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 03:04:30 PM  

redmid17: Also look at the metal chainlink fence, which is not something that is going to be catching on fire or something that a homeowner is going to be worried about. The other picture in the article shows smoke coming up from behind the house.


You're right. All of those fences look to be metal/chain link.

There was no wooden fence at all. If the story presented in the article holds to be the truth, and - judging by the look of the spacing of the homes as being almost nothing between his, and the area of the fire - ...

WTF WAS HE DOING THERE?

Does not compute.
 
2012-11-13 03:05:21 PM  

BronyMedic: Dunning-Kruger is Strong with You.


You can borrow my label maker if you want. You've already digested a post modern thesaurus and I have none to lend you anyhoo. You can bark buzzwords at me all day but until you can show me actual proof that a bunch of stoners dancing to Rusted Root well within closer proximity to a roaring bonfire than this man was to his fence adjacent to the house next door (yeah, I saw the picture. Not exactly forensics grade, is it?) are in imminent danger of killing not only themselves, but every cop withing 10 miles, all you're doing is saying "WHATEVER THEY DID WAS CAUSE THEY HAD TO" and I think that's bullsh*t.
 
2012-11-13 03:05:41 PM  
Apropos to nothing, the houses in question:

above:

Link

street view:

Link
 
2012-11-13 03:08:16 PM  

bunner: BronyMedic: Dunning-Kruger is Strong with You.

You can borrow my label maker if you want. You've already digested a post modern thesaurus and I have none to lend you anyhoo. You can bark buzzwords at me all day but until you can show me actual proof that a bunch of stoners dancing to Rusted Root well within closer proximity to a roaring bonfire than this man was to his fence adjacent to the house next door (yeah, I saw the picture. Not exactly forensics grade, is it?) are in imminent danger of killing not only themselves, but every cop withing 10 miles, all you're doing is saying "WHATEVER THEY DID WAS CAUSE THEY HAD TO" and I think that's bullsh*t.


Man. Who's making hyperbolic, strawman arguments now?

Remember. You lectured me on this.
 
2012-11-13 03:13:43 PM  

BronyMedic: redmid17: Also look at the metal chainlink fence, which is not something that is going to be catching on fire or something that a homeowner is going to be worried about. The other picture in the article shows smoke coming up from behind the house.

You're right. All of those fences look to be metal/chain link.

There was no wooden fence at all. If the story presented in the article holds to be the truth, and - judging by the look of the spacing of the homes as being almost nothing between his, and the area of the fire - ...

WTF WAS HE DOING THERE?

Does not compute.


I figured it was a backyard fence made out of wood, but yeah it doesn't make much sense. IMO the cops should have just grabbed him and stuck him in the back of a cruiser until the FD got there. Tazing him is not worth the risk
 
2012-11-13 03:14:02 PM  

BronyMedic: Man. Who's making hyperbolic, strawman arguments now?


No, that's comparative environment physics.

BronyMedic: Remember. You lectured me on this.


And unsuccessfully, I might add.

A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position

Look. I'm gonna get a sammich and if I see a house on fire, I will go and beat the living sh*t out of anybody with a garden hose or an extinguisher in twenty blocks. OK? You know, for God and country. Sadly, the fire station that is close enough to my house to hit with a rock from my porch was decommissioned to an EMS only facility. Maybe I'll bring them a sammich, too.

I just hope I don't get tazed for being in too close proximity to a restaurant.
 
2012-11-13 03:15:21 PM  

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. 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.


He had already defied a voice order.

BronyMedic: This article doesn't give enough information, to be honest. It'd be nice to know the spacing of the houses and fence, and the general design of the area. Since he was treated for smoke inhalation, we can safely assume that he was close enough to inhale nasty things, which is too close without protective gear. (House fire smoke is very, very nasty.)


Yeah. Fighting it with a garden hose wouldn't automatically be a wrong thing to me--with a spray nozzle you could be quite a distance away. If you're in the smoke you're too close, though.

The cops did the right thing.
 
2012-11-13 03:16:46 PM  

redmid17:
I figured it was a backyard fence made out of wood, but yeah it doesn't make much sense. IMO the cops should have just grabbed him and stuck him in the back of a cruiser until the FD got there. Tazing him is not worth the risk


I'm not going to argue with you. I'm passed that point. I think given 10 different people, each person would have done a different thing. At either rate, it wouldn't have looked good had they done nothing, or something.

The whole thing with "smoke inhalation" doesn't add up either. You don't get a tazing wrote up as "smoke inhalation", it's completely different care pathways.

At this point, I'm just safe saying that the dude was endangering himself and others based on the links and photographs that have been posted in the last 25 posts.. I want more information on behavior and ETC before I go further.
 
2012-11-13 03:22:14 PM  

bunner: Nonsense. Inability to admit wrong statements, or apologize for an uncalled for and vile personal attack.


I look forward to doing this again, bunner.
 
2012-11-13 03:25:11 PM  

BronyMedic: I look forward to doing this again, bunner.


That makes one of us. Nonsense, indeed. If anybody asks, I'll tell them you won, OK? I'm gonna go stand in close proximity to an open flame now and make my sammich. Don't taze me, bro.
 
2012-11-13 03:25:48 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: MycroftHolmes: 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.

Why do you keep doing that?


Do you honestly not get it?Fire and Rescue crews will put themselves in danger to rescue people who are in danger. The police, as first responders, are keeping other people from placing themselves in harms way to prevent the need for other first responders from placing themselves in danger. It really should not be a difficult concept to grasp. The police are not required to act only on behalf of the police. Not sure why you are struggling with this.
 
2012-11-13 03:29:37 PM  

BronyMedic: 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.


So you are just an amateur?
 
2012-11-13 03:30:08 PM  
WTF? seriously what is wrong with just dragging the guy's ass back again the tasing was not needed in any way shape or form.

Tasers need to go cops are leaning on them far too much to solve problem better handled other ways.
 
2012-11-13 03:33:34 PM  

asmodeusazarak: I gotta say the posts from some first responders in this thread make me suddenly terrified for my freedoms and the domicile I once felt secure that my tax dollars helped to make safe. Authority is great and all, but don't let it go to your head and become a jerk. Clearly there are some major ego issues going on.


In these types of threads, it is very clear that there are major egos and authority issues involved. people who interfere with or obstruct emergency operation, or refuse to cede control of a situation that they are not trained or equipped to deal with, endanger people and property with their egos. You do not know better how to fight a fire than a fire fighter. You do not know how to treat an injured person better than a paramedic. Swallow your ego, and take direction from people whose job it is to manage those types of emergencies.
 
2012-11-13 03:40:18 PM  
Oh, by the way, the second you need to assert the last litany of baseless insults, and snotty remarks to "win" an argument, you stopped supporting yours a long time ago. And Bertman's Ballpark Mustard is the jazz. Order some. Nothing's caught fire here, yet, so no need to drag a whole squad room down here to "save" me. Thanks.
 
2012-11-13 03:46:32 PM  

mcreadyblue: So you are just an amateur?


Going by that, about 70% of America's Fire Service are Amateurs. Only about 30% total are full time or part time paid for their service. Most rural and suburban departments cannot afford massive manpower requirements. Volunteers respond from home or from stations, and train in their spare time to protect their communities.

It means that I never challenged the Firefighter I because my job never required it.

The reason I got out of the full-time volly business and never went to a fire department in a major city is because I have the right knee of an artritic elderly male.

All the Vol FF certificate states is that you have had training at your local department or OTJ experience that has given you training equivilent of the 300 hour bootcamp, and you have participated in the 64 hour formal skills training and 24 hour live burn practical course. Tennessee will allow you to take the full Firefighter I practical exam after you successfully complete the Volunteer Training pathway, but any professional department is going to force you to take the 300 hour bootcamp again once you are employed by them.

It's a way of giving the Vols formal training and credentialing, without requiring them to take a massive stent from work to do it.
 
2012-11-13 03:54:42 PM  

bunner: Oh, by the way, the second you need to assert the last litany of baseless insults, and snotty remarks to "win" an argument, you stopped supporting yours a long time ago. And Bertman's Ballpark Mustard is the jazz. Order some. Nothing's caught fire here, yet, so no need to drag a whole squad room down here to "save" me. Thanks.


That's nice. Enjoy your meal. Cheers, mate.
 
2012-11-13 03:59:31 PM  

BronyMedic: Uh, submitter?....lots of words justifying total inaction from anyone at the scene.


Yes, fine, you've had training, you have the proper equipment, you have all the right liability protection. SO WHAT. I appreciate the job emergency services does, but seriously, go fark yourself if you're going to tell average American's to not do whatever they can (safely) to protect property/life in the case of a disaster. Would you really tell these people to just sit there and wait for the fire department if it were a major disaster that emergency services couldn't handle? It was his own property, and unless the guy was incapable of self-preservation he should have been allowed to do whatever he could.
 
2012-11-13 04:34:36 PM  

Big Man On Campus: go fark yourself if you're going to tell average American's to not do whatever they can (safely) to protect property/life in the case of a disaster.


The photos showing the seperation distance between the houses, as well as the fact that the story is not making sense (he was protecting a metal fence?) and the fact he was treated for smoke inhalation point out that he was not safely protecting life and property.

In short, yes. Yes they can. Emergency services CAN remove you from your property if they feel your life is in imminent danger from fire, against your will. Mandatory evacuation IS legal. You can sue later, but you're alive to sue.

Big Man On Campus: Would you really tell these people to just sit there and wait for the fire department if it were a major disaster that emergency services couldn't handle?


This wasn't a major disaster. This wasn't even an unexpected event for a major fire department. This was a structure fire. For this man, yes. It was a major disaster. He was endangering his health, safety, and the life and property of those around him by repeatedly ignoring orders to get back from the fire.

Disaster operation principles do not even begin to apply to this. In a disaster - such as a major, multi-alarm, multi-structure fire, you're not looking at preventing the spread of a fire from one exposure to the adjacent. You're looking at containing the fire to the area it's already in, and protecting the lives at risk from it while ignoring property that cannot be saved.

That doesn't apply here. This was a single structure with an at-risk exposure because of the lack of seperation between the properties.

Smoke from a house kills people dead. You've got everything from PETN from insulation, to cyanogens and cyanides, to any number of toxic organic compounds. It is defined by the NFPA, and OSHA, as an immediate danger to life and health to be working in the immediate surroundings created by that space there. In addition, as fire has spread into the roof, there is a risk of collapse you have to consider.

When the information all comes out, while it may not have been justified to tase the guy and drag him off, based on what is being stated, he was trying to fight the cops trying to remove him from the immediate danger, and refusing to move.

That gardenhose will provide no thermal protection for him. It will not provide enough water flow to keep his exposure on his house cool. It will not fan out to duct smoke away from him. It will continue to further his tunnel vision, and allow him to get others hurt and distract them from saving property while they tend with his life threats.

Big Man On Campus: It was his own property, and unless the guy was incapable of self-preservation he should have been allowed to do whatever he could.


Responders are taught life first, then property second. They're also taught to prevent the scene from escalating further by allowing bystanders and well-meaning people from becoming victims now needing aid. Even if the cops were there, a 10lb dry chem extinguisher that most cruisers carry is not going to provide them thermal protection on an attack, or really do bumpkis against a structure fire that involves the actual structure of the building.

I'm not going to defend them tasing the guy any further until some things are made more clear. Those pictures aren't making a lot of sense given the initial article. But removing him from the scene was a prudent thing to do.

And they don't treat taser victims for smoke inhalation.
 
2012-11-13 04:48:56 PM  

BronyMedic: The photos showing the seperation distance between the houses, as well as the fact that the story is not making sense (he was protecting a metal fence?) and the fact he was treated for smoke inhalation point out that he was not safely protecting life and property.


I think you're assuming a great many things, you weren't there. He might've just been trying to throw his hose on the roof and turn it on. You can't seriously think trying to do such a thing is worth a tasering.

Mandatory evacuation IS legal.

And ethically wrong. We can debate legality all you want, it's unethical to force any law abiding citizen from their property against their will. The law is wrong in this case.

This wasn't a major disaster.

Ah, so we have two sets of rules then? Rules that apply when a cop is around to taser you, and a different ruleset when they are not. Sounds like we don't have law and order to me then. If the law isn't consistent, it's worthless.

Smoke from a house kills people dead.

Yes, but generally they have to be within an enclosed space for smoke to accumulate to kill them. When that smoke is being carried into the atmosphere outside, the chances of serious harm are almost negligible.

I think you should stop and think about your attitude towards your job. Most emergency services are now telling everyone to rely on them. They tell people to not push their car off the freeway when it stalls out. They tell people to call the cops and wait when someone is threatening them with a gun. They tell people to just act like helpless little sheep and do nothing, no preparation, no action at the moment, nothing, just rely on the various civic departments to take care of you.

That's un-american. American's by history and by culture are self-reliant individuals. I find it ugly and frankly a complete wimp-out to just rely on emergency services. Your attitude would have everyone just watch bad crap happen and let the civil servants deal with it.
 
2012-11-13 04:55:12 PM  

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.



I highly doubt you are a fireman.

1) A fireman would applaud an individual trying to soak his fence to keep a fire from spreading.

2) A fireman would know that this man, on his own property, was not in any danger. How exactly would a collapsing structure hurt him when he's on a different piece of property, behind a fence.

3) A fireman would know that soaking the fence with a garden hose would be enough to stop the fire from spreading to the fence, or at least slow it down enough to where the fire on the fence wouldn't spread to the house before the firemen arrived.

You just really seem like an idiot.
 
2012-11-13 04:56:29 PM  
In these types of threads, it is very clear that there are major egos and authority issues involved. people who interfere with or obstruct emergency operation, or refuse to cede control of a situation that they are not trained or equipped to deal with, endanger people and property with their egos. You do not know better how to fight a fire than a fire fighter. You do not know how to treat an injured person better than a paramedic. Swallow your ego, and take direction from people whose job it is to manage those types of emergencies.

I'll counter with I'm on my private property doing whatever I want. Without a clear "evac" notice, there wasn't one, the cops had no business on his property. He was fully within his rights to defend his property. To the death if that's how it ends. But it is his right. Cops are just cleanup, I think we all know that. Heck, they could have helped him put out the fire, but no. Tazer everyone within range and shoot the dogs. Hopefully with kids watching; that always springs the cop pecker.
 
2012-11-13 05:04:22 PM  

shooosh: In these types of threads, it is very clear that there are major egos and authority issues involved. people who interfere with or obstruct emergency operation, or refuse to cede control of a situation that they are not trained or equipped to deal with, endanger people and property with their egos. You do not know better how to fight a fire than a fire fighter. You do not know how to treat an injured person better than a paramedic. Swallow your ego, and take direction from people whose job it is to manage those types of emergencies.

I'll counter with I'm on my private property doing whatever I want. Without a clear "evac" notice, there wasn't one, the cops had no business on his property. He was fully within his rights to defend his property. To the death if that's how it ends. But it is his right. Cops are just cleanup, I think we all know that. Heck, they could have helped him put out the fire, but no. Tazer everyone within range and shoot the dogs. Hopefully with kids watching; that always springs the cop pecker.


So, you would not have criticized the fire fighters at all if they just stood back and let him die if he was overcome with heat or smoke? If this guy had given clear indication that he was taking responsibility for his own action, like looking directly into a camera and saying 'I am acting against the advice of emergency responders and do not expect anyone to rescue me should I become incapacitated', I would agree with you. The reality is that had he become overcome by the heat, and the the fire and rescue crew had decided not to risk their safety and just let him burn to death, they would be held responsible.
 
2012-11-13 05:14:29 PM  

Big Man On Campus: I think you're assuming a great many things, you weren't there. He might've just been trying to throw his hose on the roof and turn it on. You can't seriously think trying to do such a thing is worth a tasering.


FTFA, he was actively fighting the fire. His own words.

Big Man On Campus: And ethically wrong. We can debate legality all you want, it's unethical to force any law abiding citizen from their property against their will. The law is wrong in this case.


On that, we can disagree. I don't believe that your property trumps your life at all. Property, for the most part, can be replaced. You can't. And I can go home and sleep soundly at night knowing that you can sue me tommorow because of it.

Life is precious. And I'd sure as hell rather defend, to a jury of my peers in a civil lawsuit, my actions helping you keep yours, than letting you throw it away because you feel bootstrappy and lose control.

Big Man On Campus: Ah, so we have two sets of rules then? Rules that apply when a cop is around to taser you, and a different ruleset when they are not. Sounds like we don't have law and order to me then. If the law isn't consistent, it's worthless.


Ignoring your hyperbole about the tasering. Yes. There are two different rules you operate under when you compare a "normal" emergency situation, such as a one alarm structure fire, with what is termed as a "disaster", which means you do not have the resources and manpower to provide even a basic standard of care or operational continuity at the time. And the laws, both criminal and civil, are different as well. It's the reason that people got away with stuff during Katrina that would have gotten them sentenced for involuntary manslaughter in normal operating conditions.

Disaster means we are now at the point of "doing for the most people the best we can.", versus giving everyone the same standard of care.

Big Man On Campus: Yes, but generally they have to be within an enclosed space for smoke to accumulate to kill them. When that smoke is being carried into the atmosphere outside, the chances of serious harm are almost negligible.


Which is untrue in a structure fire, especially under an overhang. The effects of smoke inhalation are delayed in open environments, and are a result of the compounds contained inside of them, rather than the superheated gasses and heat found inside of an enclosed fire environment.

Breathing particle board smoke blowing in your face without protection is deadly. Just not immediately and as dramatically as overwhelming pulmonary and respiratory edema from sucking in superheated air.

Big Man On Campus: I think you should stop and think about your attitude towards your job. Most emergency services are now telling everyone to rely on them. They tell people to not push their car off the freeway when it stalls out. They tell people to call the cops and wait when someone is threatening them with a gun. They tell people to just act like helpless little sheep and do nothing, no preparation, no action at the moment, nothing, just rely on the various civic departments to take care of you.

That's un-american. American's by history and by culture are self-reliant individuals. I find it ugly and frankly a complete wimp-out to just rely on emergency services. Your attitude would have everyone just watch bad crap happen and let the civil servants deal with it.


And this is the heart of the matter. This right here. You honestly think we don't want people to fend for themselves sometimes?

Emergency Services do NOT like doing trivial, time-wasting things. They don't like coming out at three in the morning because you have had a low grade fever for three days with the sniffles, have two cars in the driveway, and you're too damn lazy/entitled to go to the drug store and buy some motrin like your doctor told you.

There is a time to be bootstrappy. Disasters are that time. If Katrina or Sandy hits. Yeah. Be bootstrappy. Be organized, but be bootstrappy.

Don't be bootstrappy when your neighbor's house is on fire. Get out, and protect yourself.

It's not a matter that they were acting in the best interest of this man and the responders around him. It's that authority told him not to be boostrappy, and that it was probibly best he didn't endanger himself for - to be quite frank - no damn reason other than his grass at this point.

There is a time and a place to be bootstrappy. If you are having your door kicked in, go for your gun. If your skillet catches fire, drop a lid on it. If someone's trying to take your kid, beat the crap out of them.

An involved structure is not that time. Especially not when you have a functioning emergency services. Especially when you have no idea what you're doing.

You pay for emergency services for a reason. So you don't have to learn how to fight fires, and maintain a 75,000+ dollar pumper.
 
2012-11-13 05:15:43 PM  

MycroftHolmes: In these types of threads, it is very clear that there are major egos and authority issues involved. people who interfere with or obstruct emergency operation, or refuse to cede control of a situation that they are not trained or equipped to deal with, endanger people and property with their egos. You do not know better how to fight a fire than a fire fighter. You do not know how to treat an injured person better than a paramedic. Swallow your ego, and take direction from people whose job it is to manage those types of emergencies.


But we saw the pics upthread. Guys standing around with their thumbs up their asses. Like you see on the highway, twelve guys blowing each other while one guy works. Kudos to the homeowner who tried to protect his home. He got tazed because he didn't do exactly what Officer Friendly told him. That's it. Power trip. You question my authority? You get electrocuted.
 
2012-11-13 05:17:53 PM  
You may not at any time stop a person from fighting a fire, even for their own safety. It is illegal to interfere in fire fighting.
The cops should be charged for public endangerment, illegal discharge, personal harm and PROPERTY DAMAGE.
 
2012-11-13 05:19:37 PM  

halB: I highly doubt you are a fireman.

1) A fireman would applaud an individual trying to soak his fence to keep a fire from spreading.


Hi. I see you're late to the discussion. If you want to discuss my credentials, you have my email in my fark profile.

He was spraying water on a metal fence. Please click back to Tab 4 and look at the scene photos and street view of the scene.

halB:
2) A fireman would know that this man, on his own property, was not in any danger. How exactly would a collapsing structure hurt him when he's on a different piece of property, behind a fence.

Again. Go back to page four of the thread. Look at the pictures of where the fire was, and the way the houses were designed and you'll look like less of a fool.

A Fireman would not encourage someone to risk their life for nothing.

halB: 3) A fireman would know that soaking the fence with a garden hose would be enough to stop the fire from spreading to the fence, or at least slow it down enough to where the fire on the fence wouldn't spread to the house before the firemen arrived.


And had you read the thread, you'd know that wasn't what actually occured, and the guy was between an overhang which was actively involved in flames, and the exposure that was his wall trying to douse his grass with a water hose.

halB: You just really seem like an idiot.


Yes, you do.

www.wired.com
 
2012-11-13 05:21:57 PM  

shooosh: But we saw the pics upthread. Guys standing around with their thumbs up their asses. Like you see on the highway, twelve guys blowing each other while one guy works. Kudos to the homeowner who tried to protect his home. He got tazed because he didn't do exactly what Officer Friendly told him. That's it. Power trip. You question my authority? You get electrocuted.


You do realize the pics up thread were taken after the fire was out, right?
 
2012-11-13 05:26:06 PM  

shooosh: MycroftHolmes: In these types of threads, it is very clear that there are major egos and authority issues involved. people who interfere with or obstruct emergency operation, or refuse to cede control of a situation that they are not trained or equipped to deal with, endanger people and property with their egos. You do not know better how to fight a fire than a fire fighter. You do not know how to treat an injured person better than a paramedic. Swallow your ego, and take direction from people whose job it is to manage those types of emergencies.

But we saw the pics upthread. Guys standing around with their thumbs up their asses. Like you see on the highway, twelve guys blowing each other while one guy works. Kudos to the homeowner who tried to protect his home. He got tazed because he didn't do exactly what Officer Friendly told him. That's it. Power trip. You question my authority? You get electrocuted.


The only picture I see with people standing around is after the fire is out.

I will never convince you that the cop was not power tripping. I will never convince you that you don't always know better and that there are times when it is best to cede control of the situation to other people. I only hope that if you are ever in a truly dire situation, you stupid, ego centric disregard for authority only jeopardizes you, and not people around you. I know you think you are very special and that no one should ever be the boss of you, I only hope this attitude only bites you in the ass, and doesn't take down the people trying to help you as well.
 
2012-11-13 05:26:52 PM  

MycroftHolmes: So, you would not have criticized the fire fighters at all if they just stood back and let him die if he was overcome with heat or smoke? If this guy had given clear indication that he was taking responsibility for his own action, like looking directly into a camera and saying 'I am acting against the advice of emergency responders and do not expect anyone to rescue me should I become incapacitated', I would agree with you. The reality is that had he become overcome by the heat, and the the fire and rescue crew had decided not to risk their safety and just let him burn to death, they would be held responsible.


It wasn't Mt. Vesuvius it was just his fence. If you keep blowing the proportions out of whack we'll need FEMA who will show up in a week. Look at the pics again, hero; he was fine, 'til the cops showed up.
 
2012-11-13 05:28:21 PM  

prjindigo: You may not at any time stop a person from fighting a fire, even for their own safety. It is illegal to interfere in fire fighting.
The cops should be charged for public endangerment, illegal discharge, personal harm and PROPERTY DAMAGE.


Tell us another fairy tail. Maybe Santa Claus or Jesus?
 
2012-11-13 05:30:51 PM  

shooosh: MycroftHolmes: So, you would not have criticized the fire fighters at all if they just stood back and let him die if he was overcome with heat or smoke? If this guy had given clear indication that he was taking responsibility for his own action, like looking directly into a camera and saying 'I am acting against the advice of emergency responders and do not expect anyone to rescue me should I become incapacitated', I would agree with you. The reality is that had he become overcome by the heat, and the the fire and rescue crew had decided not to risk their safety and just let him burn to death, they would be held responsible.

It wasn't Mt. Vesuvius it was just his fence. If you keep blowing the proportions out of whack we'll need FEMA who will show up in a week. Look at the pics again, hero; he was fine, 'til the cops showed up.


And you have a firefighter telling you several times and in different ways that he was unaware of the danger, that there were dangers he was unaware of, and that if the heat was high enough to ignite a fence from radiant heat, he was not only in danger, but a hose would be ineffective. How you determine he was safe from a picture taken after the fire was put out is beyond me.

I will agree to this, without seeing the fire and the exact situation, it is difficult to determine if he was truly in danger, or if the cop was overreacting. Given the information in the article, and the fact that he was treated for fire related issues afterwards, it would suggest that the cop did not over react.
 
2012-11-13 05:31:46 PM  

MycroftHolmes: will never convince you that the cop was not power tripping. I will never convince you that you don't always know better and that there are times when it is best to cede control of the situation to other people. I only hope that if you are ever in a truly dire situation, you stupid, ego centric disregard for authority only jeopardizes you, and not people around you. I know you think you are very special and that no one should ever be the boss of you, I only hope this attitude only bites you in the ass, and doesn't take down the people trying to help you as well.


Riggghhhht. Cuz us dum hicks don't know water puts out fire. We need professionals to decide that water puts out fire. I bet real money you got an Obamaphone too. Sucker.
 
2012-11-13 05:31:55 PM  

shooosh: It wasn't Mt. Vesuvius it was just his fence. If you keep blowing the proportions out of whack we'll need FEMA who will show up in a week. Look at the pics again, hero; he was fine, 'til the cops showed up.


Look at the post-fire picture of the exposure. The one with the pumper in the foreground.The roof self-ventilated and there's evidence the fire moved into the attic/roof, and it melted through and warped the frame of the overhang.

It takes intense heat to do that.
 
2012-11-13 05:37:07 PM  

shooosh: Riggghhhht. Cuz us dum hicks don't know water puts out fire. We need professionals to decide that water puts out fire. I bet real money you got an Obamaphone too. Sucker.


Do you know what a thermal layer is in a fire? It's going to be important when you decide to be the bootstrappy, rugged republican man you are and go under an overhang, and spray cold water directly into that involved structure.

Especially with no protective respiratory or skin covering.
 
2012-11-13 05:43:09 PM  

BronyMedic: shooosh: It wasn't Mt. Vesuvius it was just his fence. If you keep blowing the proportions out of whack we'll need FEMA who will show up in a week. Look at the pics again, hero; he was fine, 'til the cops showed up.

Look at the post-fire picture of the exposure. The one with the pumper in the foreground.The roof self-ventilated and there's evidence the fire moved into the attic/roof, and it melted through and warped the frame of the overhang.

It takes intense heat to do that.


Well, too bad for that house, but our guy's place seems undamaged. Perhaps because he hosed down the spreading flames before they reached him, and the cops reached him. You don't need a college degree and a mask to put out flames with water. It worked, his house is fine. Now he gets to sue the cops and put on that deck he always wanted.
 
2012-11-13 05:48:41 PM  

shooosh: MycroftHolmes: will never convince you that the cop was not power tripping. I will never convince you that you don't always know better and that there are times when it is best to cede control of the situation to other people. I only hope that if you are ever in a truly dire situation, you stupid, ego centric disregard for authority only jeopardizes you, and not people around you. I know you think you are very special and that no one should ever be the boss of you, I only hope this attitude only bites you in the ass, and doesn't take down the people trying to help you as well.

Riggghhhht. Cuz us dum hicks don't know water puts out fire. We need professionals to decide that water puts out fire. I bet real money you got an Obamaphone too. Sucker.


This sentence pretty much proves my point. Fire is not that simple, and at very intense or high temperatures, does not act in very intuitive or predictable ways. Derrrr spray water on it does not really cover best or safe practices for fire fighting (most services do not use straight water anymore). The volume of water needed to be delivered to effectively fight a structure fire cannot be delivered from a garden hose.

I am far from socialist in my leanings. But I do believe in letting the professionals do their job
 
2012-11-13 05:50:48 PM  

shooosh: Well, too bad for that house, but our guy's place seems undamaged. Perhaps because he hosed down the spreading flames before they reached him, and the cops reached him.


And what's more likely is the fire department arrived on scene and provided high-flow exposure coverage with a far larger GPM than a garden hose could ever hope for, and the man only required being treated for smoke exposure, rather than getting an ICU admission for getting overcome by smoke and heat, or having part of a roof land ontop of him.

shooosh: You don't need a college degree and a mask to put out flames with water. It worked, his house is fine. Now he gets to sue the cops and put on that deck he always wanted.


Oh well. He's not spending time in a level I trauma center's burn ward, or in the CVICU on BiPAP or with a tube down his throat from being overcome by smoke in a small alleyway.

What's actually going to happen, more than likely, is his lawyer is going to tell him to take a settlement, rather than have the whole story come out in court. And the city is going to find it cheeper to settle with him than fight the charge.

Bootstrapping at it's finest.
 
2012-11-13 05:52:58 PM  

shooosh: You don't need a college degree and a mask to put out flames with water.


Actually, you do need equipment and a fair amount of training. The fact that you do not know that does not negate the reality. Go to your nearest fire house. Sit down with one of the Captains or LT's and ask him to tell you a few stories. Ask him to show you the truck and ask about how many gallons per minute of foam it can put out. You will change your opinion pretty quickly on the idea that a guy with a garden hose can fight a fire.
 
2012-11-13 05:54:26 PM  
Look at the post-fire picture of the exposure. The one with the pumper in the foreground.The roof self-ventilated and there's evidence the fire moved into the attic/roof, and it melted through and warped the frame of the overhang.

You're talking about the other house. Our guy was on his side, far from that, his house is fine. He hosed down the flames, until he was interrupted. Why didn't the valiant firefighters save the other guy's house? They were too busy farking with a guy trying to save his own. Gotta establish your turf. Don't actually have to do anything, just make sure the peons know who's in charge.
 
2012-11-13 05:58:57 PM  

shooosh: Look at the post-fire picture of the exposure. The one with the pumper in the foreground.The roof self-ventilated and there's evidence the fire moved into the attic/roof, and it melted through and warped the frame of the overhang.

You're talking about the other house. Our guy was on his side, far from that, his house is fine. He hosed down the flames, until he was interrupted. Why didn't the valiant firefighters save the other guy's house? They were too busy farking with a guy trying to save his own. Gotta establish your turf. Don't actually have to do anything, just make sure the peons know who's in charge.


From my understanding, you do not really fight fully involved structure fires. At that point, you are just trying to contain the spread. And you do not risk lives strictly to preserve property. And it is highly improbably that the amount of water delivered by the garden hose had any effect on the fire.

I assume at this point that you are just trolling based on your last response.
 
2012-11-13 06:06:53 PM  

MycroftHolmes: Derrrr spray water on it does not really cover best or safe practices for fire fighting (most services do not use straight water anymore). The volume of water needed to be delivered to effectively fight a structure fire cannot be delivered from a garden hose.


He wasn't fightin a structure fire, he was in defense mode. You make it out like he was in the burning kitchen with a garden hose in his boxers yelling like Rambo. No. He was keeping the fire away from his home. Successfully, something you don't mention or consider. If my neighbors house lit up I'd hose away, not sit on my ass and wait for the professionals to come and watch it burn; thumbs fully up their asses.
When seconds count, help is only minutes away. Can you disagree with that?
 
2012-11-13 06:07:00 PM  

MycroftHolmes: I assume at this point that you are just trolling based on your last response.


Eeeyup. At this point I'm just responding to stay awake. Although I find it funny that no less than four people have accused me of being a fraud or fraudulantly representing myself (Which is a crime in my State) as a Firefighter or Paramedic in this thread, yet I've had no one contact me through my profile to discuss their "concerns".

shooosh: Fantasy Land based on having no idea what he's talking about.


Why would you make an interior attack on a fully involved structure?

What are you saving versus the lives you are risking doing so from collapse or entrapment?
 
2012-11-13 06:12:27 PM  

MycroftHolmes: And it is highly improbably that the amount of water delivered by the garden hose had any effect on the fire.


Right, It appears that he saved his house. He didn't let the fire spread.
 
2012-11-13 06:16:02 PM  

shooosh: MycroftHolmes: Derrrr spray water on it does not really cover best or safe practices for fire fighting (most services do not use straight water anymore). The volume of water needed to be delivered to effectively fight a structure fire cannot be delivered from a garden hose.

He wasn't fightin a structure fire, he was in defense mode. You make it out like he was in the burning kitchen with a garden hose in his boxers yelling like Rambo. No. He was keeping the fire away from his home. Successfully, something you don't mention or consider. If my neighbors house lit up I'd hose away, not sit on my ass and wait for the professionals to come and watch it burn; thumbs fully up their asses.
When seconds count, help is only minutes away. Can you disagree with that?


I do not disagree that help was not there, which is why it was important to stay out of harms way. Fires move quickly and in ways that those unaccustomed to them might not predict. Yes, he was not fighting the fire directly, but if the fire was close enough to ignite his fence, then he was close enough to be in danger of the structure fire.

If your neighbors house lit up to the point where it was fully involved, you are not going to save it. If you insist on futilely fighting it, you will place yourself and those whose job it is to rescue you at risk. There is a point at which the house is already lost, and pulling back and containing the fire is the best practice. If you are untrained and inexperienced, you probably wouldn't know what that point is, which is why it is best to leave firefighting to those trained and equipped to do so.
 
2012-11-13 06:17:31 PM  

shooosh: MycroftHolmes: And it is highly improbably that the amount of water delivered by the garden hose had any effect on the fire.

Right, It appears that he saved his house. He didn't let the fire spread.


More likely that his house would not have caught on fire in the first place. I doubt his rock actually repelled any tigers.
 
2012-11-13 06:17:56 PM  

shooosh: MycroftHolmes: And it is highly improbably that the amount of water delivered by the garden hose had any effect on the fire.

Right, It appears that he saved his house. He didn't let the fire spread.


img142.imageshack.us
 
2012-11-13 06:40:59 PM  

BronyMedic: shooosh: MycroftHolmes: And it is highly improbably that the amount of water delivered by the garden hose had any effect on the fire.

Right, It appears that he saved his house. He didn't let the fire spread.


Doesn't really matter, does it? He has a bed to sleep in tonight. Prove he didn't make a difference.
The point is that he tried. He risked his health and safety to care for his family and their home. And won, except for the tazor part. Can't ask much more from a man then that. And you think he should have sat on the curb and waited. Farking liberals, let's go over this again when your place is on fire. You go watch "View" and see what Whoopie would do. Damn hippies.
 
2012-11-13 06:44:06 PM  

shooosh: whargarbl

 
2012-11-13 06:47:43 PM  

BronyMedic: shooosh: whargarbl


Back at ya buddy.
 
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