone]

I think I can probably offer the most accurate perspective of anyone on this board.


I am a POC FF/EMT that responds in my POV with full red lights/siren.


I am a full time Sheriff's Deputy in an area with paid-on-call and volunteer Fire/EMS.


I am in Wisconsin near where this took place.


As a FF/EMT, I have pulled over for Law Enforcement that I KNOW to be going to the same call as me, and several times they have pulled over behind me....thinking we had arrived at the call. I have also followed FF's POV's in a fully marked police vehicle and did not expect nor demand they pull over for me (unless it is a "police first" call like a suicidal or GSW). Many do pull over just because they know I am willing to drive faster in a squad car than they are in their POV.


This was simply the perfect storm of circumstances and I think it should just be chalked up as a learning experience for everyone.

 

[jo_ball13]

Definitely agree with ISU Cyclone. It was the perfect storm and should be dismissed as such. I don't think anyone went overboard or was discourteous about the matter at the scene, but this just seems like gold digging to me.

 

[chief1562]

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.

Hate to burst your bubble.


But here in this county (because I can't speak for the entire state of NY) our FF's paid and vol. also take the EVOC course.


So we can learn how to drive engine's,tankers,at speed and now how to handle a situiation with concern for weight of the vehicle with water. How to back properly and not hit anything or pin somebofy against it.


So don't say it's just for Leo's.


That is as bias as hell.

 

[timlinson]

In North Dakota (Not this man's state), EMS/Fire takes a separate EVOC. It is low speeds, backing, turning, and operating the vehicle in a safe manner. LE takes high speed EVOC, which includes your normal LEO skills, plus driving safe at high speeds. I bet 99% of the deputies here couldn't get in a fire truck and drive it, especially in a safe manner. They are used to their smaller, faster, better handling SUVs and cars. No matter what you drive, you need confidence, but also the know-hows on how to.


Just because you have taken EVOC does not mean your qualified to drive the vehicle. You need to be alert and pay attention at all times. You need to be confident, but not cocky. If this guy's POV is his daily driver, and he responds quite often, there is a high chance he knows how to push his vehicle and how to keep it under control. Same thing for the officer.


Our old fire chief was running to a fire call (he lived on a farm) on a state highway where the speed limit was 65. It was a straight, flat shot into town, and on a summer day. He had his lights on, but did not know the call had been cancelled. A state trooper radared him at 90. He was pulled over, and the trooper, knowing the call was cancelled, had some fun. It went like this:


Trooper: I got you going 90 in a 65


Chief: Im going to a fire call


Trooper: No your not


Chief: Yes I am


Trooper: No your not, there is no call


Chief yes there is! (replays page)


Trooper: That call was cancelled


Chief: oh (((


Anyway, the chief came in the next day after un-installing his lights and put them on the shelf. He realized what he was doing was stupid and dangerous, and said he wouldn't go code anymore. In my area, it's 15 over the speed limit IF you can safely.


I don't place blame on either, they both acted professionally.

 

[chief1562]

Our old fire chief was running to a fire call (he lived on a farm) on a state highway where the speed limit was 65. It was a straight, flat shot into town, and on a summer day. He had his lights on, but did not know the call had been cancelled. A state trooper radared him at 90. He was pulled over, and the trooper, knowing the call was cancelled, had some fun. It went like this:


Trooper: I got you going 90 in a 65


Chief: Im going to a fire call


Trooper: No your not


Chief: Yes I am


Trooper: No your not, there is no call


Chief yes there is! (replays page)


Trooper: That call was cancelled


Chief: oh (((


Anyway, the chief came in the next day after un-installing his lights and put them on the shelf. He realized what he was doing was stupid and dangerous, and said he wouldn't go code anymore. In my area, it's 15 over the speed limit IF you can safely.


I don't place blame on either, they both acted professionally.

Understandable.


Why wasn't the recall put out on the pagers that it was cancelled?


Yeah had a chief like that once.


Put out on pagers that there was no need for anymore responding units.


The Asst.chief on seen said there was enough on seen.


Chief continued on in running code. Because he thought he had to be there and was later chastized by the company at meeting and commisioners meeting.


Was told that is why he has Asst's with just as much training of situation as he.


His reply because I can, I'm the chief and can do what I want.

 

[timlinson]

Never is really. He's a great guy and still on the Dept, just has too much on his plate handling the family farm. the FD doesn't get radios so they cant talk back and forth, only EMS does. We get pagers and radios.

 

[NYBLS]

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.

But the firefighter did not know he was trying to pull him over. He simply believed he was going to the same call as him. Arrested? You have to be shitting me. And how did he put anyone at risk? He wasn't the one exceeding over 100mph chasing after someone who wasn't doing a single thing wrong.

 

[timlinson]

Our county has a rule that LE is not allowed to pass EMS if their going to the same call, so it can get confusing. ABCs = ambulance before cops.

 

[HFD eng1ine]

I think reguardless, the firefighter should not have been traveling that fast. End of story? You can't help anyone if you dont arrive to the scene alive.

 

[ISU_Cyclone]

I think reguardless, the firefighter should not have been traveling that fast. End of story? You can't help anyone if you dont arrive to the scene alive.

How fast was the firefighter going? What was the speed limit on the roads in the video?

 

[HFD eng1ine]

How fast was the firefighter going? What was the speed limit on the roads in the video?

If the officer was driving at 100mph and did not catch up to him for some time I would assume the firefighter was driving faster than posted speeds, be them highway speeds or not.

 

[chief1562]

Yes,but you must remember the FF had a slight head start it does take awhile to catch up.


Look at NASCAR a lead car can have a 3 second lead and look how far back the second place car is. And look at the speed those guys travel at.


3 seconds isn't much .

 

[HFD eng1ine]

Yes,but you must remember the FF had a slight head start it does take awhile to catch up.

Look at NASCAR a lead car can have a 3 second lead and look how far back the second place car is. And look at the speed those guys travel at.


3 seconds isn't much .

...Yes, but those NASCAR cars are all traveling at speeds that differ by only a mph or two. That is why a car traveling at say 150 mph would take a while to catch up to a car traveling at 149 mph if the second car is given a head start.


At 1:50 the officer says the car at one point was traveling 50 mph in a 35 mph zone.


At the same time you can see the vehicle in question about 100 yards ahead of the cruiser, maintaining the same spacing for a good stretch time between him in the cruiser, indicating that they are traveling at roughly the same speed. The cruiser was traveling at 82 mph and then around 75 mph. The MAXIMUM speed limit in Wisconsin is 65 mph, on a highway. This did not look like a highway. Either way, he was traveling almost 20 mph over the highest posted speed limit in his state.


Like I said before. If you don't arrive on scene IN ONE PIECE you can't help anyone.


Kent.

 

[ISU_Cyclone]

...Yes, but those NASCAR cars are all traveling at speeds that differ by only a mph or two. That is why a car traveling at say 150 mph would take a while to catch up to a car traveling at 149 mph if the second car is given a head start.

At 1:50 the officer says the car at one point was traveling 50 mph in a 35 mph zone.


At the same time you can see the vehicle in question about 100 yards ahead of the cruiser, maintaining the same spacing for a good stretch time between him in the cruiser, indicating that they are traveling at roughly the same speed. The cruiser was traveling at 82 mph and then around 75 mph. The MAXIMUM speed limit in Wisconsin is 65 mph, on a highway. This did not look like a highway. Either way, he was traveling almost 20 mph over the highest posted speed limit in his state.


Like I said before. If you don't arrive on scene IN ONE PIECE you can't help anyone.


Kent.

In Wisconsin, the speed at which an emergency vehicle can operate is at the discretion of the operator. Prudent and reasonable for the conditions.

 

[HFD eng1ine]

In Wisconsin, the speed at which an emergency vehicle can operate is at the discretion of the operator. Prudent and reasonable for the conditions.

Then maybe the FF thought this was fine. I personally think his response was too fast but that's just my oppinion.

 

[mjMIff]

Then maybe the FF thought this was fine. I personally think his response was too fast but that's just my oppinion.

Well, if we forget the LEO was driving up to 70 without his lights on, and just use the time he had them on, it took him 1 minute to catch up to the FFer going an average of 90mph, so it took 1.5 miles.. If my math is correct, that means the FF was on average going about 75, which it seems the officer paces him at that speed for a bit.


If he was going 55 in a 35, that is consistent with 20 over. Now if that first road was 55, the LEO was doing up to 45 mph over.. Although it seems all that concerns people here is a ff'er LEGALLY going 20mph over for a false call, when a LEO was going 45 over for a false call (neither of them of course knew that fact).


Stop harping on the FF'er, we as civil servants find people are quick to judge and Monday morning quarterback all the time, we don't need to be doing it to each other... Especially when everything was LAWFUL... It doesn't matter what you "personally think", how things work by you, or how they work somewhere else can be completely different and acceptable.


C'on people, the crap being posted here is just wrong....

 

[jo_ball13]

For your info, this was on a county highway for the majority of the video. The speed limit is 35, changing to 45 before the hills then changing to 55 a bit before the first left curve. Once they enter Brooklyn, by the large sign on the right side of the road, it becomes a 35 then changes to a 25 by the gas station and remains a 25 for the remainder of the route in the video. Regardless of how you feel about the speeds, the information indicates he was paged for an alpha level response which means non-emergency. That means that the firefighter violated several traffic laws including unlawful use of emergency lights, and siren if he has one.

 

[mjMIff]

For your info, this was on a county highway for the majority of the video. The speed limit is 35, changing to 45 before the hills then changing to 55 a bit before the first left curve. Once they enter Brooklyn, by the large sign on the right side of the road, it becomes a 35 then changes to a 25 by the gas station and remains a 25 for the remainder of the route in the video. Regardless of how you feel about the speeds, the information indicates he was paged for an alpha level response which means non-emergency. That means that the firefighter violated several traffic laws including unlawful use of emergency lights, and siren if he has one.

Specifically, what law did he violate?

 

[ISU_Cyclone]

For your info, this was on a county highway for the majority of the video. The speed limit is 35, changing to 45 before the hills then changing to 55 a bit before the first left curve. Once they enter Brooklyn, by the large sign on the right side of the road, it becomes a 35 then changes to a 25 by the gas station and remains a 25 for the remainder of the route in the video. Regardless of how you feel about the speeds, the information indicates he was paged for an alpha level response which means non-emergency. That means that the firefighter violated several traffic laws including unlawful use of emergency lights, and siren if he has one.

Unlawful? Really? Explain...


At worst, he violated a POLICY. At best, he was for whatever reason under the impression it was a "Delta" call and simply mistaken (along with 6 others).

 

[jo_ball13]

Like I said, being that it was an Alpha level call (non emergency). Even when equipped with all the emergency lights/sirens in the world, unless you're actually responding to an emergency, you are not exempt from traffic laws. Responding like that to a non-emergency call means he was speeding, illegally using an emergency light (and siren if equipped), and failed to yield right of way to an emergency vehicle. I'm not saying he should have been charged as such if he was mistaken and believed it to be a Delta level response. The radio recordings would have to be played back in order to determine what level it was originally paged out as to clear up that issue. Also, its quite possible he knew it was an Alpha level response and knew he screwed up when the officer continued to follow him all the way until he parked at the station and decided to say he thought it was a Delta level response. We can speculate all day what was going on in his head and how it was originally paged out, but none of us know what was going on in his head and, as far as I'm aware, none of us know for sure how this was originally paged out. Again, this appears to have been a perfect storm as ISU Cyclone said before.

 

[ISU_Cyclone]

Like I said, being that it was an Alpha level call (non emergency). Responding like that to a non-emergency call means he was speeding, illegally using an emergency light (and siren if equipped), and failed to yield right of way to an emergency vehicle. I'm not saying he should have been charged as such if he was mistaken and believed it to be a Delta level response. The radio recordings would have to be played back in order to determine what level it was originally paged out as to clear up that issue. Also, its quite possible he knew it was an Alpha level response and knew he screwed up when the officer continued to follow him all the way until he parked at the station and decided to say he thought it was a Delta level response. We can speculate all day what was going on in his head and how it was originally paged out, but none of us know what was going on in his head and, as far as I'm aware, none of us know for sure how this was originally paged out. Again, this appears to have been a perfect storm as ISU Cyclone said before.

I just want to make sure you understand that it is the department POLICY that dictates an "Alpha" level call is non-emergent, not the LAW. Therefore, he violated policy, not the law.


Also, I think we all have been toned out to calls that at first seem very minor, but additional info you receive while en route make you step it up. Perhaps that was the case here, as I believe the call in question had something to do with a refrigerator on fire inside a residence.

 

[picone239]

I'd contest the ticket but the claim seems to be frivolous to me.

 

[theroofable]

Then maybe the FF thought this was fine. I personally think his response was too fast but that's just my oppinion.

You arent familiar with the roads. To me it looked like he was going slow if anything. Open roads with nobody on them. Its not like he is driving a firetruck 55 in a 35 (which could also be safe and fine there). He is driving a charger which handles great.

 

[mcpd2025]

I just want to make sure you understand that it is the department POLICY that dictates an "Alpha" level call is non-emergent, not the LAW. Therefore, he violated policy, not the law.

Also, I think we all have been toned out to calls that at first seem very minor, but additional info you receive while en route make you step it up. Perhaps that was the case here, as I believe the call in question had something to do with a refrigerator on fire inside a residence.

I haven't watched the video and don't really want to get into the debate too deep, but I disagree with the first part of your statement. If he is not authorized to respond with lights and/or siren by his department, he is not allowed to violate any traffic laws. There is no way that state traffic law can possibly coordinate with every federal, state, local and volunteer agency and set ground rules for who can ignore what traffic law at which times. Therefore the laws have been written that when an authorized emergency vehicle (defined by every state and the District of Columbia) is responding to an emergency call, they can disregard certain traffic laws. There is no definition for an "emergency call", therefore it is left up to each agency to designate what is an emergency call. Violation of agency policy is therefore a de facto violation of the law.


My police department does not authorize officers to run hot to fire calls. If I through my lights and sirens on and blow through traffic to get to a fire, I am in violation of policy and therefore I am not an authorized emergency vehicle in Maryland. If I pass through a speed camera or a red light camera en route to the fire, I will be legally responsible for the citation. That being said, if there are exigent circumstances, a supervisor can get on the air and give permission to respond hot. At that point in time I would be allowed to run hot to the fire. The supervisor doesn't have to call a meeting of the General Assembly in the state of Maryland to get permission to allow me to throw my lights on for a specific call.


Also, if I am dispatched lights and sirens to a shooting and another unit gets on scene and finds no evidence of a shooting, that officer can get on the air and tell other units to slow down their response. Even though it was dispatched as a hot call, once I am told to slow down (by any officer on scene, no matter of rank) I am no longer covered as an emergency vehicle and allowed to disregard traffic law.


If the call was put out as a non emergency call, this firefighter was in violation of department policy and therefore in violation of traffic law. That being said if it was originally dispatched as a hot call and subsequently downgraded to a non emergency call, you can argue that the driver wasn't aware that it had been downgraded because he was worried about driving safely, not checking his pager.


Again, I'm not weighing in on this particular case, cause I didn't watch the video.

 

[foxtrot5]

Also, if I am dispatched lights and sirens to a shooting and another unit gets on scene and finds no evidence of a shooting, that officer can get on the air and tell other units to slow down their response. Even though it was dispatched as a hot call, once I am told to slow down (by any officer on scene, no matter of rank) I am no longer covered as an emergency vehicle and allowed to disregard traffic law.

Hypothetical question for you, and I promise I'm not trying to be a jerk but you've provided an intelligent response to a controversial topic and I'd like further clarification. If an officer on scene of a "hot" job says over the air "Additional responding units can slow at your discretion" are you covered? Seems like that would be worded to be the responding offier's decision at that point. On my FD, if we're going to "cancel" the chief or assistant chief, we'll say "Chief, you can cancel at your discretion" but that's more of a respect thing for us as he's obviously the senior officer responding to the assignment.

 

[Jarred J.]

or here's one. conflicting orders...


dispatch. . . . all units be advised alarm company advises to cancel response. .


unit 1 arrives on scene. .. "ive got a worker here"...


scenario 2


officer 1 arrives on scene to a domestic, advises non emergent traffic....


officer 2 advises ok arrives 10 mins later and officer 1 is dead with subject now firing at officer 2. officer three doesnt know whats going on (asumes everything is ok due to last report) and is 15 minutes away.

 

[chief1562]

Hypothetical question for you, and I promise I'm not trying to be a jerk but you've provided an intelligent response to a controversial topic and I'd like further clarification. If an officer on scene of a "hot" job says over the air "Additional responding units can slow at your discretion" are you covered? Seems like that would be worded to be the responding offier's decision at that point. On my FD, if we're going to "cancel" the chief or assistant chief, we'll say "Chief, you can cancel at your discretion" but that's more of a respect thing for us as he's obviously the senior officer responding to the assignment.

Foxtrot,


In responce to your statement in bold.


Here in my area we use IC and who ever is first on the scene and annouces he is IC or assumes command is control of that scene. Even if the chief and officer is responding. The IC at the scene can radio dispatch and request all responding units to slow down or can upgrade the call.


Even upon arrival the chief or officer can not assume command without the IC or person in charge of the scene hands it over and gives a discription of what he has done and tells dispatch he is handing command over, only time the chief and or officer can assume command upon arrivel is if they feel the person is not handling the situation properly.

 

[Hoser]

or here's one. conflicting orders...


dispatch. . . . all units be advised alarm company advises to cancel response. .


unit 1 arrives on scene. .. "ive got a worker here"...


scenario 2


officer 1 arrives on scene to a domestic, advises non emergent traffic....


officer 2 advises ok arrives 10 mins later and officer 1 is dead with subject now firing at officer 2. officer three doesnt know whats going on (asumes everything is ok due to last report) and is 15 minutes away.

Seen those type calls happen quite a few times. For what ever reason the call was downplayed or short call by either caller or dispatcher. Have also walked into domestic situations a few times on a call for illness or broken arm from a fall. Just never know.......

 

[chief1562]

Don't know what you all might call it out there.


But besides domestic calls, one of the worst is what is called a 941 or mental call. For both leo and ems.

 

[mjMIff]

I haven't watched the video and don't really want to get into the debate too deep, but I disagree with the first part of your statement. If he is not authorized to respond with lights and/or siren by his department, he is not allowed to violate any traffic laws. There is no way that state traffic law can possibly coordinate with every federal, state, local and volunteer agency and set ground rules for who can ignore what traffic law at which times. Therefore the laws have been written that when an authorized emergency vehicle (defined by every state and the District of Columbia) is responding to an emergency call, they can disregard certain traffic laws. There is no definition for an "emergency call", therefore it is left up to each agency to designate what is an emergency call. Violation of agency policy is therefore a de facto violation of the law.

My police department does not authorize officers to run hot to fire calls. If I through my lights and sirens on and blow through traffic to get to a fire, I am in violation of policy and therefore I am not an authorized emergency vehicle in Maryland. If I pass through a speed camera or a red light camera en route to the fire, I will be legally responsible for the citation. That being said, if there are exigent circumstances, a supervisor can get on the air and give permission to respond hot. At that point in time I would be allowed to run hot to the fire. The supervisor doesn't have to call a meeting of the General Assembly in the state of Maryland to get permission to allow me to throw my lights on for a specific call.


Also, if I am dispatched lights and sirens to a shooting and another unit gets on scene and finds no evidence of a shooting, that officer can get on the air and tell other units to slow down their response. Even though it was dispatched as a hot call, once I am told to slow down (by any officer on scene, no matter of rank) I am no longer covered as an emergency vehicle and allowed to disregard traffic law.


If the call was put out as a non emergency call, this firefighter was in violation of department policy and therefore in violation of traffic law. That being said if it was originally dispatched as a hot call and subsequently downgraded to a non emergency call, you can argue that the driver wasn't aware that it had been downgraded because he was worried about driving safely, not checking his pager.


Again, I'm not weighing in on this particular case, cause I didn't watch the video.

I didn't read what you wrote and don't really want to debate it, but as ISU stated, breaking "policy" doesn't affect the laws..


The law is pretty simple, he is driving an "authorized emergency vehicle" and is "responding to an emergency call". It does not say anything about policies that would negate those facts. You cannot say, because someone decided a call was, whatever their word is for a non-code-call, means anyone who turns on their lights is breaking the law because it isn't written as such in the laws and that is how laws work, it has to be written for it to be true.


Also, it sounds like, from the video you didn't watch, he believed he was responding to whatever their code word is for an emergency call (although I beg to suggest if someone calls 911, it is an emergency). From the article you must not had read, it mentioned other members also responded, again whatever their code word being, to the call.


But like I said, I don't want to debate this, nor read what you write so I guess that's that...

 

[chief1562]

opcorn: opcorn: opcorn:

 

[CPDG23]

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.

I am a firefighter.


I am EVOC certified.


My department made EVOC a requirement before running code.


Now you know a fire department that trains it's employees in EVOC.


The state statues were posted, he was considered an "official emergency vehilce"


Do we need to go on with this argument?

 

[CPDG23]

I just want to make sure you understand that it is the department POLICY that dictates an "Alpha" level call is non-emergent, not the LAW. Therefore, he violated policy, not the law.

Also, I think we all have been toned out to calls that at first seem very minor, but additional info you receive while en route make you step it up. Perhaps that was the case here, as I believe the call in question had something to do with a refrigerator on fire inside a residence.

+1


I see a lot of remarks that the call was DISPATCHED as a non emergency.


I don't see any reference to whether the call was upgraded or stayed a non emergency.


I see a reference to the departments SOP/SOG's stating that it's up to the individual firefighter to use his or her discretion when responding. None of this changes the laws.

 

[Hoser]

"The officer was investigating a bonafide criminal complaint against the FF." end Quote.

There was no Criminal Complaint against the FF.


From the Wisconsin State Journal Quote:" Gilbertson had begun pursuing him several miles out, apparently in response to an earlier call elsewhere in the county of a motorist possibly impersonating a police officer." end Quote


Departments at odds after cop pulls gun on firefighter during traffic stop

 

[chief1562]

Don't ya just love the read in what you want, instead of what it said.

 

[Hoser]

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.

Way to quick to judge the situation. Not sayn the Firefighter was right or wrong. He assessed the situation as it arose and continued on to the FD. As far as your statement not deserving to be a firefighter I beg to differ. If you havent screwed up as an EMT your not doing your job, and the day will come. Hopefully not at someones expense. We are human and it happens. We all have to make Thousands of decisions everyday, some in the blink of an eye........


Chief pass the popcorn Please

 

[chief1562]

Way to quick to judge the situation. Not sayn the Firefighter was right or wrong. He assessed the situation as it arose and continued on to the FD. As far as your statement not deserving to be a firefighter I beg to differ. If you havent screwed up as an EMT your not doing your job, and the day will come. Hopefully not at someones expense. We are human and it happens. We all have to make Thousands of decisions everyday, some in the blink of an eye........


Chief pass the popcorn Please

opcorn: opcorn: opcorn: opcorn:


There you are.

 

[Station 3]

That officer did an excelent job with that situation almost TEXT BOOK by the looks of it i have no issue with what the officer did in this video. The gentleman in the "cop wanna be charger" needs some more lighting at least to be visible 360 here in Texas that "POV" would not meet the standard and he would be told to just drive the speed limit if thats all he has. And as for the officer driving in the "100s" to catch up to the suspect well im sorry but thats the only way to catch the person THATS SPEEDING its a necesary evil. Also i want to add that im a volunteer fire fighter i have been for 5 years i have taken my Fire EVOC course for driving an aparatus to emergencys and i am also a Police officer have been for about 2 1/2 years now and i have to tell you that the 5 hour EVOC fire course is a damn joke compared to the 1 week long police pursuit course where we learned how to do everything in the book not to mention high speed chases in dirt roads and pavement.


Im sorry fire boys but you just dont have that training...


And as for the people asking what he did wrong?? well let me list them.


1. he was speeding "emergency vehicle or not you cant drive like a maniac because you have 1 nice shiny light from galls on your dash"


2. he did not pull over for the police after an AwKWARD 7 min long pursuit which any person who was not so high up on themselfs would notice HEY somethings not right here.


3 "maybe optional" i dont know the departments SOPs but i hope that his set up on his POV is not the standard if so they need to STOP all POV operations since that is not safe no 360 lighting is just a NO!