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  
•       •       •

8557 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Nov 2012 at 10:59 AM (2 years 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 11:26:00 AM  

BronyMedic: 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.


If he was busy hosing down his fence, then the police clearly weren't in command, and therefore could not be held liable for failure to act.
Plus, no, they still don't have a duty to act, even if they're "on scene and in command".

Now, once they tazed the guy and left him rolling on the ground next to a structure on fire, then they had a duty to rescue him... but not until, since they had not created the danger.
 
2012-11-13 11:26:18 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.


Good call no more sticks or tasers, 12ga pumps (semi autos for the limp wristed ones)
 
2012-11-13 11:26:20 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.


The police have no legal requirement to act.
 
2012-11-13 11:26:23 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'll bet he listens next time. You'd be amazed how many people go full retard in an emergency and lose all objectivity. If the guy had been injured trying to fight the fire with his garden hose, the community would be in an uproar about how he should have been stopped. If he'd died, there'd be lawsuits from his family and/or insurer.
 
2012-11-13 11:27:07 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.


They weren't on scene, which is why he was hosing down his fence.
 
2012-11-13 11:27:24 AM  

MycroftHolmes: 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?


Safer for who? If I resist police and get injured, it's on me. If I get tasered while covered in water and end up injured, it's on them.
 
2012-11-13 11:27:49 AM  
Police said they can sympathize with the stress Jensen was under. But they said he put himself and officers in danger when he refused to back down from fighting the fire.


The cops couldn't stand at a safe distance and watch? In what universe were they endangered by a man trying to put out a fire with a garden hose? When did Florida pass a law making it illegal to put out a house fire?

This story is so over the top. I hope it turns out to be false,otherwise, jeepers.
 
2012-11-13 11:27:50 AM  

redmid17: 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


Understood. The police were acting in a way consistent with minimizing the danger of the situation. They acted to protect the civilians and fire fighters. Not sure what your point is.
 
2012-11-13 11:28:01 AM  

SlowTimedRapid: 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).


Probably less, honestly, since the charge has an easier path to ground external to the body.
 
2012-11-13 11:29:24 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?

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?


We get it, you're a firefighter. Nobody gives a shiat. He shouldn't have been tased for spraying a hose on his own property.
 
2012-11-13 11:30:21 AM  

jtown: I'll bet he listens next time.


Nice snapshot of the attitude that has lead police to abuse so many with their new toys.
 
2012-11-13 11:30:30 AM  
The cops are obligated to keep us safe. That's why they have to tase us sometimes.
 
2012-11-13 11:31:31 AM  

Theaetetus: 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.

They weren't on scene, which is why he was hosing down his fence.


They weren't en route? I thought they were.
 
2012-11-13 11:31:33 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.


Give up Brony. Everyone knows how to do a cop's job better than the cops, and in these threads you're either a cop hater or a troll.
 
2012-11-13 11:31:49 AM  

MycroftHolmes: redmid17: 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

Understood. The police were acting in a way consistent with minimizing the danger of the situation. They acted to protect the civilians and fire fighters. Not sure what your point is.


He was talking about cops. You were talking about fire fighters...
 
2012-11-13 11:32:03 AM  
Pinellas Park, Florida, Dan Jensen, Huge Fire
Bright idea, put it out, Big ol' garden hose
Cops say just move away, the firemen are on their way
The minutes slowly pass, Damn it, man, this blows
See neighbor's burning lawn, how long will this go on
Flames leap, ain't no lie, the smoke is filling up the sky
Waiting here is obscene, grab the hose, hear a scream
"Hit 'em! Take him down!" Beechwood Terrace Goodbye!
...

We didn't start the fire
It was always burning
And our flashers turning
We didn't start the fire
No we didn't light it
And we'll tase those that fight it 

sorry for mangling rhyme and meter
 
2012-11-13 11:32:38 AM  

CapeFearCadaver: BronyMedic: Firefighter

Weren't you EMT last week?


Some Fire Departments have EMTs as well. That said, he's off base on this topic. The police had no reason to be endangered. All they needed to do is stand well back, shout a couple of warnings via a bullhorn and express sympathy over the tragedy if he self-combusted.
 
2012-11-13 11:32:39 AM  

Theaetetus: 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.


Go read why you're both wrong, and why using a garden hose to protect an exposure in a typical urban housing profile is useless/dangerous without wearing PPE. I'm not going to argue with you anymore.

Theaetetus: Not according to the Supreme Court.


Warren v. District of Columbia does not apply in this case. In this event, the police are already on scene and in both command and control of the persons there. While they do not have a duty to rescue like Fire or EMS does, they do have a duty to prevent further loss of life through allowing independant action by untrained and unequipped bystanders. In addition, thanks to the Federal Laws regarding incident command responsibility and deligation, they are directly responsible for anything that occurs prior to the arrival of fire and formation of a unfiied command structure.
 
2012-11-13 11:33:33 AM  

redmid17: MycroftHolmes: redmid17: 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

Understood. The police were acting in a way consistent with minimizing the danger of the situation. They acted to protect the civilians and fire fighters. Not sure what your point is.

He was talking about cops. You were talking about fire fighters...


Yes, I understand that those two are not the same group. Still not sure what h is point is. Nearest I can figure, he is saying that cops should not act in ways to minimize danger to anyone else except other cops. Which is dumb.
 
2012-11-13 11:34:00 AM  

MycroftHolmes: Theaetetus: 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.

They weren't on scene, which is why he was hosing down his fence.

They weren't en route? I thought they were.


en route =/= on scene
 
2012-11-13 11:34:04 AM  

MycroftHolmes: Understood. The police were acting in a way consistent with minimizing the danger of the situation. They acted to protect the civilians and fire fighters. Not sure what your point is.


The point is that the firefighters weren't even there yet, hence the reason why the man was armed with a water hose in the first place.
 
2012-11-13 11:34:38 AM  

JesusJuice: We get it, you're a firefighter. Nobody gives a shiat. He shouldn't have been tased for spraying a hose on his own property.


Of course he shouldn't have been. He was tased, FTFA, for repeatedly disregarding the orders of officers to get back away from an involved structure, and for endangering more lives than his own.
 
2012-11-13 11:35:21 AM  

MycroftHolmes: redmid17: MycroftHolmes: redmid17: 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

Understood. The police were acting in a way consistent with minimizing the danger of the situation. They acted to protect the civilians and fire fighters. Not sure what your point is.

He was talking about cops. You were talking about fire fighters...

Yes, I understand that those two are not the same group. Still not sure what h is point is. Nearest I can figure, he is saying that cops should not act in ways to minimize danger to anyone else except other cops. Which is dumb.


He said that cops didn't have to do anything since they didn't have a legal requirement to act until they tazed him.
 
2012-11-13 11:35:37 AM  

MycroftHolmes: Nearest I can figure, he is saying that cops should not act in ways to minimize danger to anyone else except other cops.


They aren't obligated to, and would face no repercussions for letting him spray his hose, contrary to the "BUT DEY'D A GOT SUED" line.
 
2012-11-13 11:35:41 AM  

MycroftHolmes: 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.


Again with this nonsense. Other people need not approach. Other people can stand back at a safe distance and let a grown man make his own decisions for himself while they make their own decisions for themselves.
 
2012-11-13 11:36:09 AM  

BronyMedic: JesusJuice: We get it, you're a firefighter. Nobody gives a shiat. He shouldn't have been tased for spraying a hose on his own property.

Of course he shouldn't have been. He was tased, FTFA, for repeatedly disregarding the orders of officers to get back away from an involved structure, and for endangering more lives than his own.


Whose lives did he endanger given that the cops didn't have to act and the firemen weren't there yet?
 
2012-11-13 11:36:31 AM  

Lunaville: CapeFearCadaver: BronyMedic: Firefighter

Weren't you EMT last week?

Some Fire Departments have EMTs as well. That said, he's off base on this topic. The police had no reason to be endangered. All they needed to do is stand well back, shout a couple of warnings via a bullhorn and express sympathy over the tragedy if he self-combusted.


The reason why, as a policy, first responders do not allow untrained and unequipped individuals to fight fires is that it creates a situation that places other first responders at risk. Containing a fully involved structure fire that is vacant is handled differently than a structure fire with individuals in it. Having the police keep individuals out of the danger zone, so that firefighters can stay out of the danger zone unnecessarily is entirely appropriate.
 
2012-11-13 11:37:40 AM  

redmid17: MycroftHolmes: Theaetetus: 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.

They weren't on scene, which is why he was hosing down his fence.

They weren't en route? I thought they were.

en route =/= on scene


Got it. So if the guy goes into the danger zone and passes out, the fire fighters don't have to go in after him because they were en route and not on scene. Wait, that can't be right.
 
2012-11-13 11:38:01 AM  

BronyMedic: Warren v. District of Columbia does not apply in this case. In this event, the police are already on scene and in both command and control of the persons there. While they do not have a duty to rescue like Fire or EMS does, they do have a duty to prevent further loss of life through allowing independant action by untrained and unequipped bystanders. In addition, thanks to the Federal Laws regarding incident command responsibility and deligation, they are directly responsible for anything that occurs prior to the arrival of fire and formation of a unfiied command structure.


Find me one example where a Department has been held liable for failure to protect someone in a situation like this.

Even if you can, it was the Department or city, not the Officer, who was liable, so why would the cop care?
 
2012-11-13 11:38:08 AM  
Hey, maybe just maybe the homeowner was a volunteer firefighter!?!? (or stayed at a Holiday Inn Express?) He has no obligation to review his resume with any law enforcement 'official' while performing fire fighting activities - or EVER for that matter.

Do the Po-po tase firemen who are maybe getting a little too close to a fire? If it was for an individual's safety, the police should have prevented the fire dept from doing anything once it was established that no human was in the burning building.

'let insurance take care of it'.
 
2012-11-13 11:38:42 AM  

MycroftHolmes: redmid17: MycroftHolmes: Theaetetus: 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.

They weren't on scene, which is why he was hosing down his fence.

They weren't en route? I thought they were.

en route =/= on scene

Got it. So if the guy goes into the danger zone and passes out, the fire fighters don't have to go in after him because they were en route and not on scene. Wait, that can't be right.


They don't *have* to. They will though
 
2012-11-13 11:38:48 AM  

JesusJuice: We get it, you're a firefighter. Nobody gives a shiat. He shouldn't have been tased for spraying a hose on his own property.


And when something bad happened (like a propane tank exploding, or the side of the neighbors house/roof collapsing onto this guys yard) and this guy was incapacitated....then what? Firefighters and Police risk injury to save the dumbass. I get where you're coming from, but Brony's right. The cops warned the guy to get away, and because he wouldn't he created a danger to them as well. I'd tase the guy too.

Without video or being there, none of us can say how much danger this guy was really in, no can we?
 
2012-11-13 11:39:13 AM  

MycroftHolmes: Lunaville: CapeFearCadaver: BronyMedic: Firefighter

Weren't you EMT last week?

Some Fire Departments have EMTs as well. That said, he's off base on this topic. The police had no reason to be endangered. All they needed to do is stand well back, shout a couple of warnings via a bullhorn and express sympathy over the tragedy if he self-combusted.

The reason why, as a policy, first responders do not allow untrained and unequipped individuals to fight fires is that it creates a situation that places other first responders at risk. Containing a fully involved structure fire that is vacant is handled differently than a structure fire with individuals in it. Having the police keep individuals out of the danger zone, so that firefighters can stay out of the danger zone unnecessarily is entirely appropriate.


DING DING DING DING DING

THANK YOU.

Someone gets it.
 
2012-11-13 11:39:23 AM  
Simmer down folks cops apparently have the right to endanger your life in order to save it...
 
2012-11-13 11:39:46 AM  

CapeFearCadaver: MycroftHolmes: Understood. The police were acting in a way consistent with minimizing the danger of the situation. They acted to protect the civilians and fire fighters. Not sure what your point is.

The point is that the firefighters weren't even there yet, hence the reason why the man was armed with a water hose in the first place.


So, you are saying that because the fire fighters weren't there yet, they would not have been obligated to go in after him after he was overcome in the danger zone? I am still not following this logic.
 
2012-11-13 11:40:27 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?


Force was neither necessary nor justified. They fulfilled their duties to try to protect him when they pointed out the inherent danger of his actions and asked him to stop. They had no further duty to a grown man with no known mental deficiencies.
 
2012-11-13 11:40:55 AM  

queezyweezel: Without video or being there, none of us can say how much danger this guy was really in, no can we?


We should probably take the cops word for it, I've never known them to lie after assaulting someone.
 
2012-11-13 11:41:07 AM  

MycroftHolmes: Lunaville: CapeFearCadaver: BronyMedic: Firefighter

Weren't you EMT last week?

Some Fire Departments have EMTs as well. That said, he's off base on this topic. The police had no reason to be endangered. All they needed to do is stand well back, shout a couple of warnings via a bullhorn and express sympathy over the tragedy if he self-combusted.

The reason why, as a policy, first responders do not allow untrained and unequipped individuals to fight fires is that it creates a situation that places other first responders at risk. Containing a fully involved structure fire that is vacant is handled differently than a structure fire with individuals in it. Having the police keep individuals out of the danger zone, so that firefighters can stay out of the danger zone unnecessarily is entirely appropriate.


homebuilding.thefuntimesguide.com
 
2012-11-13 11:41:35 AM  
I'm bowing out.

I'm tired of pointing out why what this guy did was not only a bad idea, but endangered far more than his life, and being met with what basically amounts to "WHARGARBL TASER DERP PIGS BAD"

Peace.
 
2012-11-13 11:43:03 AM  

Lunaville: 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?

Force was neither necessary nor justified. They fulfilled their duties to try to protect him when they pointed out the inherent danger of his actions and asked him to stop. They had no further duty to a grown man with no known mental deficiencies.


Sorry, fire fighters do not work that way. They don't pick and choose who they are going to save based on the bad decisions of that person prior to the incident. I have never met a firefighter yet who pulls out the 'They knew the risks, I say let them burn' line.
 
2012-11-13 11:44:35 AM  

BronyMedic: Theaetetus: 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.

Go read why you're both wrong, and why using a garden hose to protect an exposure in a typical urban housing profile is useless/dangerous without wearing PPE. I'm not going to argue with you anymore.


Aren't you supposed to do your classic "Welcome to Ignore" sign-off when you do that?
Anyway, I notice your goal post moving attempt, and decline to be so restrained. We were talking about whether a garden hose could protect a fence from radiant heat. You first claimed it would, then claimed it wouldn't and that earlier-BronyMedic was wrong, and once called upon your contradicting statements, changed to some discussion of safety gear in a "typical urban housing profile". Do you really think that actually changes the fact that water doesn't burn?

Theaetetus: Not according to the Supreme Court.

Warren v. District of Columbia does not apply in this case.


Why not? They had no duty to act to save the homeowner's butt, which is what you were claiming.

In this event, the police are already on scene and in both command and control of the persons there.

Clearly, they weren't in control of the persons there. Otherwise they wouldn't have had to tase anyone now, would they?

While they do not have a duty to rescue like Fire or EMS does, they do have a duty to prevent further loss of life through allowing independant action by untrained and unequipped bystanders.

[Citation needed]

In addition, thanks to the Federal Laws regarding incident command responsibility and deligation, they are directly responsible for anything that occurs prior to the arrival of fire and formation of a unfiied command structure.

"Directly responsible for anything"? So, which of the cops are charged with arson?

Also, which alleged federal laws are these that govern use and structure of state police powers? Because that's potentially a huge constitutional problem, if they exist as you claim.
 
2012-11-13 11:44:43 AM  

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


This thread is going to make me blow a fuse and my brain is going to burn down.
The adult with the gardening hose does not require parenting from the police nor was it appropriate to spank him with electricity.
 
2012-11-13 11:45:18 AM  

Farking Lurker: Simmer down folks cops apparently have the right to endanger your life in order to save it...


We have to protect our phony-balony jobs here!'
 
2012-11-13 11:46:38 AM  

BronyMedic: I'm bowing out.

I'm tired of pointing out why what this guy did was not only a bad idea, but endangered far more than his life, and being met with what basically amounts to "WHARGARBL TASER DERP PIGS BAD"

Peace.


I still say they should have shot the guy.
 
2012-11-13 11:46:51 AM  

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

This thread is going to make me blow a fuse and my brain is going to burn down.
The adult with the gardening hose does not require parenting from the police nor was it appropriate to spank him with electricity.


So, you would not fault the firefighters for sitting back and watching the man burn to death?
 
2012-11-13 11:47:20 AM  

MycroftHolmes: Yes, I understand that those two are not the same group. Still not sure what h is point is. Nearest I can figure, he is saying that cops should not act in ways to minimize danger to anyone else except other cops. Which is dumb.


Nope, I'm saying that cops have no duty to rescue people from a hazard that they didn't create, and cannot be held liable for failing to do so, contrary to what Brony was claiming.
 
2012-11-13 11:48:19 AM  

MycroftHolmes: redmid17: 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

Understood. The police were acting in a way consistent with minimizing the danger of the situation. They acted to protect the civilians and fire fighters. Not sure what your point is.


Please, I beg you, do not protect me.
 
2012-11-13 11:49:21 AM  

Theaetetus: MycroftHolmes: Yes, I understand that those two are not the same group. Still not sure what h is point is. Nearest I can figure, he is saying that cops should not act in ways to minimize danger to anyone else except other cops. Which is dumb.

Nope, I'm saying that cops have no duty to rescue people from a hazard that they didn't create, and cannot be held liable for failing to do so, contrary to what Brony was claiming.


So, you are missing the whole point about endangering other first responders, who will place themselves in harms way to rescue people in the danger zone.
 
2012-11-13 11:49:25 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: BronyMedic: I'm bowing out.

I'm tired of pointing out why what this guy did was not only a bad idea, but endangered far more than his life, and being met with what basically amounts to "WHARGARBL TASER DERP PIGS BAD"

Peace.

I still say they should have shot the guy.


In the interest of his safety. They often do this for the suicidal.

"He'd a killed hisself if I hadn't killed him."
 
2012-11-13 11:50:40 AM  

Lunaville: MycroftHolmes: redmid17: 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

Understood. The police were acting in a way consistent with minimizing the danger of the situation. They acted to protect the civilians and fire fighters. Not sure what your point is.

Please, I beg you, do not protect me.


Got it. If involved in a fire, you are requesting that fire and rescue crew do not attempt to pull you out, What an idiot.
 
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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report