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  
•       •       •

8555 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
 
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.
 
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.
 
2012-11-13 11:52:56 AM

MycroftHolmes:
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.


1) At no time did he go into or approach the "fully involved structure", so discussions of how you contain one with individuals in it is irrelevant.
2)
i.qkme.me
 
2012-11-13 11:52:58 AM

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?
 
2012-11-13 11:54:19 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Every tool these pigs are given make them collectively dumber.


it's getting to a point where every overzealous tazermonkey with a badge story that i see leaves me thinking 'well, at least they didn't drive over him with their tank'.


the funny thing is, if the guy was standing too close to the fire, is flopping around on the ground in the exact same place with thousands of volts flowing thru him really supposed to be an improvement?

"Let me hurt you so you don't hurt yourself" is a helluva philosophy.
 
2012-11-13 11:55:21 AM

MycroftHolmes: 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.


And you're missing the whole point about Brony being wrong about:

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.

That's simply incorrect.
 
2012-11-13 11:55:25 AM
Guy is on his own property using his own hose and his own water to spray a fire endangering his property. At what point is this illegal? If he's not doing something illegal while on his own property, then do police have jurisdiction to tell him to vacate?

Since when did it become required that we all take some kind of firemen training course to protect our homes? If I have a kitchen fire, do I need to vacate and call 911 or am I allowed to put it out on my own? Will I get tazed if I decide to use my own fire extinguisher on a small fire at my home? I suppose a bucket brigade would be considered terrorist organization.

Land of the free - my ass.
 
2012-11-13 11:57:33 AM

BattleAxe: Will I get tazed if I decide to use my own fire extinguisher on a small fire at my home?


Clearly, because you're in the
th05.deviantart.net
 
2012-11-13 11:57:34 AM
Tom Swift would find this electrifying !!!!!
 
2012-11-13 11:58:43 AM
Here is a good rule of thumb. During an emergency obey the orders of the first responders. They didn't tase him because he was trying to save his fence, they tased him because he wouldn't leave the area.

From a different article:

"Paramedics rushed Dan Jensen to the hospital after he was incapacitated. Authorities said he suffered smoke inhalation."

He wasn't just standing there spraying his fence, he was endangering himself.

If anyone wants to argue which is worse, tased or dead, I am all ears.
 
2012-11-13 12:00:46 PM
"we had to destroy the villiage in order to save it"
just on a smaller scale
 
2012-11-13 12:01:31 PM

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: "Paramedics rushed Dan Jensen to the hospital after he was incapacitated. Authorities said he suffered smoke inhalation."


So he was suffering from smoke inhalation, but spry enough to run back to his fence and get tased by the cops?
 
2012-11-13 12:02:51 PM

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.


You spend to much time around cops, taser the guy seriously? They could have pulled him away. there was a time cops did this. Simply pull him away.There was no risk to themselves by simply pulling the guy away from a fire.
 
2012-11-13 12:03:42 PM
I don't see how this is a situation where an officer would have used a real gun. Which is, YoU kNoW, when the cops are supposed to use tasers.

And yeah, it's perectly fine for law enforcement to step onto your property and shoot you.
 
2012-11-13 12:04:35 PM

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.

H O R S E


S H * T .
 
2012-11-13 12:04:41 PM

Theaetetus: Aren't you supposed to do your classic "Welcome to Ignore" sign-off when you do that?


Why. It's expected from you. You always attempt to get a rise out of me in these sorts of threads. Kinda why I have you favorited as doing it.

Theaetetus: 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?


Would you like to directly quote where I said water burns? Oh wait. I never did.

What I did say, that given a "typical" housing profile common in urban settings of a zero-lot or small lot structure seperated by 6-12 feet of space and next to a fully involved structure was that that small amount of water from a garden hose EVAPORATES quickly given radiant and convective heat. It's the reason high flow hand lines are typically used to protect the adjacent structures.

I don't have a Firefighter I or Pumper Operation textbook to pull a water flow-strutrual exposure chart from at this current time. Check back with me in 8 hours, when I'm not stuck behind a desk dispatching for a back injury, and I'll be happy to cite you complete with page. Sorry. I linked a firefighting textbook you could openly download from a torrent if you so chose.

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


Which is in direct violation to the almost universal adoption of Incident Command Policies as mandated by the federal government since 2001. If that department has an ICS policy for multi-agency interoperation, and violated it willingly, they are liable for damages resulting from it.

Theaetetus: [Citation needed]


Go take a four hour class, and then google Incident Commander Legal Liability. The laws have been changing since Katrina, and the courts are increasingly willing to award judgements based on incident command policies adopted by departments.

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


Stop being cute/disingenious.
 
2012-11-13 12:06:20 PM

MycroftHolmes: 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?


You know, let me pull this card out: my uncle was a firefighter ... in the seventies ... when half the fancy equipment Brony is carrying on about hadn't been invented yet and he and the other firefighters let us (their children) ride in the back of the vehicle to the emergency events. This was before seatbelts. We jostled around back with first aid supplies zinging around unsecured. He took us along to some hellacious fires: one where lightening struck the home, traveled through the T.V and killed the little boy the same age as my brother; one that consisted of the remains of a crashed small aircraft with shoes, and belts, and flesh hanging from tree limbs, and more.

The risk of this man bursting into flames might be real, but it is overblown. You all are acting like the man doused himself in plenty of gasoline before approaching the fire. Furthermore, if you are so concerned that he may catch afire, for the love of Nelly spinning on a stick, use one of those hook things (I can't remember the proper name.) rescuers used to use to drag the lake for drowning victims. Just toss that thing over there a few times, until you get his pant leg or shirt and drag him back.

And do you know what happens when there is a fire in a place where there is no fire department of any sort? Because I've been in that situation also. If the garden hose will reach, woot! Otherwise, a bucket line is set up with everyone on hand, including children, who is strong enough to pass a bucket. And the group just keeps going until the fire burns the given structure down or it is put out. (I had boy cousins who set the neighbors field on fire during a drought one summer.)
 
2012-11-13 12:07:49 PM

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Here is a good rule of thumb. During an emergency obey the orders of the first responders. They didn't tase him because he was trying to save his fence, they tased him because he wouldn't leave the area.

From a different article:

"Paramedics rushed Dan Jensen to the hospital after he was incapacitated. Authorities said he suffered smoke inhalation."

He wasn't just standing there spraying his fence, he was endangering himself.

If anyone wants to argue which is worse, tased or dead, I am all ears.


"Forseth said officers made a "split-second decision" about the type of force to use. Officer Daniel Sosa-Jones was a few feet away - maybe arm's length - from Dan Jensen."
Link

I'd say the smoke inhalation line was probably bullshiat unless they treated the cop standing next to him as well. The ambulance took him to the hospital for being tazed. 

"After they tased me, about three of them picked me up and brought me out here and planted me on my face and handcuffed me," Jensen said.

From there, he was placed in a squad car, where he said he started having breathing problems.

"I just had surgery a couple of weeks prior. I was begging them for oxygen," Jensen said.


No breathing problems before having his entire body shocked. Can't say I'm surprised with the aftermath.
Read more: http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/taser-victim-claims-police-overr eacted#ixzz2C7hvJgdY
 
2012-11-13 12:08:29 PM

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.


Oh get off your high horse before you sprain something.
 
2012-11-13 12:12:04 PM

Reverend Monkeypants: I don't see how this is a situation where an officer would have used a real gun. Which is, YoU kNoW, when the cops are supposed to use tasers.

And yeah, it's perectly fine for law enforcement to step onto your property and shoot you.


You don't understand. There was a threat that he would escalate to forming a bucket brigade. He had to be stopped.
 
2012-11-13 12:12:07 PM

CruiserTwelve: 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.


come on guy enough with the brotherly love of cops are you telling me you and your partner would not have simply walked over to the guy and looked him directly in the face and said hey man your really gonna get hurt here.

OR like these farks bark orders at him then shoot him with a taser because he fears for his property nobody else is protecting?

Pulling him away seems like a pretty easy thing to do and it doesn't involve the word SHOOT
 
2012-11-13 12:12:36 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.


And there's a reason why standing and watering your wooden fence on your own property when a fire is approaching it is not only somewhat useful, not an endangerment but legal. Is the point to fight the fire or yell "NO, ME! I GET TO!!11"?

Cause this whole thing is dogsh*t and the guy knows it and the cop knows it and the DA is going to likely concur and real heroes HELP people, not take them out at the knees for trying to keep their house from catching fire.

What if he had a heart condition? He'd be dead. Would that be OK? Is that "serving and protecting", too? Would that have been dandy and justifiable since it would have ended this GREAT DANGER he was putting people in?

No. F*cking. Sale. And you can skip the "No, see, it works like THIS and you can't possibly comprehend!" pose.
 
2012-11-13 12:15:47 PM

Theaetetus: That's simply incorrect.


[Citation Needed]

Repeating that over and over doesn't make it correct. Interagency ICS adoption since Katrina has made law enforcement agencies increasingly liable for not following their own policies and procedures. In addition, I've pointed out to you that Warren v. DC does not apply here, as the police are on scene and considered "in command" of the incident.
 
2012-11-13 12:18:28 PM

BronyMedic: Would you like to directly quote where I said water burns? Oh wait. I never did.

What I did say, that given a "typical" housing profile common in urban settings of a zero-lot or small lot structure seperated by 6-12 feet of space and next to a fully involved structure was that that small amount of water from a garden hose EVAPORATES quickly given radiant and convective heat. It's the reason high flow hand lines are typically used to protect the adjacent structures.


No, you didn't. Actually, you were talking about spraying the ground (presumably at the grass fire?) and how that wouldn't protect a fence from radiant heat. I was the one who mentioned spraying the fence, and I was also the one who mentioned evaporation. Scrolling up in this thread will prove that.

I linked a firefighting textbook you could openly download from a torrent if you so chose.

And commit copyright infringement? I think not. :P

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

Which is in direct violation to the almost universal adoption of Incident Command Policies as mandated by the federal government since 2001... The laws have been changing since Katrina, and the courts are increasingly willing to award judgements based on incident command policies adopted by departments.


And as I said above:
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

Now, if you're talking about a state law, that's different. But you're clearly stressing "federal" over and over.

And additionally, I'd be surprised if the homeowner even had standing to bring suit under such laws governing command polices between different departments.
 
2012-11-13 12:20:07 PM

BronyMedic: Repeating that over and over doesn't make it correct. Interagency ICS adoption since Katrina has made law enforcement agencies increasingly liable for not following their own policies and procedures. In addition, I've pointed out to you that Warren v. DC does not apply here, as the police are on scene and considered "in command" of the incident.


Congratulations, America. You have CEOs making foreign policy, insurance adjusters determining the value of your well being, cops mugging people and lawyers putting out fires. Heading for a cliff? Hell, if your parachute isn't open yet, I'd cancel lunch.
 
2012-11-13 12:21:57 PM

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.


Seriously shooting someone with a taser was needed in this situation? You can't just jump to lets shoot em every farking time. That's the point your missing helping does not include the word shoot.

Yeah the guys not that bright so in place of pulling him away they shoot with less lethal device creating more danger. Incapacitate him next to a danger your telling him to get away from is dangerous and lazy.

I agree with you he is pretty stupid but you can't simply go around shooting people.
 
2012-11-13 12:24:37 PM

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.


Don't let the door hitcha in the ass on the way out.
 
2012-11-13 12:25:37 PM

BronyMedic: Theaetetus: That's simply incorrect.

[Citation Needed]

Repeating that over and over doesn't make it correct. Interagency ICS adoption since Katrina has made law enforcement agencies increasingly liable for not following their own policies and procedures. In addition, I've pointed out to you that Warren v. DC does not apply here, as the police are on scene and considered "in command" of the incident.


Unless you've got a link to some of those alleged federal laws you keep claiming exist, then we currently have one Supreme Court case standing for the proposition that the police do not have an affirmative duty to protect citizens from dangers they did not create, and... your vague handwaving and demands for more citations.
But sure, what the heck. I'll also cite Hartzler v. San Jose, DeShaney v. Winebago, and Balistreri. Unless the police have actually taken custody of someone or performed other actions that would give rise to a "special relationship" between the person and the police, the police have no duty to act to protect them. Simply being "on scene" does not give rise to that special relationship.
 
2012-11-13 12:25:45 PM
I can't imagine the frame of mind a human being would have to be in to torture a man into submission for trying to protect his home.

Did we start recruiting officers from Bosnian Serb Forces?
 
2012-11-13 12:26:09 PM
Man, Brony managed to hook a lot of fish this thread.... I thought people had caught on to his trollolloll ways by now...
 
2012-11-13 12:28:52 PM
If we don't stop handing the keys to the kingdom to bullies and fat old thieves in suits, there won't BE any kingdom.
 
2012-11-13 12:28:56 PM

Theaetetus: No, you didn't. Actually, you were talking about spraying the ground (presumably at the grass fire?) and how that wouldn't protect a fence from radiant heat. I was the one who mentioned spraying the fence, and I was also the one who mentioned evaporation. Scrolling up in this thread will prove that.


No. You mentioned math calculation. I was not told there would be math on this test.

At any rate, like I said. We can revisit this in 8 hours when I have a textbook with tables for flow/pressure and exposure distance.

Theaetetus: Now, if you're talking about a state law, that's different. But you're clearly stressing "federal" over and over.


I think I see where the confusion is coming in to play here.

The states and local departments have had to adopt similar laws and policies to the federal incident command system/NIMS guidelines since 9/11 to continue recieving federal grant monies and funds from the Feds in regards to emergency response and homeland security.

Those adoptions have increasingly made law enforcement and fire departments civil liability targets based on their following their own Incident Command and operations guidelines, where soverign immunity used to protect them. In addition, courts are increasingly hostile towards civil agencies for the history of abuse of soverign immunity in the past.

95% of the cases you will never hear about because they settle under the table.

Theaetetus: And additionally, I'd be surprised if the homeowner even had standing to bring suit under such laws governing command polices between different departments.


Possibly. But the department would also be willing to settle rather quickly as well because of the negative publicity, and the risk of dragging out into a civil liability trial. The fact of the matter is, as they were in control of the scene and told the guy to GTFO and he refused, not only did he refuse a lawful order from the cops, he also endangered his own life doing so. While he didn't run into a burning building, he did get in the danger area - going from the article's limited information - of radiant heat exposure, smoke, and explosion/collapse. As pointed out here beforehand, he was treated for smoke inhalation.

bunner: What if he had a heart condition? He'd be dead. Would that be OK? Is that "serving and protecting", too? Would that have been dandy and justifiable since it would have ended this GREAT DANGER he was putting people in?


A taser is not a defibrillator. In tens of thousands of activations since the 90s, there have only been 300 cases of sudden cardiac arrest.

At any rate, a taser is not listed as non-lethal, but less than lethal, to be used only when the risk to officers is outweighed by the risk of it's use. And wrestling in the shadow of a fully involved structure unprotected is a pretty heavy risk. There are very conflicting studies, in fact, which some say VF CAN be induced, while others way it can only be induced with specific pre-requisitive issues - like drug intoxication and physical exertion/restraint.
 
2012-11-13 12:32:43 PM

Honest Bender: Man, Brony managed to hook a lot of fish this thread.... I thought people had caught on to his trollolloll ways by now...


A few threads ago, he posted some endearing statements about babies and neonatal units. Is he a troll? I was under the impression he is, for the most part, a little sweetie?
 
2012-11-13 12:32:43 PM

BronyMedic: Theaetetus: And additionally, I'd be surprised if the homeowner even had standing to bring suit under such laws governing command polices between different departments.

Possibly. But the department would also be willing to settle rather quickly as well because of the negative publicity, and the risk of dragging out into a civil liability trial. The fact of the matter is, as they were in control of the scene and told the guy to GTFO and he refused, not only did he refuse a lawful order from the cops, he also endangered his own life doing so. While he didn't run into a burning building, he did get in the danger area - going from the article's limited information - of radiant heat exposure, smoke, and explosion/collapse. As pointed out here beforehand, he was treated for smoke inhalation.


I'd suggest the opposite - because they told the guy to GTFO and he refused and therefore refused an order of questionable legality from the cops (;P), their position would be that he brought the danger on himself and they'd never settle. Furthermore, with a clear standing problem like the one I suggested, they'd just move for dismissal under rule 12 at summary judgement, and wouldn't ever have to worry about a trial.
 
2012-11-13 12:35:55 PM

BronyMedic: , there have only been 300 cases of sudden cardiac arrest.


Only 300?

www.1stopfantasyhockey.com

Ah, well, that's FINE, then!

: /


What's the penalty for only shaking your fist at something that's about to destroy your home?
 
2012-11-13 12:38:41 PM

Theaetetus: I'd suggest the opposite - because they told the guy to GTFO and he refused and therefore refused an order of questionable legality from the cops (;P), their position would be that he brought the danger on himself and they'd never settle. Furthermore, with a clear standing problem like the one I suggested, they'd just move for dismissal under rule 12 at summary judgement, and wouldn't ever have to worry about a trial.


I know there's a reason I hate lawyers. :P Even though I respect you, particularly, far more than you realize.

I don't have a rebutal for that other than if Florida's laws are written anything like Tennessee's are, the Police on a fireground have legal responsibility for crowd control and removal of unauthorized/interfering persons, as well as non-fireground law enforcement duties. Once fire arrives on scene, they either unify or give firefighting command to the highest trained, highest ranked, first arriving officer, but they still retain legal authority over access by unauthorized persons.

Lunaville: Honest Bender: Man, Brony managed to hook a lot of fish this thread.... I thought people had caught on to his trollolloll ways by now...

A few threads ago, he posted some endearing statements about babies and neonatal units. Is he a troll? I was under the impression he is, for the most part, a little sweetie?


Honest Bender's been ignored for a long time on my end. He seems to think that the only reason I'd disagree with him is because I'm a troll.
 
2012-11-13 12:39:25 PM

BronyMedic: At any rate, a taser is not listed as non-lethal, but less than lethal, to be used only when the risk to officers is outweighed by the risk of it's use.


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-13 12:42:15 PM

bunner: Ah, well, that's FINE, then! : /


In the grand scheme of things? Yeah, it is. N=300 when you have tens of thousands of activations (let's take, just on an offside, since 1994 when the first "Taser" type LtL devices became used by the LAPD 30,000 activations. Which is conservative.)

0.01% chance of SCA. In addition, retrospective case review of those SCA studies often revealed that they were related to prior drug use or combativeness with physical restraint. It's called Sudden In Custody Death Syndrome. it's the reason anyone who gets tased is supposed to be medically evaluated per the manufacturer now.
 
2012-11-13 12:44:49 PM
PIGS.

And I hope they have their nuts handed to them in civil court.
 
2012-11-13 12:48:06 PM
"He's an unarmed person on his private property trying to fight a fire."

Sorry citizen, Comrade Hussein Obama and his jackbooted government thugs don't believe in private property.
 
2012-11-13 12:48:25 PM

BronyMedic: It's called Sudden In Custody Death Syndrome.


I have never found making up dime store log entry labels to be either an effective remedy or an excuse for cheap behavior. If you need to do all that cause it's "the way it is", you have my sympathies, but not my respect. I wont pretend you care if you don't. They knocked a guy to his knees for squirting water on his fence when the house next door was on fire. That's not America. Hell, man, that's not even Cuba. I think that it's time to review the who works for whom aspect of public service. YMMV.
 
2012-11-13 12:51:03 PM

spentshells: 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.

Seriously shooting someone with a taser was needed in this situation? You can't just jump to lets shoot em every farking time. That's the point your missing helping does not include the word shoot.

Yeah the guys not that bright so in place of pulling him away they shoot with less lethal device creating more danger. Incapacitate him next to a danger your telling him to get away from is dangerous and lazy.

I agree with you he is pretty stupid but you can't simply go around shooting people.


Your sentence stating "Incapacitate him next to a danger you're telling him to get away from is dangerous and lazy" needs to be engraved on a marble block, mounted on a sturdy handle and beaten about several people's head and shoulders.

If I were next to a cliff and was being told to back away from the cliff, would I be tased to make sure I didn't fall off the cliff?
 
2012-11-13 12:53:16 PM
They should have warned him of the danger, and left it at that. Its a free country, and a person has the right to expose themselves to risks to protect their property. Once the fire dept arrives and starts to fight the fire, then use force if he interferes, but that is it. Yes there is a risk, yes he may need to be rescued, but there is also the possibility that his actions could reduce the risk of the fire spreading, thereby reducing the risk to others. Basically, the police start issuing orders, he ignores then, bam contempt of cop, taser deployed, it wasn't because the cops really cared about the potential liability either way.
 
2012-11-13 12:55:47 PM

bunner: I have never found making up dime store log entry labels to be either an effective remedy or an excuse for cheap behavior.


Because at the time they didn't know WHY people were keeling over dead from use. As I said before, a Taser is not a defibrillator or cardioverter. They don't work the same way, deliver the same energy, or the same waveform to the same area.

Labeling a specific phenomena for what it is, and then taking steps to mitigate it from occuring while still being able to properly use a device for what it is intended for is "an excuse for cheep behavior" in your mind?

In addition, the cops are under no ethical or moral obligation to "fight fair" with you when you're being a beligerant ass, and disobeying a lawful order. If you want a fair fight, go take up boxing or MMA and fight in a sanctioned match. All that cop cares about is making it home at the end of his shift to his family, and (hopefully) your constitional rights to appropriate and justified force. The moment you decide to refuse and endanger their lives in doing so, the situation escalates. It's debatable whether this was the 100% correct answer to the situation given the limited information in the article, but it certainly points out why they would implement it to someone who is familiar with structure fires.

bunner: you have my sympathies, but not my respect. I wont pretend you care if you don't. They knocked a guy to his knees for squirting water on his fence when the house next door was on fire. That's not America. Hell, man, that's not even Cuba. I think that it's time to review the who works for whom aspect of public service. YMMV.


I don't want your respect, tbqh, or your sympathies. Nothing I say is going to change your mind, to be quite honest part deux.

And no. They knocked a guy to his knees for refusing to follow a lawful order and being beligerant with the people trying to keep him from getting himself, and potentially others hurt in the process.
 
2012-11-13 01:00:02 PM

kendelrio:
If I were next to a cliff and was being told to back away from the cliff, would I be tased to make sure I didn't fall off the cliff?


What does heat and smoke do? Why are you told to stay low and go?
 
2012-11-13 01:02:14 PM

nytmare: 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.


You will never see firefighters and EMS ever, never, ever, under any circumstance, hurry. I swear to God, every Fireman I've ever seen pulling up to a house whether it's for a fire or a medical emergency, they take their sweet time.

They pull up, casually climb down from the truck, mosey to the storage lockers and get some equipment, then kinda make their way to whatever the emergency is. I can't imagine how long it would take them to setup a bunch of hoses and stuff. Just about forever, if I had to guess.
 
2012-11-13 01:03:44 PM

CruiserTwelve: 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.


It's certainly unreasonable to expect a group empowered with supra-law privileges, embedded within and protected by a supposedly objective legal system, and considerably armed beyond that granted to the populace at large to be held to a higher standard than the common plebe.

Because that would be just silly.
 
2012-11-13 01:07:07 PM

Marcus Aurelius: I still say they should have shot the guy.


Under rules of engagement, they did.

Tasers are not non-lethal; they are less-lethal.
 
2012-11-13 01:07:19 PM

BronyMedic: They knocked a guy to his knees for refusing to follow a lawful order


Yeah, about that.

and being beligerant with

That' not even funny.

the people trying to keep him from getting himself, and potentially others hurt in the process.

Apparently they didn't try too hard. This stinks. And you know it and they know it like all public sector and LEO, you guys would back each other up for throwing a cripple down a flight of stairs if they managed to not sufficiently kiss your ass. And that is NOT service, that is NOT protection, and that is NOT helpful. That's bored bullies looking for sufficient room to wave their dicks. If I have to move to a communist country to make my own decisions about whether or not I'm allowed to assess personal risk in the defense of my property, perhaps I'm already in one. *sigh* And trying to open the museum of not getting it on my front lawn like it's some sort of moral obligation for me to pay the cover charge isn't gonna make me go in and buy a cup of kool aid.
 
2012-11-13 01:13:15 PM
I don't care if you punch a time clock or how jaded you are, LEO, fire and medicine has an IMPLICIT MORAL OBLIGATION ASPECT involved and it requires the people who would deign to wear those hats to ACCEPT THAT IMPLIED SOCIAL CONTRACT, and THAT is where the "due respect" comes from. That's the big deal. Not the badge, not the rubber boots and sirens. THAT CONTRACT. And if that contract doesn't interest the person who puts that hat on, THEY SHOULD BUY ANOTHER F*CKING HAT.
 
2012-11-13 01:14:56 PM

BronyMedic: kendelrio:
If I were next to a cliff and was being told to back away from the cliff, would I be tased to make sure I didn't fall off the cliff?

What does heat and smoke do? Why are you told to stay low and go?


Yes, I understand the concept of getting under the smoke, clear air approximately 3 feet up etc. However, it has been pointed out the man was on HIS property, spraying HIS fence to keep the fire from spreading to HIS house to protect it.
He was told by police to move back until the fire department got there, he did so at first but chose to continue spraying the fence. It was also stated the fire department was on scene six minutes after the original call (which is awesome by the way). I ask you this: which of these puts more people at risk: a)Homeowner who is spraying a fence on the "good" side of a fire does so, waits a minute or so, goes back to spraying FOR A MAXIMUM OF SIX MINUTES then moves away when the fire department gets there
(B same scenario but now the homeowner is tased and is immobile near the very danger the police wanted to remove him from and now to "save" him from the fire, 2 or more police have to grab him and move him and the tasee now has health issues.

I can help you out. 1 is less than 3
 
2012-11-13 01:15:54 PM

bunner: And you know it and they know it like all public sector and LEO, you guys would back each other up for throwing a cripple down a flight of stairs if they managed to not sufficiently kiss your ass.


Riiiiiiiight. We're all in one gigantic conspiracy to cover eachother's ass.

s3.amazonaws.com

Thank you. I think I've heard the stupidest thing on FARK since tabbing over to politics

bunner: Yeah, about that. That' not even funny. Apparently they didn't try too hard. This stinks. And that is NOT service, that is NOT protection, and that is NOT helpful. That's bored bullies looking for sufficient room to wave their dicks. If I have to move to a communist country to make my own decisions about whether or not I'm allowed to assess personal risk in the defense of my property, perhaps I'm already in one. *sigh* And trying to open the museum of not getting it on my front lawn like it's some sort of moral obligation for me to pay the cover charge isn't gonna make me go in and buy a cup of kool aid.


Your personal freedom stops where someone else's nose begins. You do not have the right to knowingly create a dangerous situation which endangers the lives of First Responders, and takes away valuable resources to protect from further property damage which are now needed to rescue and treat you for your libertarian ideals.

You don't have to agree with them. You don't have to be nice to them. But if you're told to GTFO of the way and wait for the fire department because it's unsafe by a legally identified First Responder for that jurisdiction, and you refuse, yes, you are interfering with the operations of duly identified emergency responders, and refusing to follow a lawful order. And when you become beligerant afterwords, and decide to endanger the lives of cops before fire arrrives on scene because you don't want some damage to your fence, then yes. You're going to be roughed up.
 
2012-11-13 01:18:56 PM

kendelrio: spentshells: 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.

Seriously shooting someone with a taser was needed in this situation? You can't just jump to lets shoot em every farking time. That's the point your missing helping does not include the word shoot.

Yeah the guys not that bright so in place of pulling him away they shoot with less lethal device creating more danger. Incapacitate him next to a danger your telling him to get away from is dangerous and lazy.

I agree with you he is pretty stupid but you can't simply go around shooting people.

Your sentence stating "Incapacitate him next to a danger you're telling him to get away from is dangerous and lazy" needs to be engraved on a marble block, mounted on a sturdy handle and beaten about several people's head and shoulders.

If I were next to a cliff and was being told to back away from the cliff, would I be tased to make sure I didn't fall off the cliff?


Sure. Why not? possibly NSFW video Link
 
2012-11-13 01:19:45 PM

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?


I dont question any thing you have posted.

My question is hat is safer and best for society.

Let the guy gamble with Darwin or let the cops taze people for their own safety?

Ill take my chances with Darwin thank you very much.
 
2012-11-13 01:21:26 PM

pdee:
My question is hat is safer and best for society.



What is safer and ....



/Note to self to proof read.
 
2012-11-13 01:23:33 PM

pdee: I dont question any thing you have posted.

My question is hat is safer and best for society.

Let the guy gamble with Darwin or let the cops taze people for their own safety?

Ill take my chances with Darwin thank you very much.


Eh. I can see that. Atleast you're honest.

However, I'd retort that our entire society as modern, first world human beings is built around ensuring that Darwin doesnt get much of a chance anymore.

Whether it's good, or bad, is another avenue of debate with unfortunate historical implications built in, for both sides.
 
2012-11-13 01:25:17 PM

BronyMedic: Riiiiiiiight. We're all in one gigantic conspiracy to cover eachother's ass.


I was thinking more "corner store gentlemen's club", but hey, how else I have gotten to see that stupid ass pic you hotlinked? : )

BronyMedic:
Thank you. I think I've heard the stupidest thing on FARK since tabbing over to politics

Yeah, of course it is. Evar!11 Woo. *sigh* Do you know what a strawman is? Can you get yours off of my lawn?

BronyMedic: You don't have to agree with them. You don't have to be nice to them. But if you're told to GTFO of the way


Seig heil, daddy-o.

BronyMedic: And when you become beligerant afterwords, and decide to endanger the lives of cops


Did you read where I types HORSE SH*T, up there? Or did he endanger them by them having to drag his ass to the curb after he was incapacitated for watering his fence on his private property? God, how do you folks ever mange such a difficult job?

BTW, it's spelled "belligerent". It looks better on the incident report if you seem literate.

BronyMedic: You're going to be roughed up.


Well, that's a convenient ideology. I think you need a new hat, brah.
 
2012-11-13 01:30:19 PM

bunner: I was thinking more "corner store gentlemen's club", but hey, how else I have gotten to see that stupid ass pic you hotlinked? : )


It might be funny for you to know, then, that prehospital care and incident reports often contradict what's written in cases of police wrongdoing, and are the first documentation that investigators, civil and criminal, go for.

bunner: Yeah, of course it is. Evar!11 Woo. *sigh* Do you know what a strawman is? Can you get yours off of my lawn?


Do you know what the Fallacist's Fallacy is? You should look it up. It's an interesting read.

bunner: Seig heil, daddy-o.


Case and point, actually.

bunner: Did you read where I types HORSE SH*T, up there? Or did he endanger them by them having to drag his ass to the curb after he was incapacitated for watering his fence on his private property? God, how do you folks ever mange such a difficult job?

BTW, it's spelled "belligerent". It looks better on the incident report if you seem literate.


Holy crap. It's like shooting fish in a barrel!

bunner: Do you know what a strawman is?


At any rate, I really don't feel like putting in a USB drive, and booting up chrome to do my spellchecking.

bunner:
Well, that's a convenient ideology. I think you need a new hat, brah.


Yes. Because you can't do whatever you want in society at any point and time, we're one step away from Fascists goosestepping down the Mississippi, and Swasticas flying over Washington.

And you presumed to try to lecture me about fallacies.

You're a funny libertarian guy. I'll give you that.
 
2012-11-13 01:30:53 PM

pdee: Let the guy gamble with Darwin or let the cops taze people for their own safety?

Ill take my chances with Darwin thank you very much.


This guy being so focused on saving PROPERTY obviously didn't recognize the danger that he was in. He wasn't necessarily being stupid just ignorant of the facts around him. Basic target fixation on the problem and not seeing a bigger problem developing around you.

It is at that point the officers need to step in because he is no longer in a position to make a rational decision. One of the articles mentioned he was super agitated, angry, and screaming. So, for everyone screaming about the use of a taser, would you have rather wrestled with this guy in close proximity of a fire or just incapacitate him and pull him to safety?
 
2012-11-13 01:32:33 PM
BRONYMEDIC: "You don't have to agree with them. You don't have to be nice to them. But if you're told to GTFO of the way and wait for the fire department because it's unsafe by a legally identified First Responder for that jurisdiction, and you refuse, yes, you are interfering with the operations of duly identified emergency responders, and refusing to follow a lawful order. And when you become beligerant afterwords, and decide to endanger the lives of cops before fire arrrives on scene because you don't want some damage to your fence, then yes. You're going to be roughed up."

Is this the justification you use when your kids need discipline?
You don't have to agree with them me. You don't have to be nice tothem me . But if you're told to GTFO of the way and wait for the fire department because it's unsafe by a legally identified First Responder for that jurisdiction, do your chores and you refuse, yes, you are interfering with the operations of duly identified emergency responders, and refusing to follow a lawful order. And when you become beligerant afterwords, and decide to endanger the lives of cops before fire arrrives on scene because you don't want some damage to your fence, not respect mah authoritie then yes. You're going to be roughed up.

FTFY
 
2012-11-13 01:34:50 PM

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: It is at that point the officers need to step in because he is no longer in a position to make a rational decision. One of the articles mentioned he was super agitated, angry, and screaming. So, for everyone screaming about the use of a taser, would you have rather wrestled with this guy in close proximity of a fire or just incapacitate him and pull him to safety?


I'm just laughing at the fact that bunner is trying to argue the guy was not endangering anyone by being close to an involved structure without protection, and then presumes to lecture on some pseudo-libertarian social contract derp to say that anyone who would have him do otherwise is wrong.
 
2012-11-13 01:35:03 PM

BronyMedic: And when you become beligerant afterwords, and decide to endanger the lives of cops


That never happened, the police were in no danger.
 
2012-11-13 01:35:32 PM
Also, do you know how freaking hard that was to HTML up on a freaking iPhone???????

/little respect???
 
2012-11-13 01:40:46 PM

BronyMedic:
Yes. Because you can't do whatever you want in society at any point and time, we're one step away from Fascists goosestepping down the Mississippi, and Swastickas flying over Washington.


Well, then we're safe as milk because apparently, anybody with a badge and a public payroll check, can.

And you presumed to try to lecture me about fallacies.

I totally missed that.

You're a funny libertarian guy. I'll give you that.

You also need a new label maker. This one spits out baseless assumptions, so far.

BronyMedic: Holy crap. It's like shooting fish in a barrel!


Actually, that's not as easy as it looks. That's one of those blanket assumption based old saws that don't have a lot of physics behind them.

BronyMedic: bunner: Do you know what a strawman is?


OK, I'll go with "no." The strawman is when you attributed this statement

BronyMedic: Riiiiiiiight. We're all in one gigantic conspiracy to cover eachother's ass.


to me and then refuted it ( knocked the strawman down) here.

BronyMedic: Thank you. I think I've heard the stupidest thing on FARK since tabbing over to politics


Get it?

It's not that you're a firefighter. It's not that you're an ostensible authority figure. I just have a tendency to get ass chapped when people use their job description to defend jerks.

Stay safe out there.
 
2012-11-13 01:41:10 PM

HotWingConspiracy: BronyMedic: And when you become beligerant afterwords, and decide to endanger the lives of cops

That never happened, the police were in no danger.


You know why? They used less than lethal force to subdue and remove him from the area. That is the only reason they were not in danger. Had he succumbed to the smoke that he was later treated for, without fire on scene, who would have rescued him? Yeah those police officers that are not trained nor equipped to do so.
 
2012-11-13 01:42:10 PM

BronyMedic: derp


That particular made up word is a credibility crippler on par with "libtard", btw.
 
2012-11-13 01:43:22 PM

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: They used less than lethal force to subdue and remove him from the area. That is the only reason they were not in danger.


Why? Was he hooking the hose up to a 100 gal. drum of 96 no lead and shouting "JIHAD!"?
 
2012-11-13 01:44:46 PM

HotWingConspiracy: BronyMedic: And when you become beligerant afterwords, and decide to endanger the lives of cops

That never happened, the police were in no danger.


If they were trying to get the guy out of the Thermal Exposure of an involved structure, as the article infers, yes they were. Or do you not consider heat and smoke a danger to life and safety? Because OSHA and the NFPA might have a problem with that.

kendelrio: Is this the justification you use when your kids need discipline?


No. It's a salient point: if you want to change the law, you don't do it by arguing with the people who have come to enforce it, and then forcing them to risk their lives to protect you from your own stupidity.
 
2012-11-13 01:47:31 PM
What law was this gentleman breaking in spraying a hose at a fire? Is my own personel safety on my own property (or residence) really the domain of law enfforcement? There are laws on the books about this sort of thing?

I'm not really sure that either the police or fire department has any legal right or obligation to insist that the individual involved cease his actions.

I can only hope that the police officer involved is charged with assult. Sounds like the recipient of the tasering is gearing up for a lawsuit, and rightly so. Hope he wins it.

I'm fairly certain that given a similiar situation I would have behaved as did the guy trying to fight the fire.
 
2012-11-13 01:50:59 PM

bunner: Actually, that's not as easy as it looks. That's one of those blanket assumption based old saws that don't have a lot of physics behind them.


It's quite easy. You just use explosive ammunition. No kill like overkill.

bunner: It's not that you're a firefighter. It's not that you're an ostensible authority figure. I just have a tendency to get ass chapped when people use their job description to defend jerks.


Terrific. Good for you. Except that you implicitly inferred I would cover up the abuse of a "cripple" (Which is a wonderfully ableistic word to use for someone who's disabled, by the way. congrats on that moral high ground.) because the person who did it wore a badge.

That goes beyond me pointing out that you MIGHT be wrong about what you're saying, and you taking "chapped ass" to it. That's not even trolling. That's a pretty vile personal attack against someone you have no knowledge about.

bunner: I totally missed that.


I bet you also missed the point about the Fallacist's Fallacy, as well. Just because a statement can be attributed to a fallacy, does not make it immediately discountable.

You said something incredibly vile and stupid about me. I responded by pointing out it was such.
 
2012-11-13 01:54:03 PM
What law was this gentleman breaking in spraying a hose at a fire? Is my own personel safety on my own property (or residence) really the domain of law enfforcement? There are laws on the books about this sort of thing?

I'm not really sure that either the police or fire department has any legal right or obligation to insist that the individual involved cease his actions.

I can only hope that the police officer involved is charged with assult. Sounds like the recipient of the tasering is gearing up for a lawsuit, and rightly so. Hope he wins it.

I'm fairly certain that given a similiar situation I would have behaved as did the guy trying to fight the fire. In fact at the first attempt of law enforcement officers to prevent me from fighting the fire I would have pointed out to them that they are trespassing on private property and have asked them to leave.
 
2012-11-13 01:56:26 PM
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.
 
2012-11-13 01:57:01 PM

Scarlioni: There are laws on the books about this sort of thing?


Yes. The specific wording varies from state by state. But it usually goes along the lines of refusing to follow a lawful order from a duly identified emergency responder, who is working an active emergency scene at the time. The laws are different from state by state depending on LEO's stupidity in the past. Tennessee had to make it a crime, for example, for a Law Enforcement officer to interfere with a Firefighter or EMT who was performing fireground suppression or patient care because they would do so regularly on the highways/interstate to get the roads open.

Scarlioni: I'm not really sure that either the police or fire department has any legal right or obligation to insist that the individual involved cease his actions.


If they feel you're interfering with fireground operations, endangering your life or the lives of others involved, or generally being a nuscence to operations, yes. They have every legal right to escort you behind the tape or to a safety area.

To use another unrelated example, the police have legal authority to enact a mandatory evacuation of an area surrounding an involved propane tank, even if you decide to be bootstrappy and use your own idealism to keep the tank from BLEVEing and killing anything alive in a 15-30x volume radius around that thing.
 
2012-11-13 02:00:02 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.


Please don't get me wrong. If more information comes out where these guys walked up to the guy and just shocked him, when he was not doing what's inferred in the article, then by all means. I hope he sues the shiat out of them and wins.

I'm actually quite a passive, pleasent person in real life. There are several FARKers on here that know me more personally than my occasional rantings.

That said. When you endanger my life, or my partner's life due to stupidity, that niceness tends to disappear until such time as it is warrented again. Usually when that endangerment has passed.
 
2012-11-13 02:00:16 PM
(Is this Weeners jump to Godwin's Law ?)

In the 1930's the cops who tasered this guy would have been the first to sign up with the SS. Not trying to be funny/ironic/hyperbolic/etc - the same mindset that put Jews in gas chambers, tasers people for no reason.
 
2012-11-13 02:04:48 PM

BronyMedic: "cripple" (Which is a wonderfully ableistic word to use for someone who's disabled, by the way. congrats on that moral high ground.)


Anybody who thinks making up PC aphorisms makes them pious is neither honest nor trustworthy, but I can see how easy it is to go along with all the new wives tales. I've talked to people in wheelchairs. they have asserted quite vehemently that they are not "otherwise abled" but crippled. It's not like the N word or c*nt. honest.

And as far as saying something vile about you, what am *I* to assume, as you might ask, when confronted with somebody throwing up buzzword nomenclature in the face of somebody having several of their constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and choices shoved up their ass to the tune of a few thousand volts because it's "convenient"?

I think that whole thing stinks and defending it as a matter of policy stinks and if that offends, well, take a number because self-serving public servants who cattle prod private citizens who are on their private property, using their available resources to keep their home from catching fire at, AFAICT, no risk to ANYbody but themselves offends the living sh*t out of me.

There IS an implied moral contact to public service and these guys wiped their asses with it. That's offensive.
 
2012-11-13 02:16:17 PM

bunner: Anybody who thinks making up PC aphorisms makes them pious is neither honest nor trustworthy, but I can see how easy it is to go along with all the new wives tales. I've talked to people in wheelchairs. they have asserted quite vehemently that they are not "otherwise abled" but crippled. It's not like the N word or c*nt. honest.


Keep telling yourself that. People who feel marginalized don't like being in the limelight. Just be sure you keep putting new trash in your soapbox so it doesn't collapse.

bunner: And as far as saying something vile about you, what am *I* to assume, as you might ask, when confronted with somebody throwing up buzzword nomenclature in the face of somebody having several of their constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and choices shoved up their ass to the tune of a few thousand volts because it's "convenient"?


So you go from debating escalation of force based on the limited information presented in the article and on another one mentioned where the individual involved had been repeatedly told to let the fire department handle it, and that his life and health was more important than a fence (let insurance cover it may be cold, but property is not worth your life. Sorry. Risk little to save little, lot to save lot.), and where he repeatedly refused a lawful order to get away from the thermal exposure, and then implicitly state I would cover up police brutality because I disagreed with you?

That is the definition of stupidity - there is no logic in that statement. And yes. It is a vile personal attack.

And it's not a matter of conveinence. It's a matter of what was safest for all involved. Which might not have been to wrestle with a man who had property tunnel vision over a fence in the face of smoke and thermal exposure from an involved structure.

bunner: I think that whole thing stinks and defending it as a matter of policy stinks and if that offends, well, take a number because self-serving public servants who cattle prod private citizens who are on their private property, using their available resources to keep their home from catching fire at, AFAICT, no risk to ANYbody but themselves offends the living sh*t out of me.

There IS an implied moral contact to public service and these guys wiped their asses with it. That's offensive.


Yeah. And that's the part you don't understand. It's not just "at no risk to anyone but themselves". At that point, it becomes a matter of life safety over property. And the Fire Department, EMS, and Police must dedicate their resources to protecting the one idiot with a hose spraying a thermally exposed fence because he has tunnel vision versus extenguishing an involved structure, saving what they can, and preventing spread of the fire to other properties and mitigating other hazards.

Guess what: No one becomes a public servant to die or be injured in the line of duty. No one wants to be a hero. They just want to go home at the end of the day knowing they did the best they could for everone involved. And they take necessary steps to protect themselves, their partners, the general public, and the victims currently in need of aid IN THAT ORDER for a very good reason.
 
2012-11-13 02:23:27 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.


So, to save him from the obviously very dangerous situation they decided to render him immobile and dazed in the very spot he was standing.

This is moronic. Defend the idea that he needed to get the fark out of there? Fine. But this is stupid.
 
2012-11-13 02:23:56 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.



There's also a reason we use these:



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



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


If his neighbor's house was on fire and he was spraying his fence with his hose, doesn't that mean he was farther away from the fire than the fence, with the fence also acting as a sort of heat shield? And I don't know about him, but when I've tried to get in near fires and it got too hot, I backed away. I'm guessing he could gauge whether he felt safe enough to continue, and would have moved away if he thought he was risking his personal safety over his property.
 
2012-11-13 02:35:33 PM

I_Hate_Iowa: If his neighbor's house was on fire and he was spraying his fence with his hose, doesn't that mean he was farther away from the fire than the fence, with the fence also acting as a sort of heat shield? And I don't know about him, but when I've tried to get in near fires and it got too hot, I backed away. I'm guessing he could gauge whether he felt safe enough to continue, and would have moved away if he thought he was risking his personal safety over his property.


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.)

However, the portion I've bolded is because I wanted to point out a situation called "Tunnel Vision". It's what happens when you focus on the immediate task infront of you, without worrying about the grand picture of things. It kills people, even trained responders who are taught to recognize when it's occuring and to "back down" psychologically from it and assess the whole picture.

There are cases of people who were so focused on defending a part of their property that they never noticed the rest was fully engulphed in flames.
 
2012-11-13 02:36:36 PM

I_Hate_Iowa: If his neighbor's house was on fire and he was spraying his fence with his hose, doesn't that mean he was farther away from the fire than the fence, with the fence also acting as a sort of heat shield? And I don't know about him, but when I've tried to get in near fires and it got too hot, I backed away. I'm guessing he could gauge whether he felt safe enough to continue, and would have moved away if he thought he was risking his personal safety over his property


He ended up being taken to the hospital and treated for smoke inhalation so no it does not appear as though he was aware or cared about the risks to himself.
 
2012-11-13 02:38:23 PM

BronyMedic: Keep telling yourself that. People who feel marginalized don't like being in the limelight. Just be sure you keep putting new trash in your soapbox so it doesn't collapse.


BronyMedic: And yes. It is a vile personal attack.


Unlike all this crap you just typed, eh, Diogenes?

BronyMedic: Yeah. And that's the part you don't understand. It's not just "at no risk to anyone but themselves". At that point, it becomes a matter of life safety over property. And the Fire Department, EMS, and Police must dedicate their resources to protecting the one idiot with a hose spraying a thermally exposed fence because he has tunnel vision versus exteinguishing an involved structure


Yeah, about that. I bet that's what the reports gonna say, but I don't see it and frankly, you can shove your clearance counter, "better man than you" pose up your ass until the personal attack hypocrisy stops dripping off your posts like so much hose water.

Seriously.

I hope to God I don't grow up to know everything about everything, like you. It mus be a terrible burden to hold the absolute high ground on everything. *snort*
 
2012-11-13 02:39:22 PM

BronyMedic: I_Hate_Iowa: If his neighbor's house was on fire and he was spraying his fence with his hose, doesn't that mean he was farther away from the fire than the fence, with the fence also acting as a sort of heat shield? And I don't know about him, but when I've tried to get in near fires and it got too hot, I backed away. I'm guessing he could gauge whether he felt safe enough to continue, and would have moved away if he thought he was risking his personal safety over his property.

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.)

However, the portion I've bolded is because I wanted to point out a situation called "Tunnel Vision". It's what happens when you focus on the immediate task infront of you, without worrying about the grand picture of things. It kills people, even trained responders who are taught to recognize when it's occuring and to "back down" psychologically from it and assess the whole picture.

There are cases of people who were so focused on defending a part of their property that they never noticed the rest was fully engulphed in flames.


www.baynews9.com 

The proximity of the two houses
 
2012-11-13 02:40:46 PM

BronyMedic: I_Hate_Iowa: If his neighbor's house was on fire and he was spraying his fence with his hose, doesn't that mean he was farther away from the fire than the fence, with the fence also acting as a sort of heat shield? And I don't know about him, but when I've tried to get in near fires and it got too hot, I backed away. I'm guessing he could gauge whether he felt safe enough to continue, and would have moved away if he thought he was risking his personal safety over his property.

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.)

However, the portion I've bolded is because I wanted to point out a situation called "Tunnel Vision". It's what happens when you focus on the immediate task infront of you, without worrying about the grand picture of things. It kills people, even trained responders who are taught to recognize when it's occuring and to "back down" psychologically from it and assess the whole picture.

There are cases of people who were so focused on defending a part of their property that they never noticed the rest was fully engulphed in flames.


www.gardenhosebestprice.com
 
2012-11-13 02:43:08 PM

BronyMedic: I_Hate_Iowa: If his neighbor's house was on fire and he was spraying his fence with his hose, doesn't that mean he was farther away from the fire than the fence, with the fence also acting as a sort of heat shield? And I don't know about him, but when I've tried to get in near fires and it got too hot, I backed away. I'm guessing he could gauge whether he felt safe enough to continue, and would have moved away if he thought he was risking his personal safety over his property.

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.)

However, the portion I've bolded is because I wanted to point out a situation called "Tunnel Vision". It's what happens when you focus on the immediate task infront of you, without worrying about the grand picture of things. It kills people, even trained responders who are taught to recognize when it's occuring and to "back down" psychologically from it and assess the whole picture.

There are cases of people who were so focused on defending a part of their property that they never noticed the rest was fully engulphed in flames.

"After they tased me, about three of them picked me up and brought me out here and planted me on my face and handcuffed me," Jensen said.

From there, he was placed in a squad car, where he said he started having breathing problems.

"I just had surgery a couple of weeks prior. I was begging them for oxygen," Jensen said.


No breathing problems before having his entire body shocked. Can't say I'm surprised with the aftermath. Shortness of breath is one symptom of being tazed.

Read more: http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/taser-victim-claims-police-overr eacted#ixzz2C7hvJgdY
 
2012-11-13 02:45:01 PM

bunner: Unlike all this crap you just typed, eh, Diogenes?


Really? You haven't been defending accusing me of being willing to cover up police brutality of a "cripple", in your own words because I disagree with your mentality of being able to do what ever the fark you want without regard for the possible consequences to the life and property of others?

bunner: Yeah, about that. I bet that's what the reports gonna say, but I don't see it and frankly, you can shove your clearance counter, "better man than you" pose up your ass until the personal attack hypocrisy stops dripping off your posts like so much hose water.


Please point out why you defending ableism as not being "like racism or sexism" and that you have "disabled friends who say it's okay" is personal attack hypocrisy? I haven't accused you of anything you haven't demonstrated in your text. Unlike accusing me of being willing and complacent in covering up police brutality against the disabled.

Be proud of your text, Sir. Don't shy away from accepting what you've demonstrated to others.

bunner: I hope to God I don't grow up to know everything about everything, like you. It mus be a terrible burden to hold the absolute high ground on everything.


This coming from a poster who for the past 30 or so posts has been arguing theoreticals, strawman "social contract violations which put no one at risk other than the person involved", and has made some pretty vile accusations and personal attacks against me?

No danger from an exposure. None. What-so-ever. No risk to anyone else. Just look at how harmless thermal exposures are.

It's not "knowing everything" to point out that you're argung a topic you know nothing about from theoreticals and information not garnered from the article or information on the subject that has been found through outside research.
 
2012-11-13 02:45:07 PM

redmid17: "I just had surgery a couple of weeks prior. I was begging them for oxygen," Jensen said.


Obviously, this man is a threat to public sector safety -and- a whiner.
 
2012-11-13 02:46:03 PM

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: The proximity of the two houses


Oh, Bunner? I expect a goddamn apology from you. Right now.
 
2012-11-13 02:46:23 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.


If there is anything that annoys the sh*t out of me more than officious gits who scream at you that you should do nothing because "you haven't had the training", its officious gits who scream at you that only they can function because "we've had the training" (even if they haven't shown up, yet). All y'all git over yourselves and let the rest of us be. It doesn't take "the training" to spray water on your grass, even with a bunch of cops standing around yelling at you.
 
2012-11-13 02:48:37 PM

This About That: 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.

If there is anything that annoys the sh*t out of me more than officious gits who scream at you that you should do nothing because "you haven't had the training", its officious gits who scream at you that only they can function because "we've had the training" (even if they haven't shown up, yet). All y'all git over yourselves and let the rest of us be. It doesn't take "the training" to spray water on your grass, even with a bunch of cops standing around yelling at you.


www.baynews9.com

The proximity of the two houses.

Photo's worth a thousand words.
 
2012-11-13 02:51:48 PM

BronyMedic: Please point out why you defending ableism as not being "like racism or sexism"


Please take your ad hominem fandango over to the help desk for an "on topic" chit or stop pestering me. Thanks for following the rules, (you'e big on rules, ain'tcha?) regarding posting, here. "Abelism". Jesus, man, put the kool aid down. Or, you know, don't. But, sorry "I AM TEH PROFESSIONAL AND YOU KNOW NOTHING" rap, festooned with 8th grade sneering isn't as unimpeachable as it seems when you type it. You say he was about to get several LEOs killed dead, I say he was watering his fence. Physics. They really DO have vernacular handles, otherwise we'd have gone tits up with the dinosaurs.
 
2012-11-13 02:53:18 PM

BronyMedic: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: The proximity of the two houses

Oh, Bunner? I expect a goddamn apology from you. Right now.


Coincidences abound.

They helped nobody.

They protected nobody.

They tripped over their dicks. Then, thankfully, your crew showed up.
 
2012-11-13 02:53:32 PM
I have zero respect for the police. I do however fear them. Recently in my home town we had two CHP officers follow a drunk female home and allegedly rape her, they have both resigned and charges are pending.
 
2012-11-13 02:55:18 PM

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 believe force was needed. However, a taser is *supposed* to be a weapon of last resort, just like a gun.

Appropriate use of force would have been to tackle him from behind. but that would require the officers to actually be physically fit. And they might get a bruise or scratch, or get dirt on their uniforms, or worse yet, break a sweat.

I am sorry, but unarmed civilians who are not physically resisting do *NOT* need to be tased. EVER.
 
2012-11-13 02:55:41 PM

BronyMedic: This About That: 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.

If there is anything that annoys the sh*t out of me more than officious gits who scream at you that you should do nothing because "you haven't had the training", its officious gits who scream at you that only they can function because "we've had the training" (even if they haven't shown up, yet). All y'all git over yourselves and let the rest of us be. It doesn't take "the training" to spray water on your grass, even with a bunch of cops standing around yelling at you.

[www.baynews9.com image 720x480]

The proximity of the two houses.

Photo's worth a thousand words.


From the same article, it doesn't look like the two houses side by side were the ones in the fire zone:

assets.nydailynews.com
 
2012-11-13 02:57:00 PM
to everyone that's arguing the police should've left the guy alone and risk his life, suicide is still a punishable crime in the united states. also, the police were in a damn if do and damn if you don't situation from a pr standpoint, and tasering a man to keep him from possibly killing himself and others is easier to handle than "police let idiot go kill himself, why didn't they restrain him?!" derp.
 
2012-11-13 02:57:49 PM

Psycoholic_Slag: I have zero respect for the police. I do however fear them. Recently in my home town we had two CHP officers follow a drunk female home and allegedly rape her, they have both resigned and charges are pending.


Put them in Genpop and let it slip what they were. Self-resolving situation.

bunner: You say he was about to get several LEOs killed dead, I say he was watering his fence.


bunner:
Coincidences abound. They helped nobody. They protected nobody. They tripped over their dicks. Then, thankfully, your crew showed up.


Dunning-Kruger is Strong with You. I salute your commitment, Sir. You are a shining example for every FARKer to Aspire to. Even when presented with photographic evidence, you continue to hold your position.

www.baynews9.com

Mind the gap now.
 
2012-11-13 03:00:33 PM
NOBODY, ASIDE FROM PERHAPS THE PERSON HOLDING THOSE AND UNDER THE MOST UNFORESEEN DEVELOPMENTS IMAGINABLE, IS GOING TO GET KILLED BY SOMEBODY HOSING DOWN A FENCE NEXT TO A HOUSE ON FIRE. Stop that.
 
2012-11-13 03:01:27 PM
Those = the hose. I can write, I can't type for toffee.
 
2012-11-13 03:01:33 PM

BronyMedic: Dunning-Kruger is Strong with You. I salute your commitment, Sir. You are a shining example for every FARKer to Aspire to. Even when presented with photographic evidence, you continue to hold your position.



Mind the gap now.


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.
 
2012-11-13 03:01:47 PM

redmid17: From the same article, it doesn't look like the two houses side by side were the ones in the fire zone


I would say the fire was to the rear of the pink house. Wife said they were having a cookout. Look at the first pic and the roof of the pink house is now destroyed.
 
2012-11-13 03:02:05 PM

redmid17: From the same article, it doesn't look like the two houses side by side were the ones in the fire zone:


Looks like it was taken in the opposite back yard from his house.

As in:

Photographer---------TazedGuysHouse---------HouseOnFire.

I
 
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.
 
2012-11-13 06:50:00 PM

shooosh: BronyMedic: shooosh: whargarbl

Back at ya buddy.


You're not taking this seriously anymore. Why should I?

Let's cut to the chase. I've seen the way you've been eyeing me in these threads. It's making me uncomfortable.
 
2012-11-13 07:01:04 PM

BronyMedic: shooosh: BronyMedic: shooosh: whargarbl

Back at ya buddy.

You're not taking this seriously anymore. Why should I?

Let's cut to the chase. I've seen the way you've been eyeing me in these threads. It's making me uncomfortable.


Just taze him when he reaches for his hose
 
2012-11-13 07:36:34 PM

BronyMedic: shooosh: BronyMedic: shooosh: whargarbl

Back at ya buddy.

You're not taking this seriously anymore. Why should I?

Let's cut to the chase. I've seen the way you've been eyeing me in these threads. It's making me uncomfortable.


In the pucker up and run like hell way, or in the "harder, harder, harder" way?

You're not a 13 year old girl are you? I don't need any more of that shiat. Biatch wouldn't shut up and kept making those fish lips.
 
2012-11-13 07:39:54 PM

BronyMedic: shooosh: BronyMedic: shooosh: whargarbl

Back at ya buddy.

You're not taking this seriously anymore. Why should I?

Let's cut to the chase. I've seen the way you've been eyeing me in these threads. It's making me uncomfortable.


Or you're an FBI agent. How you doin'?
 
2012-11-13 08:20:40 PM

MycroftHolmes: 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.


www.faucetdepot.com
 
2012-11-13 08:41:13 PM

BronyMedic: According to the articleshiat I pulled out of my ass, 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.


FTFY.

Asking 1 is not a "repeated attempt".
 
2012-11-13 08:48:42 PM
I haven't read the entire thread, just the first third or so, and I've never sprayed water in the vicinity of a structural fire. I certainly make no claims at expertise nor special brilliance. But, somehow, I feel pretty confident I can figure out when I'm too hot.
 
2012-11-13 09:06:53 PM

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.


He got smoke inhalation. That means he was too close. Furthermore, what if it fails by falling over because the supports burned through?

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 how exactly is he supposed to wet the side that would catch fire?

I won't fault a guy for trying if he can do so safely. This guy didn't.
 
2012-11-13 09:32:34 PM
To BronyMedic....

In this case it sounds like the first responders were morally, if not legaly in the wrong. I have strong dubts about the legality of the actions taken by the first responders in this case.

It's terrifying that you claim to be a first responder yourself. Your attitude and disrespect of the general public leaves me saddened. I have to say that after reading this thread from start to finish I will think twice about contacting the authorities for anything lest I encounter a "first responder" as unthinking, unfeeling, and officous as yourself and the officers presented in this article.
 
2012-11-13 10:17:53 PM

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


Yes, it endangers your overtime.

There was an episode of COPS many years back where bystanders were treating a gunshot victim -- pressure on the wound with a towel, seemed to be working and the victim was alert. Then the Officers showed up and made them stop. By the time EMTs arrived he had essentially bled out and they said there was nothing they could do.

I imagine these Officers were doing the right thing by make sure the amateurs were restrained and everyone waited for the professionals?
 
2012-11-13 10:40:59 PM

fnordfocus: There was an episode of COPS many years back where bystanders were treating a gunshot victim -- pressure on the wound with a towel, seemed to be working and the victim was alert. Then the Officers showed up and made them stop. By the time EMTs arrived he had essentially bled out and they said there was nothing they could do.


But, but.. professionals! Respect mah authoriteh! You gotta do what I say! PROFESSIONAL!!1!

t.qkme.me
 
2012-11-13 11:45:44 PM
BronyMedic I have never seen anybody suck cop dick like you, and I once saw an all gay police officer dance and blowjob review.
 
2012-11-13 11:57:00 PM

AgentPothead: BronyMedic I have never seen anybody suck cop dick like you, and I once saw an all gay police officer dance and blowjob review.


Liar.

Everyone knows gay men aren't allowed to be Police Officers. Well, maybe now with the repeal of don't ask don't tell.
 
2012-11-14 02:03:18 AM

redmid17: BronyMedic: shooosh: BronyMedic: shooosh: whargarbl

Back at ya buddy.

You're not taking this seriously anymore. Why should I?

Let's cut to the chase. I've seen the way you've been eyeing me in these threads. It's making me uncomfortable.

Just taze him when he reaches for his hose


Do you get it? It's a joke about touching his penis while still referencing the relevant conflict of the thread.

/do you get it?
 
2012-11-14 05:29:40 AM

fnordfocus: There was an episode of COPS many years back where bystanders were treating a gunshot victim -- pressure on the wound with a towel, seemed to be working and the victim was alert. Then the Officers showed up and made them stop. By the time EMTs arrived he had essentially bled out and they said there was nothing they could do.


I'm calling bullshiat.

No, really. I am. Do you have a link?
 
2012-11-14 05:36:01 AM

Scarlioni: To BronyMedic....

In this case it sounds like the first responders were morally, if not legaly in the wrong. I have strong dubts about the legality of the actions taken by the first responders in this case.

It's terrifying that you claim to be a first responder yourself. Your attitude and disrespect of the general public leaves me saddened. I have to say that after reading this thread from start to finish I will think twice about contacting the authorities for anything lest I encounter a "first responder" as unthinking, unfeeling, and officous as yourself and the officers presented in this article.


That's nice.

For pointing out that a man was endangering his life, and the lives of others around him, and trying to point out WHY what he did was a bad idea using photographic evidence, I've been ridiculed, called a troll/fraud, accused of two misdemeanors in the State of Tennessee in this thread, and personally insulted, and one poster has accused me of being willing to cover up for the police beating a disabled man and throwing him down a flight of stairs. I've also been accused of being homosexual, which for some reason has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

So please. Feel free to go fark yourself. Thanks.
 
2012-11-14 08:41:22 AM

BronyMedic: For pointing out that a man was endangering his life, and the lives of others around him, and trying to point out WHY what he did was a bad idea using photographic evidence, I've been ridiculed, called a troll/fraud, accused of two misdemeanors in the State of Tennessee in this thread, and personally insulted, and one poster has accused me of being willing to cover up for the police beating a disabled man and throwing him down a flight of stairs. I've also been accused of being homosexual, which for some reason has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.


Shoulda followed my advice upthread.
 
2012-11-14 09:29:47 AM

BronyMedic: Scarlioni: To BronyMedic....

In this case it sounds like the first responders were morally, if not legaly in the wrong. I have strong dubts about the legality of the actions taken by the first responders in this case.

It's terrifying that you claim to be a first responder yourself. Your attitude and disrespect of the general public leaves me saddened. I have to say that after reading this thread from start to finish I will think twice about contacting the authorities for anything lest I encounter a "first responder" as unthinking, unfeeling, and officous as yourself and the officers presented in this article.

That's nice.

For pointing out that a man was endangering his life, and the lives of others around him, and trying to point out WHY what he did was a bad idea using photographic evidence, I've been ridiculed, called a troll/fraud, accused of two misdemeanors in the State of Tennessee in this thread, and personally insulted, and one poster has accused me of being willing to cover up for the police beating a disabled man and throwing him down a flight of stairs. I've also been accused of being homosexual, which for some reason has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

So please. Feel free to go fark yourself. Thanks.


I have no idea what triggered the vitriol that you recieved. Your responses have been informed, measured, and correct. Nearest I can figure is that you triggered a very primal response in some people by implying that there are times when they are not in charge and that sometimes they should listen to what the big bad police man says, even if it's not what they want to do.

Brony, feel reassured that there are a lot of people out there who appreciate what you do as a medic and appreciate your contributions to these threads.
 
2012-11-14 11:53:40 AM

BronyMedic: fnordfocus: There was an episode of COPS many years back where bystanders were treating a gunshot victim -- pressure on the wound with a towel, seemed to be working and the victim was alert. Then the Officers showed up and made them stop. By the time EMTs arrived he had essentially bled out and they said there was nothing they could do.

I'm calling bullshiat.

No, really. I am. Do you have a link?


I notice you didn't answer my question.

And no, I don't have a link. COPS is a copyrighted TV show and I'm not going to risk jail to prove a point. Besides, I doubt it's really popular enough to be Torrented. It was about 15 years ago if that helps.
 
2012-11-14 11:57:22 AM

fnordfocus: BronyMedic: fnordfocus: There was an episode of COPS many years back where bystanders were treating a gunshot victim -- pressure on the wound with a towel, seemed to be working and the victim was alert. Then the Officers showed up and made them stop. By the time EMTs arrived he had essentially bled out and they said there was nothing they could do.

I'm calling bullshiat.

No, really. I am. Do you have a link?

I notice you didn't answer my question.

And no, I don't have a link. COPS is a copyrighted TV show and I'm not going to risk jail to prove a point. Besides, I doubt it's really popular enough to be Torrented. It was about 15 years ago if that helps.


It would be a civil fine, not jail time
 
2012-11-14 12:17:38 PM

fnordfocus: BronyMedic: fnordfocus: There was an episode of COPS many years back where bystanders were treating a gunshot victim -- pressure on the wound with a towel, seemed to be working and the victim was alert. Then the Officers showed up and made them stop. By the time EMTs arrived he had essentially bled out and they said there was nothing they could do.

I'm calling bullshiat.

No, really. I am. Do you have a link?

I notice you didn't answer my question.

And no, I don't have a link. COPS is a copyrighted TV show and I'm not going to risk jail to prove a point. Besides, I doubt it's really popular enough to be Torrented. It was about 15 years ago if that helps.


He did answer your question. He basically said that the event did not go down as you described. If it did, it would have been very newsworthy (especially if it was recorded). Do not take the fact that he will not try and explain the actions of officers in a vaguely described and undocumented incident should not be taken as points for your argument at all.

I saw a this guy once who was hurt and a cop showed up and performed open heart surgery right there and saved his life by transplanting his own heart into the chest of the victim. I suppose if cops were as bad as you think, this would never happen.
 
2012-11-14 12:33:18 PM

MycroftHolmes: Do not take the fact that he will not try and explain the actions of officers in a vaguely described and undocumented incident should not be taken as points for your argument at all.


He has no problem jumping to the defense of cops in vaguely described incidents and making up a narrative that supports his defense.
 
2012-11-14 01:31:03 PM

liam76:
He has no problem jumping to the defense of cops in vaguely described incidents and making up a narrative that supports his defense.


Go read through the thread here. There is enough photographic evidence in it, and contradictory information, to make a judgement based on training and experience that was the reason why they removed this guy.

I did not pretend to say I was there. I presented an explanation based on available information. And I was throughly personally attacked for it.

That's beside the point. No less than five people have called me a fraud and a liar, which is a crime in my State. I've been accused of lying and misrepresenting my credentials as a firefighter and paramedic.

I have been accused of being abusive to my patients, and willing to cover up police brutality against a disabled man because I'm "one of them". I have been accused of only doing what I do for the money, and not caring about anyone.

That's completely uncalled for, and that's why I've been rude to people in this thread. That goes beyond "I disagree with you", that's vile.
 
2012-11-14 01:35:21 PM

fnordfocus: BronyMedic: fnordfocus: There was an episode of COPS many years back where bystanders were treating a gunshot victim -- pressure on the wound with a towel, seemed to be working and the victim was alert. Then the Officers showed up and made them stop. By the time EMTs arrived he had essentially bled out and they said there was nothing they could do.

I'm calling bullshiat.

No, really. I am. Do you have a link?

I notice you didn't answer my question.

And no, I don't have a link. COPS is a copyrighted TV show and I'm not going to risk jail to prove a point. Besides, I doubt it's really popular enough to be Torrented. It was about 15 years ago if that helps.


Bullshiat. I'm calling you out over it. First, COPS would not have aired that 15 years ago due to S&P of the networks at the time.

Second.

No trained person is going to pull someone holding pressure on a gunshot wound off them and let someone bleed out, unless they are under fire, or at immediate life risk and can't take the patient with them due to being trapped.

Even then, an extremity tourniquet or chest wound dressing takes all of 10 seconds, and is under fire care according to tactical casualty care/basic tactical first aid.

So bullshiat.
 
2012-11-14 03:01:03 PM

BronyMedic: liam76:
He has no problem jumping to the defense of cops in vaguely described incidents and making up a narrative that supports his defense.

Go read through the thread here. There is enough photographic evidence in it, and contradictory information, to make a judgement based on training and experience that was the reason why they removed this guy.


You made the claim about him being in the "danger zone" before you had the pictures (or at least before anyone posted them). You didn't couch your response there in terms of a "judgement" you were speaking as if it were fact.


BronyMedic: I did not pretend to say I was there. I presented an explanation based on available information. .


No. You stated something that you had no knowledge of as if it were fact to support the police.


BronyMedic: And I was throughly personally attacked for it


Some of the attacks may have been overboard but when you go out on a limb making bold claims about what happened with no proof, as if they were fact, and refuse to acknowledge that, I can see where the bootlicker claims come from.
 
2012-11-14 06:06:54 PM

BronyMedic: No trained person is going to pull someone holding pressure on a gunshot wound off them and let someone bleed out, unless they are under fire, or at immediate life risk and can't take the patient with them due to being trapped.


I agree it would have been easy to treat the victim, but it was presumably another "NHI" incident. Officers don't generally consider civilians to be "someone," so their interest is "controlling the scene" rather than saving a life they don't value anyway.

And, by the way, copyright violation is definitely a criminal offense if committed using a computer network. 17 USC 506 carries a likely three-year sentence.
 
2012-11-14 06:12:46 PM

fnordfocus: BronyMedic: No trained person is going to pull someone holding pressure on a gunshot wound off them and let someone bleed out, unless they are under fire, or at immediate life risk and can't take the patient with them due to being trapped.

I agree it would have been easy to treat the victim, but it was presumably another "NHI" incident. Officers don't generally consider civilians to be "someone," so their interest is "controlling the scene" rather than saving a life they don't value anyway.

And, by the way, copyright violation is definitely a criminal offense if committed using a computer network. 17 USC 506 carries a likely three-year sentence.


17 USC 506 only applies if you're doing it commercially or for financial gain, neither of which are at stake here. There's a reason why the RIAA and MPAA are suing thousands of people in civil court and virtually no one outside of Kim Dotcom-level players are being arrested for it.
 
2012-11-14 06:17:45 PM

redmid17: 17 USC 506 only applies if you're doing it commercially or for financial gain, neither of which are at stake here. There's a reason why the RIAA and MPAA are suing thousands of people in civil court and virtually no one outside of Kim Dotcom-level players are being arrested for it.


That's only one of three options. Under (a)(1)(C) it also applies if you distribute a commercial work using a computer network. I would imagine that torrenting a TV show would count.
 
2012-11-14 06:33:48 PM

fnordfocus: redmid17: 17 USC 506 only applies if you're doing it commercially or for financial gain, neither of which are at stake here. There's a reason why the RIAA and MPAA are suing thousands of people in civil court and virtually no one outside of Kim Dotcom-level players are being arrested for it.

That's only one of three options. Under (a)(1)(C) it also applies if you distribute a commercial work using a computer network. I would imagine that torrenting a TV show would count.


If you can find a single case that's been prosecuted where the person wasn't trying to make money off of it, I'll give you a dollar.
 
2012-11-14 06:47:04 PM

redmid17: If you can find a single case that's been prosecuted where the person wasn't trying to make money off of it, I'll give you a dollar.


I can't find one, I don't have access to those databases.

But if everyone on Fark is as well-connected as they claim, I wouldn't put it past someone to prosecute me out of spite.
 
2012-11-14 06:50:41 PM

fnordfocus: redmid17: If you can find a single case that's been prosecuted where the person wasn't trying to make money off of it, I'll give you a dollar.

I can't find one, I don't have access to those databases.

But if everyone on Fark is as well-connected as they claim, I wouldn't put it past someone to prosecute me out of spite.


That's a defamatory statement. I will file suit now.
 
2012-11-14 06:53:39 PM

redmid17: But if everyone on Fark is as well-connected as they claim, I wouldn't put it past someone to prosecute me out of spite.

That's a defamatory statement. I will file suit now.



Almost to subtle, but clever.

I expect you'll wait until tomorrow unless you're in Hawaii.
 
2012-11-15 03:35:13 AM

fnordfocus: redmid17: If you can find a single case that's been prosecuted where the person wasn't trying to make money off of it, I'll give you a dollar.

I can't find one, I don't have access to those databases.

But if everyone on Fark is as well-connected as they claim, I wouldn't put it past someone to prosecute me out of spite.


Dude. I've had two separate FARKers try to take things IRL because I argued with them.

Anyone who does that needs a kick in the ass
 
Displayed 283 of 283 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report