If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Miami Herald)   Trying to extinguish a fire with a garden hose? That's a tazin'   (miamiherald.com) divider line 283
    More: Florida  
•       •       •

8552 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Nov 2012 at 10:59 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



283 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-13 10:36:03 AM
Cops should be tased twice for every tasering they give out. Maybe that'll reduce this excessive tasering crap

/probably not
 
2012-11-13 10:43:50 AM
'The agency's policy says officers must issue a warning before using a Taser, "except when such warning could provide a tactical advantage to the subject."

Oh shiat! Better keep him from his tactical advantage with his... water hose. You could get get WET!
 
2012-11-13 10:58:22 AM
Uh, submitter? FTFA, he was told by emergency responders on scene to stay the fark away from a fully involved structure fire. He continued to place himself, and others on scene who would have to help him, at risk of serious injury.

A garden hose ain't going to do shiat to protect an exposure, and from the range you can hit it with one, you're going to get burned without protective gear - or worse, you're either going to be caught in a flashover, or hit with smoke in the face when you take a breath.

There's a reason we wear this when we fight fires, even small ones.

www.masoncity.net

There's also a reason we use these:

www.nps.gov

At 125-150 PSI pumping 150 - 300 GPM, versus this:



Which is pretty much only good for putting out a small grass fire.
 
2012-11-13 11:03:16 AM

BronyMedic: Uh, submitter? FTFA, he was told by emergency responders on scene to stay the fark away from a fully involved structure fire. He continued to place himself, and others on scene who would have to help him, at risk of serious injury.


So electrocuting him was the only solution. Every tool these pigs are given make them collectively dumber.
 
2012-11-13 11:03:35 AM
Well of course it is.
 
2012-11-13 11:04:25 AM
Do your co-workers know you watch cartoons meant for little girls in your spare time, or is that not discussed?
 
2012-11-13 11:05:37 AM

BronyMedic: Uh, submitter? FTFA, he was told by emergency responders on scene to stay the fark away from a fully involved structure fire. He continued to place himself, and others on scene who would have to help him, at risk of serious injury.

A garden hose ain't going to do shiat to protect an exposure, and from the range you can hit it with one, you're going to get burned without protective gear - or worse, you're either going to be caught in a flashover, or hit with smoke in the face when you take a breath.

There's a reason we wear this when we fight fires, even small ones.

[www.masoncity.net image 336x448]

There's also a reason we use these:

[www.nps.gov image 287x353]

At 125-150 PSI pumping 150 - 300 GPM, versus this:



Which is pretty much only good for putting out a small grass fire.


yes and walking up to him like a human being and saying hey buddy, the fire fighters are on the way, you really need to move back etc. Would have taken all of about 30 seconds and could have been done from afar and as mentioned in the article they could have turned off the water.

Instead of that they made some comment about letting the insurance take care of it and then lit him up with a taser.
 
2012-11-13 11:06:18 AM
If people put out their own fires, there would be less overtime for firefighters and Police.

Can't allow that to happen.
 
2012-11-13 11:06:54 AM

BronyMedic: Uh, submitter? FTFA, he was told by emergency responders on scene to stay the fark away from a fully involved structure fire. He continued to place himself, and others on scene who would have to help him, at risk of serious injury.


Yes, I can see how that completely justifies firing a potentially deadly weapon at him. How dare he try to save his own home! That bastard!
 
2012-11-13 11:07:25 AM
This is gonna be good get the apologists in here NOW!
 
2012-11-13 11:07:32 AM
I fought the fire and the fire won.
 
2012-11-13 11:07:48 AM

kindms: yes and walking up to him like a human being and saying hey buddy, the fire fighters are on the way, you really need to move back etc.


Because Officers don't consider civilians to be human, except sometimes for close family members.
 
2012-11-13 11:08:07 AM

HotWingConspiracy: BronyMedic: Uh, submitter? FTFA, he was told by emergency responders on scene to stay the fark away from a fully involved structure fire. He continued to place himself, and others on scene who would have to help him, at risk of serious injury.

So electrocuting him was the only solution. Every tool these pigs are given make them collectively dumber.


I get it. Take your hand off your cop hate dick for a moment, and use your damn head. I'm telling you this as a Firefighter, based on what is being said in the article.

According to the article, he was in the danger zone of the fire trying to protect his freaking fence from igniting based on radiant exposure, despite repeated attempts by officers to get him to stay the fark back. With a garden hose.

Radiant heat from involved structures can overwhelm or kill someone quickly. Smoke inhalation can do the same. In addition, depending on the construction of the involved building, you have other issues such as collapse, or secondary explosion considerations from stored LNG/Propane in the direct thermal area. Why would you expect someone to wrestle with someone in immediately life threatening conditions, when you can use a taser, drop them, and drag them away far safer since they refuse to follow commands?

Cops don't have turn-out gear, dude. Most of the departments spring for 50-50 polyester mixes for uniforms since it's cheap as shiat. You do know what that fabric does when exposed to moderately high temperatures, right?
 
2012-11-13 11:08:31 AM
Those pigs should be hung for endangering the life of a concerned citizen trying to protect private property.
 
2012-11-13 11:08:57 AM

BronyMedic: Uh, submitter? FTFA, he was told by emergency responders on scene to stay the fark away from a fully involved structure fire. He continued to place himself, and others on scene who would have to help him, at risk of serious injury.

A garden hose ain't going to do shiat to protect an exposure, and from the range you can hit it with one, you're going to get burned without protective gear - or worse, you're either going to be caught in a flashover, or hit with smoke in the face when you take a breath.

There's a reason we wear this when we fight fires, even small ones.

[www.masoncity.net image 336x448]

There's also a reason we use these:

[www.nps.gov image 287x353]

At 125-150 PSI pumping 150 - 300 GPM, versus this:



Which is pretty much only good for putting out a small grass fire.


Also do YOU take orders from the Police when it comes to battling fires ? Somehow I highly doubt the fire Dept looks to the police for suggestions on how to attack a fire or asses one.
 
2012-11-13 11:08:57 AM
Is there greater risk to a person's health if they're tasered while covered in water?
 
2012-11-13 11:09:43 AM

BronyMedic: Firefighter


Weren't you EMT last week?
 
2012-11-13 11:09:57 AM
Friend of mine had a situation where his neighbor's wall was on fire inside between two studs (electrical?), and he was keeping it under control with a garden hose. When the Fire Dept got there, they forced him to back off but in the time they took dicking around setting up their equipment, locating fire hydrants, connecting their huge hoses, the fire grows. Now the house is permanently damaged and the family has to relocate.

What a waste.
 
2012-11-13 11:10:28 AM

kindms:

yes and walking up to him like a human being and saying hey buddy particular individual, the fire fighters are on the way, you really need to move back etc..

 
2012-11-13 11:11:28 AM

BronyMedic: HotWingConspiracy: BronyMedic: Uh, submitter? FTFA, he was told by emergency responders on scene to stay the fark away from a fully involved structure fire. He continued to place himself, and others on scene who would have to help him, at risk of serious injury.

So electrocuting him was the only solution. Every tool these pigs are given make them collectively dumber.

I get it. Take your hand off your cop hate dick for a moment, and use your damn head. I'm telling you this as a Firefighter, based on what is being said in the article.

According to the article, he was in the danger zone of the fire trying to protect his freaking fence from igniting based on radiant exposure, despite repeated attempts by officers to get him to stay the fark back. With a garden hose.

Radiant heat from involved structures can overwhelm or kill someone quickly. Smoke inhalation can do the same. In addition, depending on the construction of the involved building, you have other issues such as collapse, or secondary explosion considerations from stored LNG/Propane in the direct thermal area. Why would you expect someone to wrestle with someone in immediately life threatening conditions, when you can use a taser, drop them, and drag them away far safer since they refuse to follow commands?


They aren't supposed to use tasers in this manner.

I get the safety issues. There is no sane person that likes living in a free society that thinks its a good idea to electrocute him for it.
 
2012-11-13 11:12:03 AM

kindms: BronyMedic: Uh, submitter? FTFA, he was told by emergency responders on scene to stay the fark away from a fully involved structure fire. He continued to place himself, and others on scene who would have to help him, at risk of serious injury.

A garden hose ain't going to do shiat to protect an exposure, and from the range you can hit it with one, you're going to get burned without protective gear - or worse, you're either going to be caught in a flashover, or hit with smoke in the face when you take a breath.

There's a reason we wear this when we fight fires, even small ones.

[www.masoncity.net image 336x448]

There's also a reason we use these:

[www.nps.gov image 287x353]

At 125-150 PSI pumping 150 - 300 GPM, versus this:



Which is pretty much only good for putting out a small grass fire.

yes and walking up to him like a human being and saying hey buddy, the fire fighters are on the way, you really need to move back etc. Would have taken all of about 30 seconds and could have been done from afar and as mentioned in the article they could have turned off the water.

Instead of that they made some comment about letting the insurance take care of it and then lit him up with a taser.


They did that, he returned to the fire. He was obviously pretty worked up (I would be too). At that point physical restraint was probably necesary, and the taser is the safest (for all inviolved) options.

I love naive idiots 'Well, they should have just asked nicely and everything would have been great, because everyone is rational all the time'.

Sorry, the police were right in this one. You don't let bystanders jack with a fire, as they would be putting other people at risk.
 
2012-11-13 11:12:10 AM
I'm notcher buddy guy!
 
2012-11-13 11:13:59 AM

MycroftHolmes:

yes and walking up to him like a human being and saying hey buddy, the fire fighters are on the way, you really need to move back etc. Would have taken all of about 30 seconds and could have been done from afar and as mentioned in the article they could have turned off the water.

Instead of that they made some comment about letting the insurance take care of it and then lit him up with a taser.

They did that, he returned to the fire. He was obviously pretty worked up (I would be too). At that point physical restraint was probably necesary, and the taser is the safest (for all inviolved) options.

I love naive idiots 'Well, they should have just asked nicely and everything would have been great, because everyone is rational all the time'.

Sorry, the police were right in this one. You don't let bystanders jack with a fire, as they would be putting other people at risk.


So vote republican?
 
2012-11-13 11:14:16 AM

kindms: Also do YOU take orders from the Police when it comes to battling fires ? Somehow I highly doubt the fire Dept looks to the police for suggestions on how to attack a fire or asses one.


Until the Fire Department arrives on scene and establishes a command to begin fire suppression, the first arriving unit has command of the scene and responsibility for the life safety of bystanders and property owners.

RFTA. The fire department was not on scene yet, the police arrived first.

The police also have jurisdiction over crowd control. If I, as a commanding Fire Officer, tell a cop to get someone the fark out of my scene, they do so.

CapeFearCadaver: BronyMedic: Firefighter

Weren't you EMT last week?


I'm a Paramedic, actually. I hold a Tennessee State cert for Volunteer Firefighter, which is the step below taking the actual 300-hour Firefighter I bootcamp. I started as a Vol FF/NREMT-FR as a senior in High School.
 
2012-11-13 11:14:24 AM

BronyMedic: ... Which is pretty much only good for putting out a small grass fire.


BronyMedic: According to the article, he was in the danger zone of the fire trying to protect his freaking fence from igniting based on radiant exposure, despite repeated attempts by officers to get him to stay the fark back. With a garden hose.


... which you just said would be just fine, since he's putting out the small grass fire leading up to his freaking fence. Or are you saying that that earlier BronyMedic is wrong?
 
2012-11-13 11:14:36 AM

BronyMedic: HotWingConspiracy: BronyMedic: Uh, submitter? FTFA, he was told by emergency responders on scene to stay the fark away from a fully involved structure fire. He continued to place himself, and others on scene who would have to help him, at risk of serious injury.

So electrocuting him was the only solution. Every tool these pigs are given make them collectively dumber.

I get it. Take your hand off your cop hate dick for a moment, and use your damn head. I'm telling you this as a Firefighter, based on what is being said in the article.


0.tqn.com
 
2012-11-13 11:15:14 AM

HotWingConspiracy: BronyMedic: Uh, submitter? FTFA, he was told by emergency responders on scene to stay the fark away from a fully involved structure fire. He continued to place himself, and others on scene who would have to help him, at risk of serious injury.

So electrocuting him was the only solution. Every tool these pigs are given make them collectively dumber.


Just trying to figure this out. He was already told to stay away from the danger zone. Are you arguing that
1) Force was not necesary, he should have been allowed to continue to put himself at risk, even knowing that his actions would put rescuers at risk as well?
2) Force was justified, but it should not have been a taser?

I honestly don't understand your stance, other than 'pigs r dum'
 
2012-11-13 11:15:25 AM

CapeFearCadaver: BronyMedic: Firefighter

Weren't you EMT last week?


Don't feed the trolls.
 
2012-11-13 11:15:57 AM

CapeFearCadaver: BronyMedic: Firefighter

Weren't you EMT last week?


From his profile:

Pediatric Flight Team Paramedic for local hospital in Memphis, PRN 911 Paramedic, and volunteer Rescue Technician. I've been doing this for about 8 years now, and love it - I was actually lucky enough to start in High School with the local Fire Department in my home town. Highly encourage anyone who lives near a volunteer department to do so.

I'd guess he does the volunteer firefighter thing. Most of the ones we have around here are adrenaline junkies that (fortunately for the rest of us) get their rocks off using the whole helping people thing as their rationale.

/I love em for it, too
 
2012-11-13 11:16:13 AM

BronyMedic: At that point, Life Safety takes prevelance over saving property.


I'd bet the death risk from the Taser is higher than the death risk from spraying water on a burning fence.
 
2012-11-13 11:17:23 AM

BronyMedic: Uh, submitter? FTFA, he was told by emergency responders on scene to stay the fark away from a fully involved structure fire. He continued to place himself, and others on scene who would have to help him, at risk of serious injury.

A garden hose ain't going to do shiat to protect an exposure, and from the range you can hit it with one, you're going to get burned without protective gear - or worse, you're either going to be caught in a flashover, or hit with smoke in the face when you take a breath.

There's a reason we wear this when we fight fires, even small ones.

[www.masoncity.net image 336x448]

There's also a reason we use these:

[www.nps.gov image 287x353]

At 125-150 PSI pumping 150 - 300 GPM, versus this:

Which is pretty much only good for putting out a small grass fire.


In other words, the police should have shot him, yes?
 
2012-11-13 11:17:28 AM

Theaetetus: BronyMedic: ... Which is pretty much only good for putting out a small grass fire.

BronyMedic: According to the article, he was in the danger zone of the fire trying to protect his freaking fence from igniting based on radiant exposure, despite repeated attempts by officers to get him to stay the fark back. With a garden hose.

... which you just said would be just fine, since he's putting out the small grass fire leading up to his freaking fence. Or are you saying that that earlier BronyMedic is wrong?


/facepalm.

The problem is not the grass on fire by his fence. You can spray water on the ground all day long with a garden hose, and the radiant heat will catch that wood on fire without even having to touch it with a flame.

The problem is the involved structure that he is right beside, and within the lethal radius of radiant/convective heat exposure, smoke, and collapse/explosion without any PPE.

Had he been harmed in any way, the police would have fully been responsible for allowing him to do so since they had command of the scene and had told him multiple times to stay back.
 
2012-11-13 11:17:55 AM
Thank god for tasers, or everyone would die!
 
2012-11-13 11:17:59 AM

MycroftHolmes: I love naive idiots 'Well, they should have just asked nicely and everything would have been great, because everyone is rational all the time'.


Yes, the rational actors here are the people that electrocuted a man with a hose for trying to preserve his property.
 
2012-11-13 11:17:59 AM
You keep using that word, "electrocute."

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-13 11:18:13 AM

BronyMedic: According to the article, he was in the danger zone of the fire trying to protect his freaking fence from igniting based on radiant exposure, despite repeated attempts by officers to get him to stay the fark back. With a garden hose.


1 kg of water at 10 degrees celsius consumes 6,300,000 calories before turning into steam. The resulting steam both carries off the excess heat energy through convection, and prevents the rapid spread of the fire by oxygen exclusion. Even a garden hose can effectively save your house from being consumed by a nearby fire, provided you're not trying to hold back a forest fire.

Lord forbid you don't quiver in fear until the authorities arrive.
 
2012-11-13 11:18:34 AM

MycroftHolmes: 1) Force was not necesary, he should have been allowed to continue to put himself at risk, even knowing that his actions would put rescuers at risk as well?


Of course, the cops have no duty to rescue, so really, it's not his actions that put them at risk but their own. They could have just stood back and kept the crowd away.
 
2012-11-13 11:18:43 AM

MycroftHolmes: HotWingConspiracy: BronyMedic: Uh, submitter? FTFA, he was told by emergency responders on scene to stay the fark away from a fully involved structure fire. He continued to place himself, and others on scene who would have to help him, at risk of serious injury.

So electrocuting him was the only solution. Every tool these pigs are given make them collectively dumber.

Just trying to figure this out. He was already told to stay away from the danger zone. Are you arguing that
1) Force was not necesary, he should have been allowed to continue to put himself at risk, even knowing that his actions would put rescuers at risk as well?
2) Force was justified, but it should not have been a taser?

I honestly don't understand your stance, other than 'pigs r dum'


I'll make it easy: Police should not be allowed to carry tasers.
 
2012-11-13 11:18:46 AM

BronyMedic: Had he been harmed in any way, the police would have fully been responsible for allowing him to do so since they had command of the scene and had told him multiple times to stay back.


Police cannot be held liable for failure to act.

End of story.
 
2012-11-13 11:18:58 AM
Just some questions here:

If they successfully got him to stop once, why not a second time?
If he was removed the first time, how did he evade police to start a second time?
Why didn't they just put cuffs on him?

I agree that the police needed to intervene for his safety, but tasering the man was extreme.
 
2012-11-13 11:19:58 AM

fnordfocus: BronyMedic: At that point, Life Safety takes prevelance over saving property.

I'd bet the death risk from the Taser is higher than the death risk from spraying water on a burning fence.


Next to a large structure fire? I will take that bet.

As Brony has pointed out, if the radiant heat was high enough to ignite the fence, being within range to spray a garden hose on the fence puts you at a high risk.
 
2012-11-13 11:20:34 AM

HotWingConspiracy: MycroftHolmes: HotWingConspiracy: BronyMedic: Uh, submitter? FTFA, he was told by emergency responders on scene to stay the fark away from a fully involved structure fire. He continued to place himself, and others on scene who would have to help him, at risk of serious injury.

So electrocuting him was the only solution. Every tool these pigs are given make them collectively dumber.

Just trying to figure this out. He was already told to stay away from the danger zone. Are you arguing that
1) Force was not necesary, he should have been allowed to continue to put himself at risk, even knowing that his actions would put rescuers at risk as well?
2) Force was justified, but it should not have been a taser?

I honestly don't understand your stance, other than 'pigs r dum'

I'll make it easy: Police should not be allowed to carry tasers.


Got it. So y9our objection has nothing to do with the case at hand. So noted.
 
2012-11-13 11:21:49 AM

Elroyone: Just some questions here:

If they successfully got him to stop once, why not a second time?
If he was removed the first time, how did he evade police to start a second time?
Why didn't they just put cuffs on him?

I agree that the police needed to intervene for his safety, but tasering the man was extreme.


OK, so your stance is that they should have physically taken him down. What if it is shown that statistically, tasers are safer than physically subduing someone?
 
2012-11-13 11:21:59 AM

fnordfocus: Police cannot be held liable for failure to act.


If they are in command of the scene, yes they can. The police have a duty to act once they are on scene and in command.

The Incident Commander is exclusively the one to blame. And until he passes it off to the fire department, they're held farking the chicken.
 
2012-11-13 11:22:28 AM

BronyMedic: Theaetetus: BronyMedic: ... Which is pretty much only good for putting out a small grass fire.

BronyMedic: According to the article, he was in the danger zone of the fire trying to protect his freaking fence from igniting based on radiant exposure, despite repeated attempts by officers to get him to stay the fark back. With a garden hose.

... which you just said would be just fine, since he's putting out the small grass fire leading up to his freaking fence. Or are you saying that that earlier BronyMedic is wrong?

/facepalm.

The problem is not the grass on fire by his fence. You can spray water on the ground all day long with a garden hose, and the radiant heat will catch that wood on fire without even having to touch it with a flame.


And if you spray water on the wood, it will get no hotter than 212 degrees F until the water has evaporated, well under its flashpoint. I thought you firefighters were supposed to be trained at this stuff.

Had he been harmed in any way, the police would have fully been responsible for allowing him to do so since they had command of the scene and had told him multiple times to stay back.

Not according to the Supreme Court.
 
2012-11-13 11:22:29 AM

MycroftHolmes: HotWingConspiracy: MycroftHolmes: HotWingConspiracy: BronyMedic: Uh, submitter? FTFA, he was told by emergency responders on scene to stay the fark away from a fully involved structure fire. He continued to place himself, and others on scene who would have to help him, at risk of serious injury.

So electrocuting him was the only solution. Every tool these pigs are given make them collectively dumber.

Just trying to figure this out. He was already told to stay away from the danger zone. Are you arguing that
1) Force was not necesary, he should have been allowed to continue to put himself at risk, even knowing that his actions would put rescuers at risk as well?
2) Force was justified, but it should not have been a taser?

I honestly don't understand your stance, other than 'pigs r dum'

I'll make it easy: Police should not be allowed to carry tasers.

Got it. So y9our objection has nothing to do with the case at hand. So noted.


Well police used their tasers, so I'm hoping you can draw yourself that map.
 
2012-11-13 11:24:02 AM

Theaetetus: MycroftHolmes: 1) Force was not necesary, he should have been allowed to continue to put himself at risk, even knowing that his actions would put rescuers at risk as well?

Of course, the cops have no duty to rescue, so really, it's not his actions that put them at risk but their own. They could have just stood back and kept the crowd away.


Fire fighters do not operate that way. You just allowed a situation to change from containing a fully involved structure fire into a rescue operation which places firefighters at greater risk. Fire and rescue guys will not just sit back and watch a man burn to death, even if it was his own choice.
 
2012-11-13 11:25:25 AM

MycroftHolmes: Theaetetus: MycroftHolmes: 1) Force was not necesary, he should have been allowed to continue to put himself at risk, even knowing that his actions would put rescuers at risk as well?

Of course, the cops have no duty to rescue, so really, it's not his actions that put them at risk but their own. They could have just stood back and kept the crowd away.

Fire fighters do not operate that way. You just allowed a situation to change from containing a fully involved structure fire into a rescue operation which places firefighters at greater risk. Fire and rescue guys will not just sit back and watch a man burn to death, even if it was his own choice.


These two are not alike
 
2012-11-13 11:25:29 AM
Elroyone: Is there greater risk to a person's health if they're tasered while covered in water?

This (subject to applicable objections re: the use of "they" as a generic pronoun).
 
2012-11-13 11:25:46 AM
Another day, another asshole cop tasing an unarmed citizen. The cop could have restrained the man but no, that would take actual work.
 
Displayed 50 of 283 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report