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

[mcpd2025]

I appreciate it, I try my best 40 hours a week. In reference to the officer you saw, I would strongly encourage you to get a stock number or tag number and contact the department. Besides the fact that it isn't professional to see an officer in public playing solitaire, that is a huge liability. Even if you don't get any identifying information, contact the department and let them know what is going on.


By the way... super jealous that you live in Charleston! The bride and I stopped in Charleston in February 2011 on the way home from Florida and loved the city! Very beautiful city, lots of history, lots of natural beauty... truly amazing city! North Charleston sucks though...

 

[foxtrot5]

I appreciate it, I try my best 40 hours a week.

You're quite welcome.

In reference to the officer you saw, I would strongly encourage you to get a stock number or tag number and contact the department. Besides the fact that it isn't professional to see an officer in public playing solitaire, that is a huge liability. Even if you don't get any identifying information, contact the department and let them know what is going on.

I'll suffice it to say that it was handled by the department after they received a phone call from a concerned citizen.

By the way... super jealous that you live in Charleston! The bride and I stopped in Charleston in February 2011 on the way home from Florida and loved the city! Very beautiful city, lots of history, lots of natural beauty... truly amazing city! North Charleston sucks though...

I really feel like we've had this discussion before but I can't seem to find it at the moment. Yes indeed, Charleston is beautiful. North Charleston, not so much.

 

[cbpdogboy]

There is no excessive force used here. Based on the circumstances given, I think the Officer and the Firefigter acted professionally...professional courtesy was given at the end when things were explained. What makes people think they can sue for everything?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cM4wRx0Lfsg

 

[picone239]

http://elightbars.org/forums/f23/too-far-both-sides-38462/

 

[mcpd2025]

That thread got way off topic, so I'll post this here... I never saw the video when it was first posted. From what I can see and hear (on a laptop with crappy speakers) the police officer did NOTHING over the line. He was in a pursuit of a vehicle with an unknown occupant. When the vehicle finally stopped, the occupant attempted to get out of the car. The only complaint that I have is that the officer didn't wait for backup before approaching the vehicle, but I don't know where backup may be coming from. The officer is facing an unknown threat, gave orders for the guy to get back in the car and keep his hands up. He cleared the vehicle, explained the situation to the guy and it was over.


From this video, I don't see any excessive speed by the firefighter. I don't have any experience as a volunteer and can't speak as to what he was thinking or why. I will offer this perspective though... if he thought the cop was going to the same scene as him, why would the cop have followed him to the firehouse rather than continue on to the scene? At the point in time the cop follows him into the parking lot of the station, he needs to start realizing that the cop is going after HIM, not the scene. I can give the benefit of the doubt that the volunteer maybe was excited and not realizing what was going on. He initially talked back to the officer before he sat back down in his car. In my opinion, the blame rests with the volunteer BUT it doesn't appear that the volunteer was negligent or aggresive, just perhaps unaware of what was going on and failed to realize that he was a huge potential threat to the officer.


From my perspective as a police officer, I don't know who you are or what you are doing. Just because you have EMT or FF tags on your car does not mean that I let down my guard before I verify who you are. Just because the pursuit (and this IS a pursuit, whether or not the volunteer realized it) ends at the firehouse doesn't mean anything. 8 years ago a bunch of juveniles in a stolen car tried to run me over. My corporal pursued them into a dead end street. I got back in my car and attempted to block them in. They rammed my cruiser and took us on a pursuit that ended in the parking lot behind a local fire station. When we searched the car we located several stolen guns in the trunk of the car.


I realize that a large majority on this board are not police officers and I realize that unless you have experienced these types of things from a cops perspective, you don't think about it. This is why I spend so much time discussing these sorts of issues on here, because a large majority of people are truly ignorant about the threats and situations that police officers face day in and day out.


If cops simply let their guard down and worry more about being "Officer Friendly" and not getting an occasional courtesy complaint they face a much higher risk of being killed. I was trained to treat everyone as a potential threat (as nicely as the situation allows) and back down from there. My experiences as a police officer for 10.5 years confirms that this is the safest way to get through a shift and get home to my family. I get one or 2 courtesy complaints (they don't like the tone of my voice, or I yelled at them "for no reason" nonsense) a year, but I have (knock on wood) never been seriously injured in the line of duty. I've been to funerals of coworkers on my department, I try to go to all the DC area police funerals, and I have seen a lot of friends retire on disability because of injuries. I don't want to be like them.

 

[FSEP]

On that note, I believe this is a good reason why every first responder running code should also have radio/call number.


That and have better relations with your local PD.

 

[Quentin]

How our local area work. Any time fire/rescue gets a call dispatch out,


Dispatch also dispatches it over LE Ch. so they know what's going on.


We have ONE dispatch center that's dispatches city fire, city pd, sheriff, and 13 rural fire department's.


With this everyone is on the ball and knows what's going on.

 

[SomeBloke]

Way it works in my town is, Fire Chief is also a Police Officer and any medical or fire calls are through the same dispatch as police.


They just notify they're switching channels from police to fire and then everyone knows. Not to mention all the FFs know the police and a good majority of the police are Ffs elsewhere or similar.


On top of which here you can only have white to the front and red to the back for Vol lighting.

 

[dcfrmp255]

How our local area work. Any time fire/rescue gets a call dispatch out,
Dispatch also dispatches it over LE Ch. so they know what's going on.


We have ONE dispatch center that's dispatches city fire, city pd, sheriff, and 13 rural fire department's.


With this everyone is on the ball and knows what's going on.

Exactly how we are.......we also dispatch for another county. :yes:

 

[theroofable]

I just that the officer did not need the gun, after following the guy with L/S to a firehouse wearing a fire co shirt with a firetruck about to leave. I hope this guy is never a detective.

 

[mcpd2025]

I just that the officer did not need the gun, after following the guy with L/S to a firehouse wearing a fire co shirt with a firetruck about to leave. I hope this guy is never a detective.

Couple holes in your thought process...


#1 Do you know that the officer saw the shirt? I've never been assaulted by a shirt. I've been punched by hands, had weapons held in hands pointed towards me, had several knives thrown at me by hands, etc. I am watching HANDS... not a shirt design.


#2 Is their any restriction as to who may purchase a fire department shirt? I have one from my local department, I'm not a firefighter. Last time I checked, you can buy them online from some departments (FDNY for example), you can buy them at fundraisers, you can design your own, etc etc. Just cause he is wearing a department shirt doesn't mean he is a member of the department.


#3 Are there no criminals within the membership of any fire department? Even if the guy was the founding member of the department and was a highly decorated veteran, he can still be a criminal fleeing from the police for a myriad of reasons.


As you can see, there is way more potential to this story than you are thinking about. My job and my safety do not allow me to make too many assumptions. I have ZERO problem with this guy sticking his gun in the vollie's ear until he determines that the vollie is not a threat to him.

 

[theroofable]

Couple holes in your thought process...

#1 Do you know that the officer saw the shirt? I've never been assaulted by a shirt. I've been punched by hands, had weapons held in hands pointed towards me, had several knives thrown at me by hands, etc. I am watching HANDS... not a shirt design.


#2 Is their any restriction as to who may purchase a fire department shirt? I have one from my local department, I'm not a firefighter. Last time I checked, you can buy them online from some departments (FDNY for example), you can buy them at fundraisers, you can design your own, etc etc. Just cause he is wearing a department shirt doesn't mean he is a member of the department.


#3 Are there no criminals within the membership of any fire department? Even if the guy was the founding member of the department and was a highly decorated veteran, he can still be a criminal fleeing from the police for a myriad of reasons.


As you can see, there is way more potential to this story than you are thinking about. My job and my safety do not allow me to make too many assumptions. I have ZERO problem with this guy sticking his gun in the vollie's ear until he determines that the vollie is not a threat to him.

I see why you give these reasons.. It is what it is, not saying that he should sue either. Also, if his vehicle is recognized as an emergency vehicle, he does not have to yield to other emergency vehicles. As said before, there were many ways of preventing this from happening from the start.

 

[Quentin]

I had something like this happen to a member of a vfd I was on.


I forgot what the call was but any ways, call went out I headed to a sub station to jump on the pumper, as I was pulling in the pumper was pulling out "single narrow drive" and a LEO curse in front him trying to back out "sandwich" lol.


I guess the officer didn't think the member was real and the officer didn't even get to talk to how fast he jump in the pumper he said.

 

[Klein]

I see no problem with it. I have been pulled over going to call for speeding 10 over (back when I didn't have lights). I had a "Support Firefighters" ribbon magnet on the back. The officer got out and yelled "are you going to call?!" I poked my head out and said "yea". He then just said to leave. But I pulled over immediately and didn't jump out like this guy did. I would never do that anyway. I think it all went well. A lawsuit isn't justified here (I haven't seen where that was said that someone was suing). As the volly was saying who he was he should (assuming he didn't since it didn't look like the officer noticed) have handed over his DL and insurance and his valid department ID. A T-shirt means nothing. I am no longer in my VFD but I have all my shirts and I wear them in territory regularly. Luckily for me we have a great relationship with LE here so most POVs don't get pulled over, unless they are grossly disregarding the law or due regard. I could see how the volly thought the LEO was going to the same call and maybe he is new or got tunnel vision and didn't think about the LEO pulling in behind him so that is a tough call. I AM that aware of my surroundings so if that happened to me I would know it was for me. I am always paying attention to other blinkies behind me (at work; 911 EMS).

 

[cybercop]

I see why you give these reasons.. It is what it is, not saying that he should sue either. Also, if his vehicle is recognized as an emergency vehicle, he does not have to yield to other emergency vehicles. As said before, there were many ways of preventing this from happening from the start.

I would beg to differ on your remark about it being a recognized emergency vehicle. From what I can see, the car is not marked in any way shape or form (example, police car, ambulance, fire truck), most states don't register a POV as an emergency vehicle in their local state system, so how is the officer to know?


In the video there is a backstory as to what aroused the officers suspicion, so the officer had every reason to take those actions. Why was it if he was indeed going to the station, there were not other cars/units there? It looked the bays were closed to me. If the cop didn't pass him at any time, what would make this guy think they were going to the same call? Why would the cop just stay behind the car? Umm, Hello, pull over!


Here in TX, that's called evading arrest and/or detention with a motor vehicle, a felony. Including seizure being filed on the vehicle.


Bottom line, if I light you up, pull over, tell me if you are going to a call, leave, 20 seconds at the most? Don't assume we know you, don't assume we know what you do, don't assume we know your vehicle. A fully maked patrol car with exempt tags > POV vehicle with blinkies.


Threats are real out there, it's what we do, deal with it, don't tell us how to do our job, we get shot at, so don't complain if you failed to pull over and there is a gun or several guns pointed in your direction.

 

[Quentin]

I would beg to differ on your remark about it being a recognized emergency vehicle. From what I can see, the car is not marked in any way shape or form (example, police car, ambulance, fire truck), most states don't register a POV as an emergency vehicle in their local state system, so how is the officer to know?

In the video there is a backstory as to what aroused the officers suspicion, so the officer had every reason to take those actions. Why was it if he was indeed going to the station, there were not other cars/units there? It looked the bays were closed to me. If the cop didn't pass him at any time, what would make this guy think they were going to the same call? Why would the cop just stay behind the car? Umm, Hello, pull over!


Here in TX, that's called evading arrest and/or detention with a motor vehicle, a felony. Including seizure being filed on the vehicle.


Bottom line, if I light you up, pull over, tell me if you are going to a call, leave, 20 seconds at the most? Don't assume we know you, don't assume we know what you do, don't assume we know your vehicle. A fully maked patrol car with exempt tags > POV vehicle with blinkies.


Threats are real out there, it's what we do, deal with it, don't tell us how to do our job, we get shot at, so don't complain if you failed to pull over and there is a gun or several guns pointed in your direction.

I think he ran the plates and even show that's he's EMS or something?

 

[Goodsam]

I would beg to differ on your remark about it being a recognized emergency vehicle. From what I can see, the car is not marked in any way shape or form (example, police car, ambulance, fire truck), most states don't register a POV as an emergency vehicle in their local state system, so how is the officer to know
.

listen to 30-40 sec mark officer says on the radio clearly "that its is EMS plates"

 

[mcpd2025]

listen to 30-40 sec mark officer says on the radio clearly "that its is EMS plates"

All that means is that he has organizational tags. That doesn't mean that the driver is EMS. Hell, anyone can get Maryland organizational tags that read "FOP, DC STATE LODGE". That doesn't mean that the person is, in any way, shape or form, a police officer. It just means that the guy somehow got the tags.


For that matter lets say Dad is the fire chief and his personal car has a plate in the front that reads as such. Maybe his son is a drug addict and takes dad's car... is the cop to ASSUME that the driver is the fire chief?

 

[Goodsam]

All that means is that he has organizational tags. That doesn't mean that the driver is EMS. Hell, anyone can get Maryland organizational tags that read "FOP, DC STATE LODGE". That doesn't mean that the person is, in any way, shape or form, a police officer. It just means that the guy somehow got the tags.
For that matter lets say Dad is the fire chief and his personal car has a plate in the front that reads as such. Maybe his son is a drug addict and takes dad's car... is the cop to ASSUME that the driver is the fire chief?

I see your point and don't disagree at all. But there its obvious that the owner of the car is an EMT if they have the plates and are displaying an emergency light and stoping at the Emergency facility you could most of the time go hey this is probably and EMT. your argument is a good one. I was just pointing out that there was some kind of marking on the vehicle as an emergency responder:


Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) license plates - WisDOT





Eligibility


These license plates are available to anyone who is currently employed as an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT).

 

[Zoe]

I see your point and don't disagree at all. But there its obvious that the owner of the car is an EMT if they have the plates and are displaying an emergency light and stoping at the Emergency facility you could most of the time go hey this is probably and EMT. your argument is a good one. I was just pointing out that there was some kind of marking on the vehicle as an emergency responder:

Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) license plates - WisDOT


View attachment 47045View attachment 47046


Eligibility


These license plates are available to anyone who is currently employed as an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT).

Not trying to argue, or even make a point... just wanted to show how my state does it.


These plates:


[Broken External Image]:http://www.mafirememorial.org/licenseplates/files/stacks_image_77_1.png


Are available to anyone. All it means is that a proceeds of the higher registration cost goes to the memorial fund.


We don't have special reserved plates for FFs, EMTs, etc.... but these plates tend to be purchased by FFs...


But as I said, doesn't mean the person is one.

 

[Quentin]

What he needs is a radio "potable or mobile" and just radio in to dispatch.... Could have been that easy


Or better yet used his cell and called dispatch

 

[mcpd2025]

I see your point and don't disagree at all. But there its obvious that the owner of the car is an EMT if they have the plates and are displaying an emergency light and stoping at the Emergency facility you could most of the time go hey this is probably and EMT. your argument is a good one.

There is a HUGE point that I think you are missing though... The officer does not know who is DRIVING the car. Yes, chances are the OWNER of the car is an EMT, but that doesn't restrict who can or is driving the car.


Maybe the son is a junkie with dope in the car. Maybe the owner was just carjacked and is stuffed in the trunk. Maybe the car was stolen. Maybe the owner/driver/EMT is a criminal. I have pulled over cars in all those above scenarios. The point that I am trying to get you to understand is that anything is possible when making a traffic stop. A police officer has no idea what he is stepping in to.


All traffic stops start off with a heightened sense of alert and caution. When the driver fails to stop right away, that increases my sense of alert and caution as I try to figure out why this guy isn't stopping. The delayed stop turns into a pursuit and now I am on full alert. This guy is violating criminal and traffic law at this point and I still do not know why. The guy finally and suddenly stops, you have no idea why. Is he eating drugs, is he retrieving a weapon, is he aiming a weapon? Then the guy GETS OUT OF THE CAR... this is a HUGE no no in my area. Anybody gets out of a car without me asking and I at least take my gun out of my holster, preparing for the worst.


This cop did his job correctly and professionally. The blame lies with the volunteer, there is no doubt. As I stated before, I can forgive the volunteer for his mistake... but only after I have confirmed that I am safe, he isn't a threat and there was a valid explanation.

 

[Goodsam]

There is a HUGE point that I think you are missing though... I am Not missing anything The officer does not know who is DRIVING the car. Yes, chances are the OWNER of the car is an EMT, but that doesn't restrict who can or is driving the car.

Maybe the son is a junkie with dope in the car. Maybe the owner was just carjacked and is stuffed in the trunk. Maybe the car was stolen. Maybe the owner/driver/EMT is a criminal. I have pulled over cars in all those above scenarios. The point that I am trying to get you to understand is that anything is possible when making a traffic stop. A police officer has no idea what he is stepping in to.


All traffic stops start off with a heightened sense of alert and caution. When the driver fails to stop right away, that increases my sense of alert and caution as I try to figure out why this guy isn't stopping. The delayed stop turns into a pursuit and now I am on full alert. This guy is violating criminal and traffic law at this point and I still do not know why. The guy finally and suddenly stops, you have no idea why. Is he eating drugs, is he retrieving a weapon, is he aiming a weapon? Then the guy GETS OUT OF THE CAR... this is a HUGE no no in my area. Anybody gets out of a car without me asking and I at least take my gun out of my holster, preparing for the worst.


This cop did his job correctly and professionally. The blame lies with the volunteer, there is no doubt. As I stated before, I can forgive the volunteer for his mistake... but only after I have confirmed that I am safe, he isn't a threat and there was a valid explanation.

You obviously failed to read/comprehend the beginning and end of my comment or the beginning of your statement would have read different. I did not say the officer was in the wrong (I still actually completely agree with you and MOST everything you stated except what I highlighted above ) I was not passing judgment AGAIN my comment was directed to the LACK or NO Indications the vehicle was an emergency responder vehicle THEIR WAS SOME AND THE OFFICER NOTED IT . In my response to the below quote:

I would beg to differ on your remark about it being a recognized emergency vehicle. From what I can see, the car is not marked in any way shape or form (example, police car, ambulance, fire truck), most states don't register a POV as an emergency vehicle in their local state system, so how is the officer to know?
.

Other than that my opionion on the videois : I think the Officer DID EVERYTHING RIGHT!


But hindsights 20/20 and we here can come up with 10,000 different ways this should have been handled knowing both sides of the story for the most part

 

[mcpd2025]

You obviously failed to read/comprehend the beginning and end of my comment or the beginning of your statement would have read different. I did not say the officer was in the wrong (I still actually completely agree with you and MOST everything you stated except what I highlighted above ) I was not passing judgment AGAIN my comment was directed to the LACK or NO Indications the vehicle was an emergency responder vehicle THEIR WAS SOME AND THE OFFICER NOTED IT .

I read it, put perhaps I misunderstood it. But even though you said you agreed with me, you still wrote "But there its obvious that the owner of the car is an EMT if they have the plates and are displaying an emergency light and stoping at the Emergency facility you could most of the time go hey this is probably and EMT". I was making a point that regardless if what the tags say, the officer has no idea who is driving the car. Your posts continue to come across (to me at least) that just because the tags are indicative of the owner being an EMT that the officer should have done something different, taken a less invasive approach or somehow otherwise let his guard down. I was simply refuting this theory.


If I misunderstood, I apologize if it offended you. I guess I don't understand any purpose of the sentence highlighted in red if it isn't meant to criticize the actions of the officer.

 

[Firetrux]

I find it funny that the suit is for "only" $50,000. In this day and age you ask for millions for mental anguish, pain and suffering. Imagine the humiliation he must have felt in front of his fellow firefighters! - insert sarcasm...


I think he and his lawyer are merely asking for a solution rather than any form of discipline. Perhaps he desires to bring it to the attention of those in power that it never need happen again. A law suit, even a small one is often the only way to get governments to realize there are issues. That small amount is a plea not a punishment.

 

[mjMIff]

I will offer this perspective though... if he thought the cop was going to the same scene as him, why would the cop have followed him to the firehouse rather than continue on to the scene? At the point in time the cop follows him into the parking lot of the station, he needs to start realizing that the cop is going after HIM, not the scene......... <snip>...

From my perspective as a police officer, I don't know who you are or what you are doing. Just because you have EMT or FF tags on your car does not mean that I let down my guard before I verify who you are. Just because the pursuit (and this IS a pursuit, whether or not the volunteer realized it) ends at the firehouse doesn't mean anything....... <snip>...

I don't understand. The LEO can't assume this is a firefighter, but the firefighter should had assumed he was trying to pull him over, without LEO using his air horn, or PA?

#2 Is their any restriction as to who may purchase a fire department shirt? I have one from my local department, I'm not a firefighter. Last time I checked, you can buy them online from some departments (FDNY for example), you can buy them at fundraisers, you can design your own, etc etc. Just cause he is wearing a department shirt doesn't mean he is a member of the department.

We do not allow non-members to wear our department logo or anything that would identify someone as a member of our department. While we have no legal means to stop someone, we will not sell nor sponsor the sale of items with our logos to someone and our members are diligent about this policy. My wife even knows she cannot wear my shirts or jackets.

#3 Are there no criminals within the membership of any fire department? Even if the guy was the founding member of the department and was a highly decorated veteran, he can still be a criminal fleeing from the police for a myriad of reasons.

We do background checks and even something as simple as a speeding ticket can be cause for removal of code privileges. BTW, if this happened here, I would have no idea that I was fleeing as I am driving a emergency vehicle which is lawfully no different then a LEOs car here in Michigan.


But yet, the firefighter is supposed to ASSUME he is trying to pull him over? Why? What if it was common for them to be followed, or to follow LEOs like it is for me? I would never assume I am being pulled over.


Look, I don't disagree with your logic but even stating the fire fighter was doing nothing wrong you are still blaming him.


If this happened to me, first, I would have no idea what the LEO is doing, we don't hear their radio traffic. Second, I wouldn't ASSUME the LEO isn't going to the station, or passed the station on an unrelated call. Third, LEOs have been told not to pass our fire traffic unless absolutely necessary (MWAG, etc..). Forth, the LEO to a firefighter in this position made no attempt to identify this as a traffic stop. I have been followed to the scene, or had LEOs follow me going to another scene many times. If there was something wrong, I know they would call dispatch to have me pull over, or use an air-horn or use a PA. But under no circumstances, even if they where exactly the same as in the video, would I assume I was being pulled over.


This was just a cluster, I find fault with neither of the parties, although I view the sidearm being drawn as excessive. I am sure the two forces came together to figure out a policy to prevent this from happening again and hopefully in time will come back together and work without this suit looming over their heads.

 

[Zoe]

If this happened to me, first, I would have no idea what the LEO is doing, we don't hear their radio traffic. Second, I wouldn't ASSUME the LEO isn't going to the station, or passed the station on an unrelated call. Third, LEOs have been told not to pass our fire traffic unless absolutely necessary (MWAG, etc..). Forth, the LEO to a firefighter in this position made no attempt to identify this as a traffic stop. I have been followed to the scene, or had LEOs follow me going to another scene many times. If there was something wrong, I know they would call dispatch to have me pull over, or use an air-horn or use a PA. But under no circumstances, even if they where exactly the same as in the video, would I assume I was being pulled over.


This was just a cluster, I find fault with neither of the parties, although I view the sidearm being drawn as excessive. I am sure the two forces came together to figure out a policy to prevent this from happening again and hopefully in time will come back together and work without this suit looming over their heads.

That's a big problem. If an agency emergency vehicle comes up and closes in on someone in a personal vehicle, the driver of the personal vehicle should pull to the right and stop to allow the agency vehicle to pass. This should hold true be the agency LEO, Fire, or EMS.

 

[mcpd2025]

I don't understand. The LEO can't assume this is a firefighter, but the firefighter should had assumed he was trying to pull him over, without LEO using his air horn, or PA? When there is a police officer behind you with lights on, it is traffic law to pull over. The firefighter need not assume anything, he simply needed to obey traffic law. I understand there was possibly confusion and the volunteer may have initially thought the officer was responding to the same scene as he was. I extend the benefit of the doubt to the volunteer that he misinterpreted the officers intentions, but the volunteer was in violation of the law. Plain and simple. Do I think we should crucify the volunteer and arrest him for failing to yield and fleeing in a vehicle... no. From what I understand, the officer never cited him and it ended there from the cops perspective.



We do not allow non-members to wear our department logo or anything that would identify someone as a member of our department. While we have no legal means to stop someone, we will not sell nor sponsor the sale of items with our logos to someone and our members are diligent about this policy. My wife even knows she cannot wear my shirts or jackets. Exactly my point, you have no means to stop someone from acquiring your departments shirts. Someone could have made a similar looking shirt, someone could have borrowed a members shirt, someone could be wearing a neighboring departments shirt. A shirt, in and of itself, is not sufficient identification anyways. I am sure most people here have some type of department issued identification. I am not going to let down my guard just cause I see a fire department shirt. I will probably ask your affiliation with said department and ask for credentials though.





We do background checks and even something as simple as a speeding ticket can be cause for removal of code privileges. BTW, if this happened here, I would have no idea that I was fleeing as I am driving a emergency vehicle which is lawfully no different then a LEOs car here in Michigan. This is YOUR department. There have been plenty of examples on this forum that show that some volunteer organizations are so desperate for membership that they allow "less desirables" to join. My local department has a volunteer that has been arrested numerous times for DUI. Who is to say that he isn't drunk, gets a page, drives drunk to the station and ignores an officers attempt to pull him over? There are all kinds of stories about "good ole boy" departments, nepotism within departments, squirrely little nuts that just want any reason to put blinkies in their cars, etc etc. Just because you are a volunteer firefighter does not mean that you are a saint or otherwise not a potential threat to me... especially at the tail end of a pursuit. Hell, for that matter there have been instances of off duty cops in marked cars getting pulled over and fighting with officers.





But yet, the firefighter is supposed to ASSUME he is trying to pull him over? Why? What if it was common for them to be followed, or to follow LEOs like it is for me? I would never assume I am being pulled over. I am willing to extend the benefit of the doubt, as I have stated numerous times. At some point though, the volunteer needs to realize that the officer is following HIM, not responding to the call. For example, the scene is straight down Main St... but the officer follows the volunteer as he turns onto 2nd Ave to go to the fire station. It should have become obvious at some point that the cop is not going to the scene.





Look, I don't disagree with your logic but even stating the fire fighter was doing nothing wrong you are still blaming him. Do you blame the officer? If so, what did the officer do that is wrong, in your opinion... and why? I realize that you want some type of audible signal from the cop... but it is quite possible that a siren/air horn/PA announcement is not required by law. The volunteer was wrong for not pulling over, that isn't something that I think anyone disputes. I understand the volunteer's logic that he thought the officer was following him to the scene, but he was still WRONG.





If this happened to me, first, I would have no idea what the LEO is doing, we don't hear their radio traffic. Neither do citizens and they usually pull over when I am behind them with lights on... usually. I hate the sound of the siren, so I rarely use it when making a traffic stop. Second, I wouldn't ASSUME the LEO isn't going to the station, or passed the station on an unrelated call. So even when the officer who has his red and blue lights on follows behind you at every turn, follows you into the parking lot and stops directly behind your car... you still aren't putting 2 and 2 together and starting to wonder if this officer is coming for you??? Third, LEOs have been told not to pass our fire traffic unless absolutely necessary (MWAG, etc..). You do realize that this would be a policy decision or an informal agreement, not a state law, correct? Forth, the LEO to a firefighter in this position made no attempt to identify this as a traffic stop. I have been followed to the scene, or had LEOs follow me going to another scene many times. If there was something wrong, I know they would call dispatch to have me pull over, or use an air-horn or use a PA. But under no circumstances, even if they where exactly the same as in the video, would I assume I was being pulled over. Your state might be different, but the state of Maryland does not require lights and siren to make a traffic stop. Case law has established that EITHER light or siren or both can be used to effect a traffic stop. Could the officer have chosen to sound the siren... yes. I can't begin to know why he didn't. Might it have made things more clear.... probably. Is it wrong that he did not... depends on your state law, but probably not. Does the officer have an obligation to have his dispatch contact your dispatch to contact you to tell you to pull over... I HIGHLY doubt it.





The absolutely easiest way to resolve something like this is to PULL OVER. In the first scenario, if the officer is going to the same call as you, you can pull behind him and follow him to the scene. This would probably be safer, because I would guess that a marked police car is more visible to the public than a POV with a dash light. More importantly, if the officers intention is to pull you over, in the second scenario he will pull in behind you when you pull over and you will know without a doubt that his intention was to pull you over. This would remove all doubt and wouldn't put you in a position to make the wrong assumption.





This was just a cluster, I find fault with neither of the parties, although I view the sidearm being drawn as excessive. Why? After all the points that I have made about it being an unknown risk stop, a pursuit, the volunteer getting out of his vehicle. What else do you need to justify, in your mind, the officer pulling out his gun? In your mind does the officer have to receive fire before he can break leather? Does he have to confirm that his life is, in fact, being threatened before he can defend himself? At what point, in your opinion, is an officer justified in pulling out his gun? I am sure the two forces came together to figure out a policy to prevent this from happening again and hopefully in time will come back together and work without this suit looming over their heads.

See my answers in red. I understand that you are not a cop and you don't appreciate the dangers associated with my job. I am not a firefighter and I don't appreciate the dangers of your job. The difference is, I don't question why you take certain precautions. I don't tell you that you shouldn't get dressed in your turnout gear while responding to a fire, because you haven't confirmed there is a fire yet. I don't tell you to leave the SCBA in the truck until after you have gone in the building to confirm that you need air. Those are precautions that you take based upon the information that you have or the directives of your department. I don't tell you that you should have a spotter drive out to the scene to confirm that more appartus is needed. These are certain things that you do based upon training, experience and regulations.


The same theory goes with a cop. On a normal traffic stop without any other factors I don't take my gun out of my holster. When I start having aggravating factors such as a pursuit, known suspect and/or lookout for the vehicle, furtive gestures from within the car then I start taking precautions. Those precautions can be as simple as getting a backup unit started, getting my gun out of my holster, taking cover or actually throwing lead down range. These reactions are based upon the officers training, experience, criminal and traffic law and department regulations.

 

[mjMIff]

When there is a police officer behind you with lights on, it is traffic law to pull over.

I can only speak for Michigan but this is not true when our lights/sirens are on.

The firefighter need not assume anything, he simply needed to obey traffic law.

Again, I can only speak for Michigan but we are not required to obey traffic law any more then a LEO is.

I understand there was possibly confusion and the volunteer may have initially thought the officer was responding to the same scene as he was. I extend the benefit of the doubt to the volunteer that he misinterpreted the officers intentions, but the volunteer was in violation of the law. Plain and simple. Do I think we should crucify the volunteer and arrest him for failing to yield and fleeing in a vehicle... no. From what I understand, the officer never cited him and it ended there from the cops perspective.

Can't flee if you are not breaking any laws.

I am willing to extend the benefit of the doubt, as I have stated numerous times. At some point though, the volunteer needs to realize that the officer is following HIM, not responding to the call.

No, he doesn't need to do anything but respond to the call he is responding to.

For example, the scene is straight down Main St... but the officer follows the volunteer as he turns onto 2nd Ave to go to the fire station. It should have become obvious at some point that the cop is not going to the scene.

So it should had been obvious to the officer he was a FF once he was heading to the station? Same argument.

Do you blame the officer? If so, what did the officer do that is wrong, in your opinion... and why? I realize that you want some type of audible signal from the cop... but it is quite possible that a siren/air horn/PA announcement is not required by law. The volunteer was wrong for not pulling over, that isn't something that I think anyone disputes. I understand the volunteer's logic that he thought the officer was following him to the scene, but he was still WRONG.

Wouldn't be here. Maybe there, but not in my experience.

Neither do citizens and they usually pull over when I am behind them with lights on... usually. I hate the sound of the siren, so I rarely use it when making a traffic stop.

We are required to even at 3am. Only LEOs can do that. I don't respond that way at night though since traffic is usually non-existent and I don't want to wake up the town.

So even when the officer who has his red and blue lights on follows behind you at every turn, follows you into the parking lot and stops directly behind your car... you still aren't putting 2 and 2 together and starting to wonder if this officer is coming for you???

No law would require me to care what the officer is doing.

You do realize that this would be a policy decision or an informal agreement, not a state law, correct?

Yup.

Your state might be different, but the state of Maryland does not require lights and siren to make a traffic stop. Case law has established that EITHER light or siren or both can be used to effect a traffic stop. Could the officer have chosen to sound the siren... yes. I can't begin to know why he didn't. Might it have made things more clear.... probably. Is it wrong that he did not... depends on your state law, but probably not. Does the officer have an obligation to have his dispatch contact your dispatch to contact you to tell you to pull over... I HIGHLY doubt it.

Just as I am not required to do anything just because one is behind me.

The absolutely easiest way to resolve something like this is to PULL OVER. In the first scenario, if the officer is going to the same call as you, you can pull behind him and follow him to the scene. This would probably be safer, because I would guess that a marked police car is more visible to the public than a POV with a dash light. More importantly, if the officers intention is to pull you over, in the second scenario he will pull in behind you when you pull over and you will know without a doubt that his intention was to pull you over. This would remove all doubt and wouldn't put you in a position to make the wrong assumption.

I would never pull over and stop.

 

[HILO]

Wow the dillholeness is strong on this thread.

 

[rwo978]

 

[theroofable]

I would beg to differ on your remark about it being a recognized emergency vehicle. From what I can see, the car is not marked in any way shape or form (example, police car, ambulance, fire truck), most states don't register a POV as an emergency vehicle in their local state system, so how is the officer to know?
Bottom line, if I light you up, pull over, tell me if you are going to a call, leave, 20 seconds at the most? Don't assume we know you, don't assume we know what you do, don't assume we know your vehicle. A fully maked patrol car with exempt tags > POV vehicle with blinkies.

Actually, there are states that classify them as emergency vehicles. I believed that your state was one (I stress believed, correct me if Im wrong). So do you pull over every unmaked vehicle that is running lights and sirens? Also remember that this incident was not in your state. Different laws, rules, regs, etc...

Threats are real out there, it's what we do, deal with it, don't tell us how to do our job, we get shot at...

And what about those who are in both fields?

 

[mcpd2025]

I can only speak for Michigan but this is not true when our lights/sirens are on.

Again, I can only speak for Michigan but we are not required to obey traffic law any more then a LEO is.


Can't flee if you are not breaking any laws.


No, he doesn't need to do anything but respond to the call he is responding to.


So it should had been obvious to the officer he was a FF once he was heading to the station? Same argument.


Wouldn't be here. Maybe there, but not in my experience.


We are required to even at 3am. Only LEOs can do that. I don't respond that way at night though since traffic is usually non-existent and I don't want to wake up the town.


No law would require me to care what the officer is doing.


Yup.


Just as I am not required to do anything just because one is behind me.


I would never pull over and stop.

Ok dude... whatever you say. I am sure that you have way more experience in law enforcement than I do anyways. Good luck in Michigan, but I wouldn't suggest trying any of this in Maryland.

 

[rwo978]

Ok dude... whatever you say. I am sure that you have way more experience in law enforcement than I do anyways. Good luck in Michigan, but I wouldn't suggest trying any of this in Maryland.

Same in ND.

 

[50theman]

Same in Virginia.


But I don't see where it says, except Emergency Vehicles.


THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)


Act 328 of 1931








750.479a Failure to obey direction of police or conservation officer to stop motor vehicle or vessel; violation of subsection (1); fleeing and eluding as felony; penalty; suspension of license; revocation; conviction and sentence under other provision; definitions.


Sec. 479a.





(1) An operator of a motor vehicle or vessel who is given by hand, voice, emergency light, or siren a visual or audible signal by a police or conservation officer, acting in the lawful performance of his or her duty, directing the operator to bring his or her motor vehicle or vessel to a stop shall not willfully fail to obey that direction by increasing the speed of the vehicle or vessel, extinguishing the lights of the vehicle or vessel, or otherwise attempting to flee or elude the police or conservation officer. This subsection does not apply unless the police or conservation officer giving the signal is in uniform and the officer's vehicle or vessel is identified as an official police or department of natural resources vehicle or vessel.





(2) Except as provided in subsection (3), (4), or (5), an individual who violates subsection (1) is guilty of fourth-degree fleeing and eluding, a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.





(3) Except as provided in subsection (4) or (5), an individual who violates subsection (1) is guilty of third-degree fleeing and eluding, a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both, if 1 or more of the following circumstances apply:





(a) The violation results in a collision or accident.





( B) For a motor vehicle, a portion of the violation occurred in an area where the speed limit is 35 miles an hour or less, whether that speed limit is posted or imposed as a matter of law or, for a vessel, a portion of the violation occurred in an area designated as "slow—–no wake", "no wake", or "restricted" whether the area is posted or created by law or administrative rule.





© The individual has a prior conviction for fourth-degree fleeing and eluding, attempted fourth-degree fleeing and eluding, or fleeing and eluding under a current or former law of this state prohibiting substantially similar conduct.





(4) Except as provided in subsection (5), an individual who violates subsection (1) is guilty of second-degree fleeing and eluding, a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00, or both, if 1 or more of the following circumstances apply:





(a) The violation results in serious impairment of a body function of an individual.





( B) The individual has 1 or more prior convictions for first-, second-, or third-degree fleeing and eluding, attempted first-, second-, or third-degree fleeing and eluding, or fleeing and eluding under a current or former law of this state prohibiting substantially similar conduct.





© The individual has any combination of 2 or more prior convictions for fourth-degree fleeing and eluding, attempted fourth-degree fleeing and eluding, or fleeing and eluding under a current or former law of this state prohibiting substantially similar conduct.





(5) If the violation results in the death of another individual, an individual who violates subsection (1) is guilty of first-degree fleeing and eluding, a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 15 years or a fine of not more than $15,000.00, or both.





(6) Upon a conviction for a violation or attempted violation under subsection (2) or (3), the following apply:





(a) If the individual was operating a motor vehicle, the secretary of state shall suspend the individual's operator's or chauffeur's license as provided in section 319 of the Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.319.





( B) If the individual was operating a vessel, the individual's privilege to operate a vessel shall be suspended for a period not to exceed 5 years.





(7) Upon a conviction for a violation or attempted violation under subsection (4) or (5), the following apply:





(a) If the individual was operating a motor vehicle, the secretary of state shall revoke the individual's operator's or chauffeur's license as provided in section 303 of the Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.303.





( B) If the individual was operating a vessel, the individual's privilege to operate a vessel shall be revoked for a period of not less than 5 years.





(8) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, a conviction under this section does not prohibit a conviction and sentence under any other applicable provision for conduct arising out of the same transaction. A conviction under subsection (2), (3), (4), or (5) prohibits a conviction under section 602a of the Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.602a, for conduct arising out of the same transaction.





(9) As used in this section:





(a) "Prior conviction" means:





(i) For a violation of this section while operating a motor vehicle, the person had a previous conviction for a violation of this section while operating a motor vehicle or a previous conviction for fleeing and eluding under a current or former law of this state prohibiting substantially similar conduct while operating a motor vehicle.





(ii) For a violation of this section while operating a vessel, the person had a previous conviction for a violation of this section while operating a vessel.





( B) "Serious impairment of a body function" means that term as defined in section 58c of the Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.58c.





© "Vessel" means that term as defined in section 80104 of the natural resources and environmental protection act, 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.80104.





(10) This section shall be known and may be cited as the "Lieutenant Donald Bezenah law".

 

[mjMIff]

Ok dude... whatever you say. I am sure that you have way more experience in law enforcement than I do anyways. Good luck in Michigan, but I wouldn't suggest trying any of this in Maryland.

Agree to disagree? That is fine with me. I wouldn't "try" anything in another state without knowing the laws. I am just speaking as the laws relate to me and my experience, just like how you are speaking how the laws relate to you and your experience. I am just trying to show from my experience, what you ask, can't always be the case. POV FFers can't always assume they are being pulled over and we have no legal requirement to believe as such.


If PD gets on scene and tells central to have us slow down, we slow down and turn off our lights/siren. That is about the most we will experience PD while responding.


In WI where this happened the FF was clearly an emergency vehicle and as such, he simply did nothing wrong by not pulling over.

(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.

The exemption granted the operator of an authorized emergency vehicle by sub. (2) (a) applies only when the operator of the vehicle is giving visual signal by means of at least one flashing, oscillating or rotating red light except that the visual signal given by a police vehicle may be by means of a blue light and a red light which are flashing, oscillating or rotating, except as otherwise provided in sub.

I appreciate the civil debate, not resorting to name calling etc.. I'll stop now though, I have said my peace on this matter many of times..