mshow00 Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 I guess I am just spoiled. I have only had one job, and my company both pre and post AMR has had a lawyer. I agree with your assessment here Dust, I just have to much faith in peoples change; at least until they prove otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dustdevil Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 ...I just have to much faith in peoples change; at least until they prove otherwise. I know what you mean. I'm actually an old softy. But it's come back to bite me in the arse so many times that I force myself to be a jerk sometimes. :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6Echo25 Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 I'm a pretty tolerant guy on past mistakes. Lord knows I've made mine. But DUI is more than just a crime or mistake. It's indicative of poor judgement and reckless disregard for others. If you hire one, and you end up in court over ANYTHING he does, this is going to be brought back up, and you're going to be made to look like a dumbass for hiring him in the first place. Five years. Ten years. Twenty years. Doesn't matter. The jury is going to say you should have known better than to hire him for a position of public trust, where mature and intelligent decision making is paramount to public safety. And, as an administrator for the agency, it is my job to look after the image and legal profile of that agency, not to provide a public jobs programme to rehabilitate criminals. If you have an applicant that has been adjudicated guilty for any crime against a person or the public safety (altering your ID would not fall in that category, lol), you would be negligent to hire that person without seriously extenuating circumstances, like a pardon from the Governor or something. I hate to be that way, because I do not believe that all those people are bad people, or that they cannot be excellent employees. But again, that is not my concern. I'm an employer, not an unemployment counsellor. Dustdevil, you said this a million times better than I ever could have imagined myself doing. Opening the door for people previously convicted of DUI's for instance to work in an industry such as ours is negligent. I think it would only open more doors for more people convicted of more things to get their foot in. "They hired that guy with a DUI, why not me? I only hit my wife once." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mshow00 Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 Dustdevil, you said this a million times better than I ever could have imagined myself doing. Opening the door for people previously convicted of DUI's for instance to work in an industry such as ours is negligent. I think it would only open more doors for more people convicted of more things to get their foot in. "They hired that guy with a DUI, why not me? I only hit my wife once." You are just purposefully being ignorant now. No where has anyone said open the flood gates so any and everyone can attempt to do our job. A DUI (within a certain context and certain criteria met) should not be an automatic excluding point. Since you are so fond of hypothetical scenarios, try this one on for size: "ANY EMS personal who are involved in a motor vehicle accident while running with light and sirens, regardless of fault, should be immediately decertified and never allowed to work in this field again. Why you ask? simple they put the public in unnecessary risk." That is ignorant, like your comment, "They hired that guy with a DUI, why not me? I only hit my wife once." There is a huge difference, both in the "crime" and in public perception of said crime. Same point applies to your rapist/murderer comment. HUGE difference. Not even close to comparable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Plain Ruff Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 I'm not even going to keep hitting my head against the ceiling on this one. WE all have our own opinions and we are all entitled to those opinions be they right or wrong. That's what makes this country great. Just to be clear, I never advocated that this guy be given a job I just don't think it should be the sole criteria of whether he's hirable or not(maybe mispelled hirable though) ONe more pointless argument, if you go on with the serial killers and mass murderers and wife beater argument then what about medication errors. Should those people be fired and decertified because that ONE Mistake put the public at risk(at least one member of the public). We could go on and on and I'll concede that each of us has a valid point no matter how wrong I feel some of those points are but to each their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VentMedic Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 You are just purposefully being ignorant now. No where has anyone said open the flood gates so any and everyone can attempt to do our job. A DUI (within a certain context and certain criteria met) should not be an automatic excluding point. Since you are so fond of hypothetical scenarios, try this one on for size: "ANY EMS personal who are involved in a motor vehicle accident while running with light and sirens, regardless of fault, should be immediately decertified and never allowed to work in this field again. Why you ask? simple they put the public in unnecessary risk." That is ignorant, like your comment, "They hired that guy with a DUI, why not me? I only hit my wife once." There is a huge difference, both in the "crime" and in public perception of said crime. Same point applies to your rapist/murderer comment. HUGE difference. Not even close to comparable. Unfortunately, California has already given us enough examples of those with criminal convictions that were allowed into a system that failed to do any criminal backgrounds checks. And, if you are convicted of a felony in one county that may even revoke your license, you just go shopping for another county that didn't do checks. Good example which made for interesting reading while I was in Calfornia,: http://firefightingnews.com/article-US.cfm?articleID=31586 Spouse beating and DUI both demonstrate a lack of control and good judgement. I don't get how you compare a vehicle collision if there is no fault declared or noted impairment by substance abuse with a conviction for spouse battering and DUI. But, that way of thinking is exactly how others will seek loop holes in the system. Beating your wife and wrecking a truck if doing everything by the book would have to be considered with the same weight in a court of law, right? As far as medication errors, the intent can be the deciding factor there. If you had the intent to do harm with the medication such as the case with the "Angel of Death" in Glendale, CA, then yes decert and prison is the answer as it was for that guy. If it is an error, no. If you drink and drive after knowing the risks, then I would say even if you did not have the intent to harm someone, you knew very well of the potential. If you hit your wife, the same can apply. Edit for the following post: How many of your slip in judgements have landed you in jail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
countrygirl24to Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 Give it up for Ruff, Very well put. I think we can ALL agree that WE ALL made mistakes whether they be little or big. We all had an occasional slip of judgment in our lives. It doesnt excuse people from their actions. So why not just take it as a reminder for us, so we dont find ourselves in that situation. Let the person learn from their mistake and prove to those who were involved that they deserve a second chance. Cause We all get second chances to correct ourselves from each little mistake we made throughout life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brentoli Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 This is fire based, but I think it gives a good beginning. 5. Shall be drug-free, and have no convictions for driving under the influence of drugs. 6. Shall have no more then two (2) alcohol-related violations as a minor (18-21 years of age). 7. Shall not have a conviction for operating a vehicle while intoxicated (OWI), or operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol content (BAC) in excess of 0.10% within the past 5 years, and/or 0.08% since July 2001. 8. Shall have no felony convictions. 9. Shall have no convictions for any Class A misdemeanor. (Your first OWI in Indiana, with no other circumstances, is a Class C misdemeanor.) 10. Shall have no convictions for selected Class B misdemeanors (list attached). The final decision regarding disqualification in this area will be made by the Fire Chief. The following CLASS B MISDEMEANORS may be cause for disqualification. Convictions will be evaluated by the Fire Chief on a case-by-case basis. Battery Criminal Recklessness False Crime Reporting Disorderly Conduct Unlawful Use of Police Radio Possession of a Switchblade Visiting a Common Nuisance Public Intoxication Reckless Driving Furnishing Alcohol to a Minor Speed Contest Leaving the Scene of an Accident Harassment Criminal Mischief Voyeurism Unlawful Gambling Provocation Refusal to Aid an Officer Obstructing an Emergency Medical Person Interference with Jury Service Interference with Witness Service Unlawful Use of Communication Medium Invasion of Privacy Using or seeking to use a false, counterfeit or altered handgun carrying license to obtain a handgun contrary to the provisions of Regulation 35-47-2-8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
countrygirl24to Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 I agree Brent. The foundation of a second chance is to prove themselves to those who were wrong that they changed. Five years may seem like a long time but its not when it comes to putting others in danger like drunk driving. I think that should be the standard for anyone providing health care not just fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dustdevil Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 Five years may seem like a long time... LOL! This is the definition of adulthood. If five years seems like a long time, you've still got a lot of growing up to do. When ten years ago seems just like yesterday, you are no longer a kid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts