JakeEMTP Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 OK, Am I the only one who sees the injustice here? Why does this whacker deserve to have the charges dropped? The DA is a joke. If he had killed someone blowing through that red light would it still be ok? http://www.firerescue1.com/volunteer/articles/602445-Firefighter-arrested-for-speeding-to-fire-call-in-NC/ Peruse at your leisure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P_Instructor Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 OK, I agree. I can get along with dropping the felony charges, but he needs to be blasted with all the other charges. Running with hazard lights does not give you permission to break the law. Even running with a 'strobe' light (not knowing what color) does not give you that permission. Anyone who sees a law cruiser following you with their lights on, the position is to 'pull over and stop'. If the cruiser was responding to the call, it would go by. If it was stopping you, then explain why and what you are responding to, and I would hope most officers would understand. There is much more information needed to really comprehend this situation...speed, how reckless, etc. This gentleman is still liable for his actions, lawful or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Star Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 Thompson thinks her father is being treated unfairly. "His name has been put out there as if he did something wrong," she said. "All he was trying to do is do what a volunteer does and try and help someone. Maybe he was speeding but it was a house fire. No one wants someone's house to burn down." The fact of the matter is that he DID do 'something wrong'! Nobody is knocking the guy for being a volunteer, but they ARE knocking him for being a meathead behind the wheel and endangering the entire community that he's supposed to be protecting. Trying to run as an 'emergency vehicle', without the proper warning equipment, failure to stop for a law enforcement officer, reckless driving, excessive speed....the list goes on and on. Even WITH the proper warning devices, markings and equipment; this does NOT give you the right to turn a city street into a race track, regardless of the 'situation' that you're responding to. Ok, drop the felony fleeing and eluding charge; but all the traffic violations....charge him! That two or three seconds that you're saving by putting everybody around you at risk is NOT going to make that much difference in what you face when you get on scene. Having worked for 15 years on a fire department where we weren't allowed to run lights and siren, (even when responding to the station), we had a strict policy about violating traffic laws about safe response. If we were unfortunate enough to end up with a traffic cition while responding to the station, we were automatically DONE being a firefighter. I can see the reasoning behind this policy, and it definately cut down on the 'balls to the wall/cowboy response'. Had this clown actually hurt someone, I don't think that the law would be so forgiving. Far too many innocent people are hurt by knotheads that feel the only way to respond to any call is to let the floorboard be their foot rest. We're supposed to be there to help the general public deal with THEIR emergency, not to cause one ourselves. It's been said many times and in many different ways; you drive like an idiot, you not only open yourself up to criminal charges and civil litigation, but you also expose your department/municipality/company as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief1C Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 (edited) To an extent, he'd be allowed to respond in said manner. Sans running red lights. Without audible and visual devices, however, he's kinda on a thin line between a light gray area of the law, and a dark gray area of the law. Passing on a double yellow, while displaying a warning device both visual and audible, where safe, would be okay. Fire isn't as regulated as EMS, so he could probably speed too. Is it right? No. Is it legal? Probably. Hazard Flashers... are not emergency response devices. In fact, that alone is enough for a fine in Pennsylvania. Even family members following an ambulance, using hazards lights, can be fined. They're for slow or stopped vehicle use only, as a warning of.. slow/stopped vehicle. However, as a chief officer, he has a duty to set an example for the department and it's personnel, by being safe. As far as that's concerned. Fail. Edited November 10, 2009 by 4c6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard B the EMT Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 Forget the cop car following, this person violated "due regard" for any and all other vehicles on the road. As stated, "hazard lights", known in some sectors as "4 way" flashers, are not emergency lights. While helping move a friend, I thought I was doing the right thing by having my "blinkers" on, as I was one of 4 vehicles in our little convoy (I'll sing that song on a different venue). We were linked by radio, and he told me to cut the blinkers off, as it made me unable to use my lights as turn signals. OK, on that one, a "Fail" on me. There is always the story of the woman trying to drive her 5 year old to the hospital for an asthma episode, mid day, headlights on hi-beam, 4 ways going, and blowing her horn as she went through red light after red light. She believed she could get right of way to drive like that, after all, she had a sick child on board. She killed all 4 in the car that she broadsided, that had the green light, as well as her child, who was laying down across the back seat, unsecured, and was ejected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts